Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
A big, hot, steaming cup of Joe...
One would think at this point that Joe Biden merits a thread specifically about him, and his years of experience helping to lead and guide one of the top ten countries in the Western Hemisphere. The man could very well be the next president of the United States.
Pros or cons(ervatives)? Thoughts? Feelings? News stories? What is Joe Biden’s philosophy? Do share!
Here’s one: Kamala Harris has announced her endorsement of Mr. Biden.
Could Kamala Harris be a potential VP pick for Biden?
One would think at this point that Joe Biden merits a thread specifically about him, and his years of experience helping to lead and guide one of the top ten countries in the Western Hemisphere. The man could very well be the next president of the United States.
Pros or cons(ervatives)? Thoughts? Feelings? News stories? What is Joe Biden’s philosophy? Do share!
Here’s one: Kamala Harris has announced her endorsement of Mr. Biden.
Could Kamala Harris be a potential VP pick for Biden?
Comments (2641)
Quoting Baden
I think Biden is still unpopular. So perhaps a rock star who has lost his fans, perhaps gained too much weight, cut his heavy-rock hair and now reminds the previous fans of their dad.
Americans first and foremost care about the economy (which isn't so much what the POTUS work is about) and now you have very high inflation, which started well before the war in Ukraine.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna21679
No shit. Gas prices, inflation, Afghanistan, Covid…one wonders how anyone can retain any confidence in this regime.
“US President Joe Biden himself is involved in the creation of biolaboratories in Ukraine. An investment fund run by his sun Hunter Biden funded research and the implementation of the United States’ military biological program. It is obvious that Joe Biden, as his father and the head of state, was aware of that activity.”
https://tass.com/politics/1427005?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com
Emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop confirm the truth of this.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/26/hunter-biden-played-role-in-funding-us-bio-labs-contractor-in-ukraine-e-mails/amp/
The Biden family and the “Delaware Way” is at the epicenter of the Ukraine crisis, from start to finish. It’s no wonder it’s all kicking off during his presidency.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/28/us/politics/biden-budget-politics.html
Again, how it is that Trump supporters are not avid fans for Biden is beyond me.
https://archive.ph/TTGgz
More Biden family grift and corruption. Of course we knew about this for years, but we suppressed it for political purposes.
Don't ever think there is any logic to it. For Republicans, everything that Trump did was good. Everything (same) that Biden does is bad.
And the other way around for Democrats.
Never ever dare mention anything remotely critical about who you support! That's the logic.
As Republicans did with the Trump family. :wink:
Myriad investigations into Trump—lawsuits, committees, district attorneys peeking through his life. Nothing like that against Biden.
The only consistency is that neither will likely ever be sentenced because of their corruption.
Every fishing expedition, with the force of the American justice system, has found very little in the case of Trump. Even Stormy Daniels lost her case and owes Trump money.
On the other hand, minor investigative reporting, in combination with the actions of an inept son, has uncovered a great deal about the Biden family, only to be met with censorship by Big Tech, The Media, and the Deep State.
There is zero consistency.
And now we have the defense team of Trump responding here... lol.
Judge: Trump ‘more likely than not’ committed crime in trying to block Biden win
White House records turned over to House show 7-hour gap in Trump phone log on Jan. 6
https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/06/gop-senators-release-more-receipts-showing-the-depths-of-biden-family-profiteering-with-foreign-enemies/
But the inflation problem has been something far longer in the making than just Biden's administration.
Unsurprisingly, the same political phenomenon in the UK labor party as well.The fact that these patterns repeat themselves across such diverse spaces is all the more reason to be reminded that capitalism will kill us all, in the long run.
Probably not.
Biden’s new “Disinformation Governance Board” commissar.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/cwt_news/status/1520044670193127426?s=21&t=wOtdFoGTEY3pliQ1_YVJ7g[/tweet]
Also how symptomatic is it that, precisely when the US finds it's global hegemony being challenged on the world stage, it becomes imperative that a "Disinformation Governance Board" is created? When you start to lose control, you try to add some new ones.
Do you get tired of being utterly vacuous? 10.7 thousand posts…95% fatuous.
Spend less time on Twitter.
Or, why Biden is nothing but a Trump red-carpet:
[Quote]now things have stalled, and Biden seems intent on accelerating – rather than combating – a rising tide of disillusionment. Tossing the Republican party a lifeline, he has reverted to his familiar formula: he promises big changes that could help the working class – and then prevents those changes from happening. He speechifies about the need to address crises he then makes worse. He blames Congress for gridlock but will not pressure lawmakers or use his executive authority to do things. He promises policy reforms that his own agencies decline to implement.
The public seems to sense the gaslighting: Biden’s approval ratings are plummeting and anti-government sentiment has spiked as his strategy Joker-pills the country. As his poll numbers crater, Biden appears to be offering no course correction, and he still hasn’t signed a stack of executive orders on matters ranging from debt cancellation to drug pricing. Caught between the electorate and Democrats’ campaign sponsors, he appears to have decided that he cannot – or does not want to – stop the spread of the Joker pill. So he is now just mainlining its active ingredients into America’s veins with bold promises and even bolder betrayals.
In the face of all this, Democrats’ campaign apparatus has gotten downright desperate. It is now airing ads boasting about a “historic middle-class tax cut”, a tax credit that has already expired, and an insulin price cap that hasn’t actually been passed into law – as if no one will be infuriated by those realities, even though data suggests many voters already are. Amid an explosion of child poverty following the end of the expanded child tax credit, the Washington commentariat wonders why so many polls show an electorate enraged at Democrats — and it’s certainly true that right-wing media has successfully duped a chunk of voters into not believing some basic economic realities.[/quote]
If I were a Trump supporter, I would be a manic Biden supporter. There would be no one better to ensure Trump's return.
Sorry. I'll try to improve. I'm not on Twitter.
Oh look pretty girl sing funny song. I no fall for disinformation anymore. :lol:
Hmm... Misleading? By own statement, there are at least US troops engaging al-Qaeda and ISIS in the region.
A snippet of dialog (Guardians of the galaxy)
Gamora: This is the one? Seriously? (looking at Quill)
Nebula: The choices were him or a tree.
:snicker:
Where?, indeed!
[tweet]https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1546267015303815170?s=21&t=KToFGSnCF17KNVD8BcP0lQ[/tweet]
I honestly feel bad for the guy, and for many in this dysfunctional family, but the fact this man has avoided jail is the height of privilege.
Because either a) they own stock or b) they're [s]being bribed[/s] receiving donations.
I thought you of all people would be in favour of people living their lives as they like. What's wrong with drugs and hookers? If I were you I'd complain about the laws rather than some people not being prosecuted for breaking them.
I’m all for it. What I’m against is the two-tiered justice system. If this was anyone else, for instance the son of the last president, the media coverage and persecution would be legendary.
I thought you of all people would be reporting on the criminal behavior of the first family of the Uniter States.
Not if it was doing drugs. I'd care if they're trying to interfere in an election or abuse their position in the White House to enrich themselves.
You wouldn’t care if they were doing crack and hookers. That’s mighty lenient of you.
I am a liberal.
Not profitable industry. That's not a subsidy anymore.
Whatever you call it, it's pretty common.
Nancy Pelosi's husband just invested millions into NVIDIA
That’s why
House conservatives prep plans to impeach Biden (The Hill; Aug 30, 2022)
Should we expect impeachment of ? every president onwards? Future statistics going by least impeachments? Hopefully not.
It might go their. Also persecution of Presidents after their presidency is over. (If you think it will end with Trump...)
It’s comforting to hear heckles such as “Fuck Joe Biden” come from the back, though.
Reducing what is happening to a contest of political opponents is indicative of the depth of the problem. There is nothing ordinary about what is going on. By trying to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process the MAGA republicans are not simply the opponents of the Democratic party and anti-Trump republicans , they are an opponent of the US government itself.
It is not “Fuck Joe Biden” that you find comforting, it is "Fuck US Democracy".
I see nothing inaccurate here.
Ask yourselves: Are they or are they not saying the election was "stolen"?
Yeah, they are. Biden's being too kind by saying "not even the majority." The polls indicate it is indeed a majority who believe the election lie.
Yep.
Spoken like a true dictator! lol
I'm not even a Biden fan -- but let's at least be honest about things.
Contesting or disputing an election is nothing. During the last presidency the legitimacy of the election was doubted with the strength of the 5 eyes, the "intelligence community", the 4th estate and the entire Democrat party, all premised on utter nonsense. So whoopidy doo, they might have to lay in the very beds they made.
This goes far beyond contesting or disputing an election. To pretend that all this is politics as normal is disingenuous. This is the first time in US history there was not a peaceful transfer of power.
How quickly we forget. I remember quite vividly the violence at Trump’s inauguration, and up until then his rallies, with his supporters being beaten and harassed. The spying on Trump and his staff, the “unmasking”, the Russian collusion nonsense. The same might have occurred at Biden’s inauguration but the venue was surrounded by national guard and razor wire. “Democracy”…
Gotta love those fascist tears.
How quickly you forget. There was no insurrection when Trump was elected. There was no attack on the nation's Capital. Clinton did not attempt to undermine the electoral process.
Once again, to pretend that all this is politics as normal is disingenuous, and, I should add, dangerous.
There were riots at Trump’s inauguration and the Whitehouse. The feds and the 4th estate spent years pushing a Democrat hoax. Disingenuous doesn’t cover it.
January 6th is Biden’s Reichstag moment and will remain a pretext to the persecution of his political opponents and the consolidation of his and his party’s power.
Thank you for this example of what is at issue. The feds and the 4th estate, the government and the press, complicit in a hoax against our supreme dear leader Trump, and their persecution of his henchmen. Unfortunately you are not alone in your support of autocracy.
For all your talk of freedom your are blind to just how imperiled it is by MAGA.
But all this talk is tedious and changes nothing.
It’s very tedious. A single riot at the capitol is seen as an attack on democracy while years of political violence and persecution is met with a hand wave.
And yet on and on you go. Like your dear leader, you like to hear yourself talk. And like him, you continue to demonstrate your cluelessness. It is not about "a single riot at the capital".
Ummm.... which "years of political violence and persecution" are you referring and where? :chin:
=
Literal insurrection at the Capitol building, threatening to hang people, claiming the election was stolen by mass voter fraud…
Yeah, it’s a wash. Seems like a fair and balanced assessment to me.
If only it were a pack of horned MAGA nuts. The attack is led by Trump who, despite investigations and lack of evidence, claims that he's the rightful president and should be immediately recognized as such.
One tiny riot among many during those days. The problem for some is that this one in particular injured political symbols and tribal pride rather than the homes and businesses of ordinary citizens. This time it was the politicians cowering behind their armed guards. An unarmed woman was executed. Men and women are still in jail for glorified trespassing on state property. Now Biden’s rhetoric about the evil within pits American against American.
Just the other day:
[quote=Trump]Declare the rightful winner, or hold a new Election, NOW![/quote]
And?
And do you believe the election was stolen from him?
I’ll just say I wouldn’t put it past them.
Would not put it past 'them' to steal an election...
Right.
Especially given how they had replaced as many of the decision makers as they possibly could before and after election day in all the right places to be able to steal it! There has been first hand testimony setting out the plan on Jan 6 to steal the election. I mean, some of these replacements even lost all the phone records leading up to and through Jan 6 somehow, despite being in charge of the institution that specializes in exactly how to recover such information. Certainly looks like that's exactly what they were planning to do, and they were making concerted efforts to cover their tracks all the while.
:smirk:
The problem for others is conspiracy to defraud the US, seditious conspiracy, obstructing an official proceeding, amongst others....
This seems to mean that you believe it's possible for there to have been a nationwide conspiracy to steal the election and done so successfully that no one can discover how "them" did it.
I’m not sure where you are going with this.
Protesters chant crazy shit all the time. Trump was burned, beheaded, and hanged in effigy on countless occasions, for example.
Oh, I see, so if a crowd of left-wing protesters had smashed their way into a building Trump was in looking for him and threatening to kill him, the police would have just laughed it off because they were probably just joshing.
I don’t get it.
Yes, we keep telling you that!
I give your credit though, not everyone can make a molehill out of a mountain.
You don't get the difference between an actual threat and not an actual threat? Well, for example, if I say now that I want to beat Trump over the head with a hammer, I'm not an actual threat, because I'm nowhere near Trump. But if I break into Mar-a-Lago with my hammer when Orange Man is home and threaten to beat him over the head with it, I am. Does that help?
Election was stolen — can’t prove it yet, and all evidence is to the contrary, but we’ll go on believing it. The deep state and whatnot…
Always good to have at least one delusional Trumpist spouting nonsense. Helps to identify the crap they’re being fed.
MAGAverse logic leads to rather liberating conclusions though. It would be legitimate protest for a crowd threatening to kill Trump to smash its way into a building with him in it, but not legitimate to declare such behavior "extremist". That would make you a dictator like Biden, making war on your political enemies!
An “actual threat” that didn’t turn into an actual hanging wasn’t much of an actual threat, I guess. In comparison to your effigy burning the result was the same: no hanging. Maybe you’ve been duped by the deep-state dinner theater enough to believe they’d lead to wildly different results.
Instead of guessing try thinking. There is a difference between a threat and the fulfillment of a threat. Threats can be averted. Do you really not understand the difference?
The fact that there was not an actual hanging does not mean there was not an actual threat. The fact that the mob was not able to get to Pence does not mean that there was not an "actual threat".
Quoting Baden
This is fine as long as we don't actually get to kill him. Like I said, liberating. Get the noose, Jess, we goin' for a ride!
That you feared for Pence’s life only proves your propensity for imagination. Your fears should have dissipated by now given that nothing of the sort has happened.
The person executed that day was an unarmed woman. I’m supposed to disregard that to make room for your imagination.
It’s very imaginative of you to say that the unarmed woman was executed.
Executed for trying to crawl through a window. Watch the video.
Insurrection to overthrow a free election? Nah, nothing but a little, tiny riot. Actually, not even a riot — it was a field trip that went wrong. Actually, not even that wrong — just some minor trespassing. Actually not even that, since technically we the people own that place.
So basically it was a tour. What’s everyone getting so upset about?
I did not fear for Pence's life. I, along with most of us, learned of it after the fact. It was those who acted to prevent the mob from inflicting further damage to life and property who feared what the mob was doing and would do if left unchecked.
You seem incapable of understanding the meaning of the term 'threat'. Are you claiming that Pence was not in harm's way? That he was not in danger? That his security acted unreasonably in trying to protect him? That because nothing happened to him there was no need to protect him? Do you think they were there for selfies with Pence?
And just like that, the propaganda speaks where one’s own thinking cannot. The act of repeating the phrase makes it true.
I know what threat means, I just do not pretend to know someone’s motivations. Do you really believe there was a lynch mob there conspiring to hang the Vice President?
Well, you can’t say that window crawling in the capital isn’t a capital offense.
If they somehow got their hands on Pence do you think he would have been safe? Judging by the signs, it would seem reasonable to think that he would not have been safe.
If in some alternate universe they got to Pence they would not have hung him. They would have embraced and sung revolution songs together as they tore down American democracy.
They were there on a tour. They just forgot the visiting hours. Honest mistake.
Wrong, Pence upheld democracy and that’s why they hate him.
Oh, right, only you know what happens in your alternative universe.
:starstruck:
Evidently you do not:
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
A threat and the motivation behind it are two different things.
Quoting NOS4A2
You say you do not pretend to know someone's motivations, but do pretend to know the mob's motivation when you claim that a noose and scaffolding was not intended to be used.
The scaffolding did not appear by magic. You might argue that it was symbolic, but the thing about an angry mob is that otherwise rational people will do things they would not do under other circumstances. I see no reason not to think that there was a lynch mob there. It may have been small to start, but if the mob had gotten hold of Pence it seems likely they would have hanged him.
Again, I do not know what the motivations were, and nowhere did I claim it was or was not intended to be used. But the reporter who found the noose said the gallows was too small and weak to be used, anyways, so there is that. But if you have evidence it was going to be used it may be a good idea to provide it.
True, but there is more to it. The rumor was that Pence was going to bring a picnic lunch for everybody. Understandably they went in search of it and had to break a few doors and windows and heads to find it. No free lunch? Hang him!
So to clarify your position, you do not know why the rioters were there or what they were doing or what would have happened if security measures failed.
Since you do not know you cannot say that there was no real threat to members of Congress or to the process of certifying the election results.
Since you do not know their motivations you do not rule out the possibility that they were there for a tour, a picnic lunch, and a photo op to take selfies with Pence and members of Congress.
Since you do not know the only rational option is to minimize the whole thing as nothing more than "one tiny riot" that, unforeseen, broke out amongst a group of peace-loving patriots armed to the teeth. That Trump telling them to "fight like hell" was part of his "extremely calming speech". Besides , he said: “I wasn’t involved in that" (Interview with Laura Ingraham).
Don't take my word for it, you trust your idol don't you?
[quote=Trump]You [Pence] can either go down in history as a patriot, or you can go down in history as a pussy.
...
You can do this. I don’t want to be your friend anymore if you don’t do this.
...
If you don’t do it, I picked the wrong man four years ago. You’re going to wimp out.[/quote]
The MAGAnites hate wimps and pussies... if Trump programs them to hate wimps and pussies.
Funny how that never stops judges from imputing mens rea from people's behaviour.
I invite you to search NOS4A2's comments concerning Rittenhouse to see the full extent of the hypocrisy going on here.
In Harvard study of Jan. 6 rioters, top motivation is clear: Trump
Anyone who isn't an idiot understands why they stormed the Capitol. They were trying to stop the Electoral College vote.
That’s not a clarification of my position. That’s an obfuscation of my position. If you want to know my position you can ask for it.
When reading Trump’s speech he uses the word “fight” numerous times, and in no instance is the word used literally like you pretend he did. For instance when he says “Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they're out there fighting”, or “the House guys are fighting”, or when speaking of Rudy “He fights; he fights”, or “And if they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight”, it takes a man governed by propaganda or stupidity to believe Trump is speaking of acts of violence here. In fact, Trump assumed “everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”.
The ones who gave anyone the idea that something besides a rally was going to occur was the press, who promised everyone that Trump would declare martial law, invoke the insurrection act, and use the military to change the results of the election. (https://www.justsecurity.org/73986/invoking-martial-law-to-reverse-the-2020-election-could-be-criminal-sedition/) these were utter lies and conspiracy theories of the highest q-anon order, as we now know, and the press believed them.
Where’s the evidence? Besides them explicitly saying it, I mean. Who are we to look into the hearts and souls of these people?
We must be NUANCED. Except when it comes to BLM riots — screw those people.
I suppose if they had found Pence, there was a chance they’d have a reasonable, rational conversation with him, laying out their grievances. Can we REALLY say for sure?
Thank you. Not one shred of evidence that anyone wanted to hang Mike Pence.
Skip to 1:25.
Yes, we’ve already gone over the chants, but thanks.
You are well practiced in obfuscation.
Quoting NOS4A2
Why? You have already made it clear.
Quoting NOS4A2
The thing about Trumpspeak is that he always attempts to leave room for plausible deniability. But his actions belie this attempt to render it innocuous. Why did he not attempt to immediately put a stop to this "one tiny riot"? In the speech he gave the next day why didn't he condemn their actions? Why did he edit the draft of the speech to eliminate criticism of their actions?[url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/25/jan-6-trump-insurrection-speech-00047785]Some committee findings.
Quoting NOS4A2
Right, that is what someone would assume when they are armed to the teeth.
[/url]Quoting NOS4A2
He was warned
Not just one but two MAGAnite groups (proud boys and oath keepers) planned for use of force to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/15/timeline-how-two-extremist-groups-planned-jan-6/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/
FBI agent Timothy Thibault hid intel from whistleblower on Hunter and the ‘Big Guy’ Joe Biden
It's hard to imagine how it can get worse. Though I trust it will find a way.
You cite an article from August 20, 2021, ten months before the June 8, 2022 hearings began. The committee hearings did provide evidence that it was a coordinated attack.
What is the alternative?
That's correct.
The only way to destroy American democracy is to say that you are protecting it from a clear and obvious threat. And then really believe in what you are saying (to be clear, obvious and true).
In my view in January 6th Trump could have made a self-coup, assuming he would have the objective and the leadership qualities starting from forming a real junta, controlling at least his own security entourage (which drove him off, which is hilarious) and then going forward with emergency powers until the "threat to the democratic system" would have been dealt with. Then have the ability to stage fake trials.
But he didn't do that.
He didn't put a no-nonsense guy like general Flynn in charge in the military and have ready other supporting officers to replace the joint chiefs of the armed forces when they would have resigned. No, he relied on his lawyers and some pillow guy. As if these kind if things are done by legal loopholes. Any kind of real self-coup would have to have real planning, solid backers in the government believing the cause to be righteous, which would mean that the main conspirator would have to have some leadership skills.
Which we know the very able orator and populist Trump doesn't have. What he would have had is fervent die hard supporters on the street backing his self-coup. One cannot underestimate their role...if Trump would have walked to Capitol Hill with them. And the strategic surprise: people simply wouldn't have fathomed a self-coup happening in the US. The nation simply would have been in self denial afterwards.
To do real self-coup, on live television, Saddam Hussein actually shows the way:
But of course it was the usual Trump train wreck. Because what else does Trump do?
And as pathetic the whole debacle was, the worry that it can happen again is alarmist. And frantically sounding the Trump alarm bells just alienates people, when actual problems of the present should be the focus of discussion.
Nope, the US will just have awful elections, especially Presidential ones.
I think their plan was to beat up policemen, prey, take selfies, break stuff… stuff that morons generally do.
You cite show trial.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/potus/status/1566453888810717185?s=21&t=S7Zm9U6aZ0S-gv_KC9v68Q[/tweet]
Biden’s whole theme was unification and decency but he has done the exact opposite. Now he is ramping up his rhetoric, treating his opponents like domestic terrorists. He has already sent his goons to rifle through Trump’s documents, perhaps worried what sort of info Trump had on him. Since we now know the FBI was working to suppress info that would reflect badly on Biden, I’m going to conclude that this deep state shit has been occurring even before he became president, and he is only its most recent hydra head.
And you’d be wrong. But no one’s going to stop you going through life like that. In fact, it’s encouraged.
The investigation uncovered FACTS, which are not to be mistaken for "alternative facts", that is, alternatives to the facts.
It's called being rational.
They’ve lied.
It’s called being led by propaganda. You yourself admitted you believe Trump sympathized with neo-Nazis.
You sure like to engage in your own rhetoric. This is what he said:
So, no, he isn't treating his opponents like domestic terrorists. He's saying that a specific subset of his opponents are trying to undermine the principles of democracy and restrict personal rights.
Quoting NOS4A2
There is no evidence that he directed the search, and no evidence that he even knew about it beforehand. And they weren't there to search Trump's documents but to search for the Government's documents which Trump was illegally retaining. And you're inventing a motivation.
Quoting NOS4A2
If you're referring to the Facebook stuff, they just warned them to be on the lookout for Russian propaganda. It was Facebook that made the decision about which specific stories to suppress.
Right, whatever supports Trump is the truth, whatever exposes him and what he has done is a lie.
Even people like William Barr seem no longer able to maintain this illusion.
Humpty Trumpty had a great fall. And all the would be king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Trumpty together again.
Didn't he?
Yes he is treating his opponents like domestic terrorists. No anti-Trump analysis of Biden’s’ words is going to convince me otherwise.
There is some evidence Biden knew and even signed off on it.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/biden-called-in-fbi-to-look-at-classified-trump-documents/
I’m referring to the Facebook stuff and the whistleblower reports.
Quote him.
https://ia601509.us.archive.org/9/items/ken-klukowski-public-statement-of-6-25-22/Ken%20Klukowski%20Public%20Statement%20of%206-25-22.pdf
He accepted the endorsement of the KKK. Don't need any quotes.
That much is clear. I don't respond to you to because I think I'll finally get through to you. I know you're a lost cause. I respond to you to for the sake of others, combatting your rhetoric/misinformation/propaganda.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're referring to this?
The White House asking the National Archives in April to give access to the FBI to the boxes returned In January is evidence that Biden knew and signed off on the search warrant issued in August? You really are reaching.
Quoting NOS4A2
FBI responds to Mark Zuckerberg's claims on Joe Rogan show about Hunter Biden's laptop
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-disavows-david-duke-kkk/index.html
You employ propaganda in order to combat propaganda. Fair enough.
Yes it is evidence. And you’re working overtime to cover for them.
FBI agent Timothy Thibault hid intel from whistleblower on Hunter and the ‘Big Guy’ Joe Biden
Ken Klukowski, co-author of "The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency", attempts to defend himself. Solid evidence we cannot believe any of the January 6th committee findings.
He can definitely talk out of both sides of his mouth.
You claimed he sympathized with neo-Nazis and accepted the endorsement of the KKK.
Well deserved.
Do you still believe Trump was giving away the nuclear codes to Saudi Arabia? Or was that propaganda/misinformation?
True. Are you trying to gaslight me?
I employ facts. But nice of you to admit that I am indeed combatting propaganda.
Because it sells in America.
Polarization rules.
You believed and tried to sell the idea Trump was selling nuclear codes to Saudi Arabia, perhaps without knowing they change the nuclear codes from administration to administration. Was this combatting propaganda or spreading misinformation in your eyes?
I love me some polarization, to be honest.
No I didn't. I referenced a news article that said that the FBI was searching for classified material about nuclear weapons, a Congressional report that said that the Trump administration was trying to transfer sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, and then wondered what it would mean if the FBI failed to find what they were looking for, suggesting as a hypothetical that Trump could have sold the information to Saudi Arabia.
My actual quote being "Jesus. Imagine they don't find them. What if Trump sold them to Saudi Arabia."
Nowhere did I say that I believed that Trump tried to sell nuclear codes.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/728295
We know, NOS.
And in Canada you are a spectator, just like me.
So getting your popcorn ready for the binge watching of blood on the streets?
All of it, it turns out, was misinformation and propaganda. As a defender of truth and combatant to misinformation, ought you not set the record straight? Or do we just move on to the next one and pretend it never happened, like Russian collusion?
I didn't realise you knew what was taken and what was missing.
You do know that nuclear codes change between administration. Might you at least clarify that they our outdated and useless nuclear codes?
I think we're probably too lazy for that.
When have I ever said anything about nuclear codes?
Let's remember that for 20 years the nuclear codes were “00000000” in Minuteman silos.
I remember Clinton losing them.
I re-read your post. You didn’t say anything about nuclear codes, but rather nuclear documents. My mistake.
That at least in part explains your undying love for the canceled orange divider-in-chief.
More so an undying hatred for the establishment uniparty and the State, but tomatoes tomatoes.
Right. The Trump Party, where loyalty to the leader must be pledged and demonstrated, where even minimal descent will be punished, where there is no State only the whims and desires of Trump is a much better option.
:fire:
It really is farcical isn’t it? The biggest Statist here claims to hate the state (now that Biden is president, of course).
Don’t look for principles or consistency. At the heart of it all is simple sociopathy.
I reliabel source of amusement. Unfortunately, there are a significant number of people who agree with him and people in positions of power, shameless toadies, who attempt to aggrandize their power by kissing his ass.
Trump was head of state. He may claim to be against the establishment and out of your great love for him I suppose that you have no choice but to believe him.
IMO, information leaked to the press should always be taken with a grain of salt, treated more as an allegation than a fact.
That said, the latest allegation is that there were secrets about a foreign government's nuclear capability among the papers illegally held by Trump. This is a bit different from the prior leak, but still in the ballpark. Regardless of the truth of that allegation, it's well established that Team Trump* violated the letter of the Espionage Act by retaining highly secret documents related to national defense. Further, there's clearly evidence of obstruction of justice. We'll have to wait and see if there are indictments.
*Team Trump = Trump and his legal team.
At least there are no more mean tweets.
A website where Jordan Peterson is featured. :snicker:
He's actually alright. He never needed to be as polarising as he was really.
Trump attempted to take credit for an economy that was greatly improved under Obama, claiming, contrary to the facts, that he had inherited a "disaster".
Joint Economic Committee
While it might be true that inflation has risen during the Biden administration that does not mean that the Biden administration is responsible for the current world economic situation. The article says nothing about the two major causes: the pandemic and Putin's invasion of Ukraine. In both cases Trumps failure to act decisively bears some responsibility.
Pretty much. Inflation is a result of the Fed stimulus along with supply chain issues and is a lagging phenomenon that started in the Trump admin and continued on into the Biden admin. Neither Trump nor Biden could really do much about it as they don't directly control the Fed or the events which caused the Fed to stimulate. Ironically, before this all kicked off, Trump had called Chair Powell a "bonehead" for having interest rates too high (which was necessary to control inflation) and praised him as his MIP ("most improved player") when he cut rates and turned the money printer on (thus causing the inflation we have now). But of course, Trump is a fool as are any readers of the Hertitage Foundation's "analysis" that take it seriously.
https://www.amazon.com/21st-Century-Monetary-Policy-Inflation/dp/1324020466
:scream:
No one's batting for Biden, just pointing out how stupid the reference to Trump's "low-inflation economy" is seeing as the bird brain was begging for inflationary policies since he got elected and celebrating when he got them thanks to COVID. If you'd stopping kissing his feet for a moment and look up, you'll find a fellow libertarian telling you the same thing.
"Trump is a selfish fucktard who demonstrates the importance of Fed independence from politicians seeking monetary policy changes for their personal political benefit while flushing the interests of the people they are supposed to represent down the toilet."
Even a libertarian can be right sometimes.
“Listen to Ben Bail out Wallstreet Bernanke”….I’ll pass.
The proof is in the pudding.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0L1E?output_view=pct_12mths
Just admit you don't have a clue how any of this works and are just looking for pro-Trump anti-Biden points because that's all you ever do here.
Ah, duck it, we both know that's not going to happen.
During Trump's presidency:
And everyone with anti-Trump, pro-Biden points get a huge pass.
Here’s the real quote before you had your way with it.
You cite inflation as if that gives us an accurate picture of the health of the economy and quote the Heritage Foundation's questionable claim that:
The weasel here is the term "families". Under both administrations it is true that there are families that cannot afford to live. The question is, are there more or less families in poverty under Biden than under Trump?
The Heritage article failed to mention is that poverty rates have gone down significantly. Why did they neglect to state this? The answer is simple, it undermines their rhetoric about the financial condition of families in America.
According to Washington Monthly
This report was published in June, inflation rates have slowed since then. But the numbers alone do not tell the whole of the story.
We are in a global economy. It is basic economics that when supplies cannot keep up with demand prices go up. Global supply chains are not controlled by Biden or the United States.
The contextomy was quite obvious. You even removed the last half of one sentence in order to give weight to the first half. Sorry, pal, but this is disinfo of the highest order.
If you are referring to home prices, the fact is home prices rose. This is true whether or not home ownership also rose. But in fact, the increase in homeownership led to higher home prices [edit: supply and demand], which in turn led to even less affordable housing.
Do you really not understand any of this?
The economic position of the average American has declined. Even as wages increase, they're in worse shape. You see this as attributable to Biden?
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/10/13/biden-admin-asked-saudi-arabia-to-postpone-opec-cut-by-a-month-saudis-say.html
I would say that the combination of Trump's and Biden's policies especially with the Corona pandemic did long term damage, because finally it got the inflation running when the pumped up financial markets would be in for deflation, assuming the market mechanism would be let to operate. Handing out cash to people finally could do it, and the two Presidents are guilty of this.
Just like the debacle in Afghanistan: only possible with both Trump and Biden.
But naturally this view is unacceptable for those with partisan views. :roll:
If you're talking about the stimulus payments, I don't think that was enough to generate the inflation we're seeing. If you add up all the elements of the pandemic response, plus the subsequent labor shortage which made wages increase, supply line problems, a global petroleum shortage, and a sluggish Fed, all together, that gave us high inflation. The Fed is going to increase rates again this fall, but that isn't expected to stop inflation. We'll just have a recession with inflation. :grimace:
The real reason is the fiscal and monetary policy implemented for decades. I think the basically all the Corona policies implemented just broke the dam.
Quoting frank
I agree. It won't increase it to really take inflation down as the effects of positive real interest rates would be too horrible. Hence inflation continues. Not perhaps as high, but it does. And in a few years time, you will notice that prices have increased dramatically.
If Big Mac costs 5 dollars (?) in the US, few years from now it will be 10 dollars. And likely will be a bit smaller.
This is the future. It sucks. :yikes:
How so? Inflation hasn't been a problem for the past few decades.
Did you notice me talking about the dam breaking?
Before the dam breaks, everything is just fine and dry. Then when it breaks, things get wet.
This is an example of things being for long one way until they aren't.
I don't know enough about economics to assess that intelligently.
If it's still 5 dollars, I was wrong.
I don't buy Big Mac's. :grin:
Yippee! I hope you become the next Ceasar
You're both correct. The damn has been erroding for decades. However we have always had, and continue to have, the means to maintain and reinforce the damn. The fact is, we have continually reinstated nitwits into office for the the past few decades...what else could we expect?
It's stronger if you put "God" in front of it.
What's wrong with God? Blnd faith is what makes the world go round
The last act of this long running play will be a financial crisis. And then politicians will always successfully blame anything and everything else but the real culprits of this tragedy.
The hard part is that nobody knows when this act happens. Will it happen next year or in 2030.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Belief in King Dollar is strong. Doesn't erode in a week.
That's so true.
It's only King? I thought it was the Almighty. Times change I suppose. And it never takes a week, it takes a goddamn prolonged international communist conspiracy that saps our precious bodily fluids :rofl:
So things kind of things that people have anticipated for decades might actually happen.
But yeah, permabear scaremongering has it's audience always, at least for soothing pessimists that they are right.
I've noticed not much enthusiasm for the incoming elections here.
Might the Republicans get both houses? What do people think?
To get speculative...Ive seen the toll presidency has on a person (bush, Obama &c.) Biden is obviously senile. Do you think Biden can survive a hostile congress?, could Harris be the first female president?
We don't have to go further than 2015-2017 to have a situation with a democratic president and both houses being in control of the Republicans. And the other way it was with George W Bush in 2007-2009. So this isn't anything new, if it happens.
The simple fact is that not much then will be done and assuming it's not Trump that the GOP takes on to be their candidate, it's a real possibility that Biden will have a four year presidency. A present day Jimmy Carter.
Yet with Trump, he's something that will activate and energize enough hatred among Americans that he won't be elected (and Biden might have a second turn). Something that happened when the Democrats chose the wife of a previous democrat president to run for the position, when enough Republicans remembered all the scandals of that previous administration.
Quoting 180 Proof
Fuck the polls! :lol: :point:
This jam dropped 30 years ago (last Thursday), and the funk's still fresh! :fire:
Mr Putin did vote for Republicans, though.
Indeed, republicans and anyone voting for them are destroying the US. Especially their crass, totally anti-american rhetoric of constant lies and hatred.
Put people into the shoes of Americans, and many would vote for Republicans. All those Bolzonaro's, Viktor Orban's etc. show that too much left liberal push might create a counterpush (and vice versa, of course).
And it might be that Republicans aren't going to vote for Trump in the next Presidential elections, perhaps they'll vote for DeSantis.
I don't disagree with that, but when it comes to figures like Trump, I think he came into power more because he was a populist (or at least pretended to be, he ultimately just governed like a standard Republican) when people were sick of the establishment.
And yet you're not pretending there are right wing communists. Seems like we're perfectly capable of distinguishing left and right based on a more theoretical baseline than what exists in a given country.
At least Finland has more to choose from. And the Dutch system is getting almost hilarious with the number of parties.
For example "primaries" in Finland are basically a convention of a party, that then usually is one news story of the day when a presidential candidate is selected or the new chairperson of the party is chosen, who then is the potential prime minister candidate. Nobody gives a damn how various contenders inside the party have regional support in the party organization.
The stranglehold that the Democratic-Republican duopoly is shown in these elections too. Third parties only desperately seek attention by having Presidential candidates. There absence in the House and Senate is telling.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5041685/house-gop-plans-investigation-president-biden-familys-business-dealings
Seems a bit self-destructive. They will be doing the Dems a huge favor if they can get enough mud to stick for Biden to drop out of the 2024 race. And if they can't, they'll look like idiots
And if they can?
Quoting Baden
Gotcha. I misread it. Biden is such a dud that removing him would be a political mistake. Perhaps they believe letting a criminal run the country is a greater risk.
:rofl:
Your faith in the moral sensitivities of politicians is touching. Excuse me if I pass.
The entertainment value alone is enough for me to endorse your theory. I’m into it.
Haha, well I don't think it may happen now because the republicans are throwing up time-stalling lawsuits. I got an email from the Department of Education saying my application is "on hold" until further notice. I hope it goes through, though.
Classified documents from Biden's time as VP discovered in private office
What a bunch of nonsense. His behavior involving the southern border of the USA, on the other hand, precipitated by his, in essence, open arms message of "come on in!", is abominable.
BTW, what do you think can be done about preventing border crossings? Seems to me, if someone arrives in a country with basic human rights (like the US) from a country with appalling human rights (like many in Central America), then compelling them to return violates their human rights - rights which the US recognises, but the source country does not. This amounts to a kind of osmosis. Seems to me, anyway.
1) Person takes an entire set of silverware, with many valuable pieces, from a home after dinner. Owner finds out, asks for them back repeatedly, and eventually gets a warrant to get them back because the guest refuses.
2) Person takes a fork from dinner, realizes they did so before owner even knows, and returns it.
Quiz: Are these scenarios equivalent?
I’m betting that Trump cultists will fail the quiz.
Hmmm . . . How does Australia handle this? At some point its a matter of sheer numbers. North of where I live, Denver is being flooded with Venezuelians bussed up from the border. Our governor then ships them to other "sanctuary cities", creating conflicts between those cities.
It's easy to say they should not be denied their human rights, but the numbers are overwhelming. I'll bet your country doesn't have to deal with such an onslaught. Do you?
4,000.
Less than the normal amount by which the population of Denver grows every year.
Did you notice the 'overwhelming' number of additional people last year from natural population growth?
The history of the issue is vexed in Australia, but overall the number of boat-borne arrivals has dropped to practically zero (and probably the amount of visa overstays has also dropped due to the severe restrictions on arrivals 2021-22). Helps that Australia is an island, obviously. The then-conservative government adopted a pretty harsh policy saying that nobody who arrived by boat in Australia would ever be allowed to settle (which was also adopted by the Labor opposition, now in Government). This lead to the internment of several hundred sorry souls in a third-world outpost in New Guinea for some years although I believe they're all now settled to other countries. But, yes, Australia 'stopped the boats'.
I really have no idea of how the issue can be dealt with in either America (or Britain for that matter) but I very much doubt that a Republican administration would do any better. Besides they seem far more focussed on exploiting such issues for political advantage than on proposing any actual solutions.
I was speaking of the border, not Denver. Nevertheless, Denver can't keep up with the existing homeless, not counting those bussed in.
Over 2,400,000 migrants encountered at the southern border last year. Then there are those who sneaked in. How would you handle this? Here in the west we are running out of water.
Border Encounters
Let them in.
Is America going to run out of space? No.
Is America going to run out of money? Jeff Bezos alone could afford their welfare cheques. Just the latest year's increase in the defense budget would cover it.
So why not?
As to stemming the flow, perhaps not enforcing a global trade and debt-management state designed exclusively to grind these countries into the ground and enrich America might just stop people wanting to leave them so badly.
Immigration equals higher GDP.
Geopolitical power is for a large part about how many warm bodies you control.
That's why despite serious domestic protest nothing ever happens.
The European elite operates on the same principle.
My daughter agrees with this. And, although we disagree on the central issue, the two of us agree that if they are let in they should immediately be given work visas.
Lots of land in the USA, but not all of it is habitable.
Well, I'm glad I haven't taken on your whole family!
Quoting jgill
Yes, although, as I said, the entire welfare check could be picked up by a minor tax increase on the wealthiest. I'm in favour of Universal Basic Income so that would apply to immigrants too.
Quoting jgill
I suspect the question of whether land is habitable might depend quite strongly on the quality of life one is emigrating to avoid.
To be fair, I've seen one or two TPF users attempt to make up some bullshit to excuse Biden, very very very shameful and dishonest.
There is no amount of rhetorical acrobatics that you could possibly do to change the fact that the crime is the same in both cases. You should be ashamed of yourself for holding such an inconsistent double-standard.
You didn’t mention the length of time Biden had them for, and that Biden was only Vice President when he took the documents and did not have the sort of declassification powers Trump had. Biden’s history with others who took classified documents betrays his own actions with them.
https://theintercept.com/empire-politician/biden-and-jimmy-carters-cia-nominee/
That is not the most important difference.
The most important difference is that Trump was president when he took his classified documents, whereas Biden was vice president when he took his. The fact is, they both illegally possessed classified documents when not serving as president, all regardless of whether it was done by intention or mishandling. It also does not matter what they did after discovery of the crimes... the crime is the same in both cases: illegally possessing classified documents.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/itsJeffTiedrich/status/1612822742729908224[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RachelBitecofer/status/1612927808657051648[/tweet]
He willingly turned them in a decade later. What a hero!
Irrelevant since he didn't declassify them.
:up:
This is facile. While all statesmen are politicians not all politicians are statesmen. The job of the statesman is not to deceive, but circumstances may require deception in some form or other. This is a general remark and does not bear directly on either the case of Trump or Biden.
:up:
It’s not defense. It’s pointing out a clear difference. Joe Biden can go to prison for all I care. But to argue both scenarios are similar ignores reality.
Whether or not he had authority to declassify is mostly irrelevant. What matters is whether or not they were declassified. Given that the documents had classification markings on them, evidently they were still classified.
Re. the comparison to Trump's case, the three statutes cited in the search warrant were:
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Specifically in his case I believe the relevant parts of each statute were that of concealing classified documents. He was asked to return them and he didn't, resisting subpoenas and lying about having returned them all. That's why he was raided and is facing criminal investigation.
Given that Biden's team, after discovering them, notified the Government and returned them willingly, there's not much of a comparison. Like with the case of Hillary's email server, all he's really guilty of is carelessness.
Last year there was a case not unlike Biden’s, and she was sentenced to 3 months and fined. Biden’s snafu more comparable to this case and not Trump’s.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-hi/pr/honolulu-woman-receives-three-months-prison-removal-and-retention-classified-material
Since the Biden Center where the documents were found wasn’t built until 2018, it means these documents were taken and moved more than once, and potentially handled by movers and staff, all of whom do not have security clearance. Also, Biden used private counsel and not the FBI or security officers to search for and handle more documents, so now we can only trust their word, which no doubt serves to protect Biden’s interests instead of the public’s.
Of course Biden’s personal counsel will argue it was “inadvertent negligence”, because they are paid to protect Biden. And we’ll probably never know if the documents were opened, viewed, mishandled, because Biden’s counsel was tasked with searching and handling said documents, away from the prying eyes of the government and the public they are meant to serve.
I wonder if he’ll pardon himself.
Trump was offered the same courtesy but refused the initial subpoena and then lied about having returned them all, whereas Biden voluntarily disclosed that documents had been found and returned them. That’s the material difference that distinguishes the two cases.
Biden was given no subpoena. He voluntarily disclosed them, but after taking them and possessing them and doing god-knows-what with them for a number of years. And this was long after the national archives dismissed as false and misleading the complaint that the Obama administration was in possession of such documents. At least Trump’s were locked up and the chain of custody is accounted for.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/hunter-biden-russian-escorts-joe-payments
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
In other words, merely possessing such material in of itself is not a crime - you have to prove knowledge and intent. Whether Trump and/or Biden will be charged with a crime remains to be seen.
If only carelessness was a reasonable defense for a criminal act...criminals would be nearly nonexistent.
If the same crime was committed by anyone on this thread, they'd be in a cell right now. The double standard of these anti-Trumpsters is pathetic. I say we lock both of them up.
Well, that what happens when you are a normal/ordinary citizen. We don't have the same amount of power of politicians to have control over the courts and judges. It occurs there in America and here in Europe. It is not about Trump vs Biden. Do not be that blind of fighting due to politicians. It is obvious that the politicians will use their power to be "unstoppable" while we are here discussing for whatever, while they do not care.
No, it isn’t.
What’s pathetic is this flabby, tired “both sides” argument and false equivalence from those — like you — who want to pretend to be “fair and balanced” but are in fact ignoring what’s clear as day.
Biden can go to prison. Fine. I hope so. But what he did isn’t close to what Trump did. If one can’t see that, one needs to examine their lives. Maybe too much time online.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/22/justice-department-finds-more-classified-documents-at-joe-bidens-home
Yes it's clear as day that its cut and dry. Don't be so pissy
What exactly did Trump do?
Let's see, he didn't allow the Taliban to take over Afghanistan, he attempted to keep illegal aliens from entering the US, he attempted to get European nations to pay their fair share of NATO, he attempted to make peace with several tyrants (that's not all bad), and so on.
Until this documents fiasco shows some serious breaches of national security, it's over-hyped.
And, no, I would not vote for Trump if he runs again, but not everything he did was horrible.
Trump took documents as trophies of his time in office. Even when asked to return them, he dissimulated and obfuscated. He had his lawyers sign a statement that they had all been returned, when they hadn’t been. He stored the documents with others including magazines and personal correspondence, in non-secure rooms in close proximity to many casual visitors. He boasted even after the FBI raid that the documents were his personal property and besides he could de-classify them just by thinking about it.
The documents in Biden's possession with stored with other archival material from his time in office as Senator and Vice President. His own lawyers made the discovery, disclosed it as soon as it was made, and then continued an archive search to ensure the process was completed, turning up some more documents. It was clearly a case of adminstrative oversight, and I'm sure if there is a penalty for it, Biden will own up to it.
Sure, it's a 'people in glass houses' kind of thing, but the differences ought to be obvious.
As for Trump 'making peace with tyrants', who can forget the scene at the Helsinki summit when Trump stood on stage with Vladiimir Putin and said he valued his word over that of his own intelligence service. Or that he and Kim Jong Un were in love. Dictators and demagogues were the only people Trump ever professed public admiration for, because they were role models - they were who he wanted to be, but he had neither the guts nor cunning to pull it off, though not through want of trying. Something all Americans ought to be grateful for.
Made America Great Again.
It's clear with tunnel vision, otherwise not so much.
Thanks for removing the link. I had a trembling in my soul when I opened it.
(I totally regret my curiosity or gossip)
:up:
I do wonder if that child bikini photo really did come from Hunter Biden's laptop, though. And if not, I wonder where exactly it did come from./
Do you believe that this photo really did come from Hunter Biden's laptop, though? I mean the child bikini photo.
I don't want to talk about it. My planet needs me.
Do you think that this photo really did come from Hunter Biden's laptop?
I wish not... just for the fact of preserving a basic moral sense among people.
Whenever I read about these "conspiracy theories," I only think that people have a lot of free time and are spending it in those fantasies instead of reading books...
The debate is nothing more than shameless extortionism by a Republican Party that has been unable to acheive its goals by legitimate electoral means. They're essentially holding the American and world economy hostage against a threat of collapsing the international economic order by refusing to endorse increasing the debt limit to meet obligations that the US Government has already incurred. It is in no way a good-faith negotiating tactic, but the exploitation of a quirk in the US system of governance to bludgeon the Administration into accepting Republican political ends. Biden is right to refuse to negotiate, on the same grounds as non negotiation with terrorists or blackmailers. But let's hope the GOP backs down before causing the mother of all economic disasters to make their point.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-joe-business-deal.html
Hunter Biden got a nice little slap on the wrist for tax fraud and gun crimes, and if other allegations are true, the justice department was running defense for him even while daddy was out of office. It must be nice to be above the law.
The content your ellipses leave out.
NYT:
Actual testimony:
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Whistleblower-1-Transcript_Redacted.pdf
Donald Trump tried to overturn an election and incited an insurrection, to say nothing about the rapes, tax avoidance, fraud, and homicidal policies (see environmental policies, eg).
Totally the same. In fact, we should be more outraged about… (::checks Fox News::) Hunter Biden. :up:
But Trump held a rally!!
Consider again, lil MAGAt, reality on Earth One ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/816567
Bring it on. What’s another frivolous investigation? Maybe they’ll hire ABC to produce it like they did with the J6 committee, or they’ll sing ballads to Robert Mueller on SNL. Besides, I’m sure you need another dose of hopium by now. Hell, maybe Trump will start a proxy war with Saudi Arabia to cover it all up, and Big Tech will censor any mention of it.
But a non-president did drugs and hired prostitutes! Outrageous.
:lol:
That is, even taking actions that would possibly create the perception of corruption, taking any gifts over $20, etc. is illegal in most states, for both elected officials down to your lowest level town employees.
In any of the jobs I've held at the state, local, or federal level the actions of Thomas, Scalia, or Clinton would be illegal. In many states, having an elected or appointed official leave for a job with a company they had just recently been regulating is illegal; many states have lifetime bans in these cases.
It's disturbing to me that partisans simply jump in to defend their side each time or attack the other, and that there has been no real pressure to stop these issues. Likely, it has to do with the fact that so many of Congress would find themselves guilty of violating such a law.
The Hunter Biden situation actually seems mild in comparison to other cases, because generally a person isn't expected to be able to police their children's business dealings. That said, does anyone really think a gas company had a legitimate reason for giving a self described out of control drug addict hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for a part time gig in an industry he had no real experience in?
No. Hunter Biden should go to jail, along with Joe. For plenty of reasons. It’s just funny to watch the Trump cult’s split personality on these issues. Trump’s innocent; Hunter deserves the chair. Fair and balanced.
More fair and balanced analysis. Please don’t let me deter you from railing against the real problem.
There is an argument to be made that you cannot deprive the sibling of a politician of their liberties, but I don't think this precludes a law where anyone in high office has to report accepted job offers or contracts above a certain $ threshold for immediate family members to an oversight agency as soon as they become aware of them.
Then the independent agency can investigate any that seems sketchy. It would probably have some level of records request power. It doesn't need to always be doing "investigations," which cast an air of wrongdoing. Rather they would just check in on relations between an official and an entity who was paying their immediate family members as a sort of net to catch wrongdoing or the potential perception of it.
But then these sorts of deals should just be illegal for officials themselves and their spouses, as it already is for lower government officials. You can't have the heads of the executive branch recuse themselves the way judges and Congressmen can, but you can at least assure the public that some level of oversight.
Because it's not always obvious wrongdoing. Some politicians don't care about their kids lol. Stalin rejected a deal to exchange his son for a German general, saying simply "I won't trade a major for a field marshal." When he heard his son had tried to commit suicide, trying to shoot himself in the heart and missing, his first response was allegedly, "see, I told you he can't do anything right." Great guy.
Let me guess: corporations?
That being said I’m glad you’ve come to your senses about the Biden crime family. Now you can follow around his defenders with emoji-laden comments and say “What about Biden?” That would be fair and balanced, after all.
a) Bidens, clean / Trumps, clean X
b) Bidens, clean / Trumps, dirty X
c) Bidens, dirty / Trumps, clean X
d) Bidens, dirty / Trumps, dirty :100:
If you failed to answer correctly, your political knowledge is rated 0.
No no— everyone knows the real problem is Hunter Biden. Please keep railing— I’m definitely not laughing at you.
The real problem is the preferential treatment, the justice system and intelligence community protecting one of its own. The architect of the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, the Ukraine war, a man who has consistently consolidated power in the hands of the military industrial complex while violating fundamental civil rights is suspiciously held to a different standard than anyone else.
Your laughing lets me know you have nothing else.
Nothing else?
The fact that you think I should be defending Joe or Hunter Biden somehow by “refuting” what you say point by point is exactly why I’m laughing at you. There is nothing else.
See Baden’s quiz above. You opt for C). That’s why you’re a clown — not because Joe Biden isn’t dirty. But it’s also funny that you still, after all these years, struggle to see this.
All I know is as soon as I post something about a politician, there you and the others are, like clockwork. This has been the case my entire time here. Why is that? Because you’re fair and balanced? In Baden’s silly quiz you feign believing D and pretend to hold both to the same standards but I can go to any page on this or the other thread to see the facts of the matter.
I can’t speak for others, but I don’t engage you often.
Quoting NOS4A2
In all seriousness, it’s because there aren’t many Trump followers here to shit on.
Quoting NOS4A2
See, not being in the Trump or Biden cult has an added benefit: the ability to recognize degree. You won’t once find me minimizing Biden’s record (a la “Trump held a rally”) because I’m not in the cult of personality. But if it makes you happy, by all means continue. I mostly read you to laugh anyway.
Feel free to shit on me all you want.
But if you want to believe a political rally is "incitement to insurrection", which is the same line repeated by the worst elements in American politics, make a case. I know it doesn't meet the standards of incitement according to first amendment jurisprudence, and I can quote the same speech proving that he incited them to do the exact opposite, so I'm once again doubtful that you're not a victim of propaganda or in the cult of the establishment.
I leave that to others. I mostly laugh. Which admittedly is rude to state explicitly— mea culpa.
Quoting NOS4A2
The evidence is pretty clear. It wasn’t only the rally, of course— it was weeks of whipping the followers up into a frenzy by telling them the election was stolen, a lie so obvious (and yet you accept) it’s laughable. It was completely predictable that something violent would happen.
Trump knew all this, of course, but is not stupid enough to outright state “go storm the Capitol building” — which apparently is what you want…although I’d expect you’d find some way of letting him off the hook even then.
Quoting NOS4A2
Hilarious coming from you.
The evidence is pretty clear that your assessment isn't considered incitement according to any law or definition. Are you able to provide a single quote of him encouraging anyone to engage in an insurrection?
If not, it appears you've been whipped into a frenzy of your own.
Yes, the quiz is silly, but so is pretending to be against corruption when the only thing you are actually against is the Bidens as evidenced by the fact that the corruption of Trump and his family has never, not once, been a point of criticism for you here. So given you are not against corruption but merely against the Bidens, why the charade? Given we know you know the correct answer to the silly quiz is D, why continue to pretend you don't know that? Do you think anyone reading this would get the answer wrong or?
What corruption?
“the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully.“
Simple definition. Fits the bill. But no matter — I’m sure you think he bears no responsibility for what happened — which was of course only a peaceful riot. Carry on.
Simple definition. Still no quote. c-ya.
So anything shy of “Go and storm the Capitol building” doesn’t count. Got it.
Yeah, and we’re not supposed to laugh.
He’s not pretending. He really believes it’s C.
I said laugh all you want. Again, what corruption? I’m so inundated with Fox News that I may have missed it.
The charade doesn't work @NO4A2. You've been doing this for years and neither we (edit: Ok, maybe some of us do) nor you believe you would fail that quiz.
Indeed.
No corruption at all. Totally clean. Unless you can provide a quote of him stating “I am engaging in corruption.”
Honestly, I don't think he does, and the game he's playing with himself must eventually get boring.
I’m being genuine, though. I hope you are as well.
Well if it’s all a ruse, I give full marks for consistency.
No offence intended, I could of course be wrong, but it's more plausible to me that you're being dishonest and partisan and cynically using the moral issue of corruption to attack your side's opponent. The media does this all the time. It's known as propaganda and it's generally glaringly obvious.
No offence taken. I’ve made no attempt to hide my bias, so being called a partisan is expected. But that no one else is being accused in the same way arouses enough suspicion that I doubt it is as fair and balanced a take as we’re all pretending it is. I think it is its own propaganda, used as it is to cover for the fact that we’ve been wrong about quite a few political matters, and for quite some time now.
But what do I know? My political knowledge is zero.
Ok.
You’re not so bad yourself. Cheers.
The problem is, not all "political rallies" are created equally. It is not as if the rally was held without the seeds of a deep state conspiracy having first been planted and cultivated. A conspiracy that feeds on resentment and a sense that "true patriots" are victims who must rally and fight to right wrongs and restore the nation to an imaginary time when America was great (for them).
But none of this starts with Donald. Back when America was great he was learning by example from his father Fred:
More here
In the eyes of Fred and Don they are the victims when the government interferes and does not allow them to run their business as they want. The law, when not used by them as a weapon, is an impediment to be worked around or removed. All in the name of freedom.
The irony here is that Trump, other business moguls, and political swamp creatures turned the tables. Railing against the "elite" they managed to obscure the fact that they are themselves an influential elite.
The proximate reason for the "rally" was not to hold a peaceful and ineffectual protest but to prevent Biden from becoming president. To this end, among other things, lies were propagated that the election was stolen. If the system is as corrupt as Trumps supporters believe it to be, then the system is part of the problem and cannot be part of the solution. The only solution, as they have been led to believe, is insurrection.
The problem with your claim is that it seem to merely be parrotting a GOP talking point, that is rooted in applying confirmation bias to anecdotal evidence, applying false equivalences, and an unwillingness to consider their guy uniquely culpable. We're all partisan, but that doesn't excuse poor reasoning.
A lot of people in the Trump sphere w8llfully did bad things, and there may very well be enough evidence to prosecute. That fact doesn't entail bias. AFAIK, there's nothing close on the left. The comparisons seem rooted in:
1) Dissatisfaction with the failure to indict Hillary in 2016 (ignoring the reason she wasn't indicted).
2) Treating weak evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden as proof of crimes, and then leaping to the conclusion DOJ is treating him differently.
3) Failing to consider the possibility Trump (et al) willfully broke multiple laws, and there's sufficient evidence to prosecute.
You're a smart guy, so I'd love to hear your perspective- in particular, describing your basis for believing the DOJ applies a double standard between Dems & GOP (cognizant of the issues I described).
I never said there was a double standard between GOP and Dems, or left a right. The double standards are between those who oppose the deep state and those who do not.
But this comparison in particular was rooted in the recent whistleblower testimony, which was the subject of the discussion you quoted, and likely something you haven’t read or considered. It’s difficult to be a GOP talking point when one of the whistleblowers is Democrat.
I’ve already summarized the revelations.
That criminal now flies around on Air Force one and stays at camp David.
Did anyone in Trump’s sphere get the same treatment from Trump’s DOJ? Not that I remember. I remember raids and spying and selective leaks and jail.
No thanks.
Mischaracterization. The former intel officials did not say it was misinformation. Here's a quote from the letter:
[i]We want to emphasize that [b]we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have
evidence of Russian involvement[/b] -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the
Russian government played a significant role in this case.[/i]
Considering the circumstances, it was a reasonable comment. Rudy G. (a man of questionable veracity, who also brought forward the false allegation from Viktor Shokin that Joe got him fired to halt the Burisma investigation) brought the laptop image to the NY Post (an ultra-partisan newspaper), and it wasn't shared with any other sources. Plus, it's firmly established that Russia had planted misinformation in the 2016 election - so it wasn't a wild leap to think it MIGHT be misinformation, given what we knew.
"Hidden"? It's policy to keep investigations private, unless and until an indictment is made. You complain of "anti-Trump" leaks, and yet everything we know about the Hunter investigation is a product of leaks.
As you know, a Trump appointed prosecutor (Weiss) was given free rein to handle Hunter's investigation and worked the plea deal with Hunter's attorneys. Plea deals are common. I have read the IRS Whistleblower's testimony, and it means one of three things: 1) Weiss and Garland have both lied; 2) the whistleblower lied; 3) the whistleblower misunderstood something that was said.
I absolutely want the whistleblower's allegation investigated to find the truth. But you've obviously already made up your mind. I'll note that there's been no evidence of Joe Biden's involvement. Joe promised to keep the DOJ independent, and there's no evidence he's interfered (contrast this with Trump's frequent pressure on Jeff Sessions & Bill Barr.).
Quoting NOS4A2This is according to the whistleblowers, and it absolutely should be investigated. But bear in mind, this occurred when Trump was President in June 2020. The DOJ has a policy of standing down on matters that are relevant during an election during the 3 months prior to the election. The controversy seems to surround the fact that this was a couple months prior to the official "freeze". Were they, perhaps, exercising extra caution to avoid an appearance of partisanship - as when Obama failed to make a fuss in 2016 about Russia's campaign assistance for Trump? (see: this). Given Trump's public interference with DOJ, a bit of extra caution might have been in his best interests. But again- it needs to be investigated, rather than jump to conclusions in any either direction. An allegation isn't proof; at worst, it points to a need to investigate.
Quoting NOS4A2
So you're a conspiracy theorist. That says it all. It provides context for your obvious confirmation bias.
I can understand why you’d doubt the claims and investigations of the House republicans, but why are you being a running dog for the CIA? The entire purpose of the letter was to frame it as disinfo, to sew the seeds of doubt in the public, and to provide Biden with a talking point should Trump bring up the laptop in the debate. This is the CIA and the Biden campaign influencing the election with misinformation, which I think you oppose. It worked. Even people here on this forum fell for it.
You're treating a distorted partisan narrative as established fact. No signatories of the letter were in the CIA at the time of signing. They could only be guilty of disinformation if they knew the laptop was legitimate, but I've seen no evidence that any of them (or Blinkin) actually knew the laptop data was legitimate. It does makes perfect sense for the campaign to want to minimize attention to the distraction - that's the nature of political campaigns.But your partisan outrage leads you to jump to the conclusion they lied, and that this constitutes cheating, and then criticize me for failing to do the same.
You also exaggerate what the letter said - I quoted it in my last post. They wrote that THEY DIDN'T KNOW if it was genuine, and given the context (which I described- and you are free to rebut), how COULD they know? And what exactly was the impact? It didn't stop Trump from making exaggerated claims about it. Trump lost because people voted against him. Do you seriously believe they wouldn't have voted against Trump if they knew the laptop was legit? Now that we know it's legit, and we know what's on it, why should it affect anyone's vote? It doesn't implicate Joe as anything but a concerned father (notwithstanding additional partisan distortion).
I try to form opinions by evaluating allegations and evidence similarly to the criminal justice system. An accusation is, at best, a good reason to investigate further (as I said about the whistleblower); it is not proof positive of guilt. I apply the same standard regardless of the person or party. You can't say the same.
There is no sense in quibbling on the topic.
“It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US polical scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
The entire purpose of the letter was to say that it was Russian disinfo. It turns out they were wrong, and as you point out, they had no clue. These people worked for the intelligence community, including former directors of the CIA, and here they are spreading a conspiracy theory and misinformation before an election.
So then why the letter? According to a report, the man who drafted the letter, Michael Morrell, said what we already suspected it was for:
Of course, Biden brought up the exact same talking point in the debate. I’m surprised you weren’t there telling everyone “it needs to be investigated, rather than jump to conclusions in any either direction.”
That wasn't an irrational conspiracy theory- the Russians did such things in 2016- and they merely noted this seemed consistent, while not denying it possibly being real. They were telling the truth as they saw it, so they did nothing morally or legally wrong. I already noted it was politically motivated, but you're going to have to explain what's wrong with that. I gather you don't like the fact it was an (unintentional) untruth. Shall I tally up the intentional untruths spread by Trump & his supporters in all 3 of the elections he's been
involved with?
Quoting NOS4A2When I read the letter in 2020, I focused on the sentences I quoted, and accepted that the laptop info might be true. I read the NY Post articles, deciphered the real info from the hyperbole and speculation, and concluded Hunter Biden is an asshole drug-addict, but also saw nothing implicating Joe. It was reported the FBI had the info and were investigating, and yes- I thought that appropriate.
You seem upset that a misleading letter was sent for political purposes. Why does it matter, given that the laptop doesn't implicate Joe?
Of course someone will argue that this is ”standard precautions” when any POTUS visits abroad, but I actually don’t think so. Didn’t happen with all earlier presidential visits. He is 80 years or so, hence there’s a real possibility that the guy will die or be totally unable to perform even the mandatory performance that a president needs to do in the next administration.
Yet the bigger question is, what on Earth is this love affair that the US voter has with very old people? What is wrong with people in their 50’s or 60’s?
If the answer is that they are the only people given, then why accept it?
Clearly this is just Biden getting revenge.
Mental fitness tests for presidential candidates would be fantastic.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1689260391036010497?s=20[/tweet]
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Third-Bank-Records-Memorandum_Redacted.pdf
Simply a younger generation of candidates is what the US needs. If I'd be an American, I really wouldn't be excited about choosing from two old farts like Trump and Biden, that have some probability of dying or being hospitalized during the next four years. What's this peculiar desire to pick so old people as representatives?
Quoting NOS4A2
Likely impeachments will be the new norm for US administrations. You already have the theater of the debt ceiling, hence what could be more useful than have impeachment hearings every then and now?
Well, we do seem to be more and more a Banana Republic, like some of our fellow South American countries. So Trump could go briefly to prison then be elected president.
At 70, Cornel West is practically a kid. He's also a brilliant Marxist scholar and the best candidate out there
Nowhere near. Westminster system is superior to presidential political systems. But a functioning American democracy is better than a MAGA fascist dictatorship, which are the two current alternatives.
We do not have a functioning American democracy and Biden has been as fascist, if not more fascist, than Trump
My view of Biden is that he’s old, but he’s tough, and he’s competent.
He has:
Crushed a major strike
Increased the budget of our fascist, racist police force by billion
Increased the budget of our fascist, imperialist defense department by billions
Given over a hundred billion of our needed dollars to Ukraine, their Azov Nazis, and NATO and its war
The alternative is rejecting the Zionist, warmongering, anti-labor, pro-fascist police, and anti-environmentalism of Biden and the rest of the Duopoly and begin building a non-imperialist, compassionate, environmentalist third party conscious of the working class, and right now that best option is the Green party and Cornel West, who, unlike Biden an Trump, is a good, compassionate man against War and for all Americans, not just the rich
No, not voting for Biden and voting for Cornel West is voting for Cornel West, just like not voting for Cornel West is not the equivalent of not voting for Trump
Biden is a worse authoritarian than Trump. Biden wrote and pushed a racist fascist crime bill; Trump didn't. Biden greatly backed the fascist Iraq War; Trump didn't. Biden literally broke a strike--a foundation of Democracy; Trump didn't. Biden has wasted billions on authoritarian NATO's fascist war and Ukraine's fascist Azov Nazis; Trump said he wants to end the war. Trump is terrible, but he certainly isn't more authoritarian than Biden
No, it was neither, but that was a wonderfully, and entirely, supported assertion by you
As I said, cherry-picked and exaggerated as a result.
LOL...you accuse me of cherrypicking my official definition of fascism by actually cherry-picking your own
And providing multiple definitions is not a good thing. It just shows you can't decide which one is correct and don't know what you are talking about. I suggest focusing on, and positing, the one you think is best
But you clearly have a definition of fascism or you have no place criticizing mine. So, you either use one--and we both know you do and are being disingenuous--or you don't and are just wasting time
The only kindergarten rage here you in your last post. You can't show where I showed any...and haven't yet
And I showed very well how his policies have been fascist. So, your denial of it, and rage over it, is just silly. Anyway, I have no time for your anger; I'm moving on. I hope you find calm today
I'm talking about your outrage towards Biden not me. And once again, I don't need to show another definition of fascism when yours doesn't conform with any of the definitions I already shared earlier. To summarise:
"you cherry-picked your definition"
"no I didn't"
"proceeds to give a list of 10+ other definitions none of which conform to the original"
"you must give a definition"
"I just gave 10+"
"you cannot criticize mine without picking one"
:up:
Nationalism, militarism, belief in American supremacy, interwovenness of state and economy, growing authoritarian tendencies, etc.
I see where people get the idea from.
Do you understand the concept of a someone running as a third party splitting the vote which ends up helping the opposition to win? It's the same concept here. If I voted for Cornel West in the general election, that is a vote that could have helped Biden win against Trump. If it is close, enough votes for Cornel West (or someone else) could result in a Trump victory. That is what I mean.
No, Trump is worse by orders of magnitude. Trump wanted to make millions of votes for Biden not count in the 2020 election. That is Putin-level authoritarianism. What does a vote against Putin do in Russia? I feel bad for Russians. They don't have a legal means of getting Putin out of power. He's a dictator in all but name. The Russians have a veneer of democracy and hold elections, but they are a farce. You can't speak out against Putin, or criticize him. How are you supposed to run against him? Russians get imprisoned or pushed off of high buildings if they are too critical of Putin. I don't want that for the USA.
Those four are all leaders of their political parties. Of course, the parties are still male dominated and party activists are as old as anywhere, but it's the image that counts, I guess.
Yet it seems in America the dual-party system is so entrenched, that there seems to be a culture of older guys getting finally the top jobs after a long, loyal career for the party.
I mean, just look at them:
Yes, it is an erroneous concept. The vote is nobody's to spoil and nobody owns any vots. Also, if you voted for Cornel West in a general, that is a vote that could have helped Trump win against Biden.
Quoting GRWelsh
I already showed Trump isn't worse than Biden, and Biden is worse in many ways than Trump. Biden and other Democrats spread the Russiagate lie to try to get Trump overthrown and make millions of Trump votes be negated
Quoting GRWelsh
This is irrelevant to our discussion, but indicative of a Russophobia that our media and the Democrats (and many Republicans) have fomented in the last six years
.
Why are you parroting Putinist propaganda? :roll:
Putin has managed to create much hate [sup](May 26, 2023; Aug 1, 2023)[/sup] etc, not the least in Ukraine [sup](Aug 9, 2023)[/sup]. FYI, it's come up a few times before.
Confusing Russophobia and anti-authoritarianism/anti-Putinism verges on accusing everyone of racism.
Quoting jorndoe
I'm not. Why are you parroting CIA/MSM propaganda....remember Russiagate?
Quoting jorndoe
More CIA/MSM propaganda...remember "Russian bounties"
Quoting jorndoe
And I didn't do that. Why are you a Russophobe?
Yeah, you are. Just about verbatim.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
I'm not. So, bare racism accusation. Tu quoque style at that.
No, I'm not, not in any way
Quoting jorndoe
Yeah you are. Verbatim. And i made no racism accusation and you misused Tu Quoque
You can do better than this...or can you?
Kushner’s investment firm got that 2 billion from the Saudis in 2021, after stepping away from politics and after Trump left office. I guess you got the dates wrong. Such a minor but illuminating detail.
According to Affinity Partners, Kushner’s company, the money is going to be invested in Isreali startups in a bid to normalize business relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. I’m going to assume you know how investment works. The Saudis are likely aiming for a return on their investment, meaning they will get the money back and then some. Unlike Biden, there is no indication this money is going into Kushner’s pocket or to fund hookers and cocaine, or to curry favor from daddy, maybe by getting the government to fire prosecutors investigating the company. There is no indication Trump is involved at all.
My guess is they will investigate Kushner, just like they said they would back in 2022, and will do again in 2024. At any rate, the media sure made a big deal out of it, unlike the reticence towards their preferred candidate. But this isn’t because there is evidence of any impropriety on Kushner’s part. It’s to distract from Biden’s corruption.
Who pays your salary?
I like Cornell West too. Of all the candidates so far, he's my favorite.
In the sad state of American political duopoly, it's going to be a Biden/Trump rematch. Those, unfortunately, are most likely going to be the choices. I prefer Biden in office -- not because I like Biden, but because I like a lot of his administrators and more of his policies than Trump's.
The environment is a good example: would we have the IRA with Trump in office? Of course not. That's not to say it was what it should have been -- we needed much more than that. But it's better than going backwards.
I think the problem is that too much is made about voting, as if that's our sole political power. So people, understandably, want to vote their conscience. I used to think along these lines myself. But once I saw the real, everyday impacts of having, for example, a reasonable and sympathetic secretary of labor, or a competent NLRB, or a head of the EPA that isn't an oil lobbyist -- to say nothing of the money allocated for state and local site cleanups, solar and wind subsidies, etc., I think being pragmatic is more important.
Yes, Cornell West is the best candidate. I wish he would become president and I hope he gains momentum. But if it comes to a Biden/Trump rematch, I don't see how voting for Cornell, however noble, doesn't simply give Trump (by far the worst of all three) a better chance at winning.
Quoting Mikie
Sure, but we also have the choice to vote against both, work towards building a progressive third party, and get across progressive messaging neither duopoly candidate share. Since I find both Biden and Trump to be loathsome and unacceptable, doing that and voting Cornel West is the obvious choice
Quoting Mikie
We went backwards with Biden as he drilled more than trump, gave out more drilling licenses than Trump, pushed the horrendous Willow Project, and committed the worst act of eco-terrorism by OKing the sabotaging of the Nordstream pipeline
Quoting Mikie
If this is true, then you shouldn't worrry about people voting their conscience. Everyone should vote their conscience
Quoting Mikie
It doesn't give Trump a better chance as neither Biden nor Trump own West voters' votes, and a vote for West is a vote against Biden AND Trump
At the cost of electing Trump, I’m not sure it’s worth it. There’s ways to build a progressive movement beyond just voting. It starts in each state, and builds from there.
While Biden as a man might be repugnant and unacceptable, his appointments aren’t. In fact some are quite good.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
But in the last two years, they also passed the IRA and canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, strengthened car emission standards, etc. Actions at the SEC, EPA, energy, and interior have all been much better than under Trump — by any metric.
That’s not to say it’s perfect or satisfactory— just better than the prior administration. I think that’s obvious.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Why? I didn’t say it isn’t important. It’s just not our sole political action. We should make sure we’re voting against the worst, ensuring the greatest impediment to our goals isn’t in office—then continue on with our work.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Not owned, but most voting for West will have values and goals that will be much more likely to be obstructed (and in fact actively fought against) under a Trump administration than a Biden one. If we had ranked choice voting, I think Biden would come before Trump, in most cases.
That being said, these votes going to West (or staying home) simply gives Trump a better chance to win — at least in swing states. In Mass, it doesn’t matter much. In NH, it matters a great deal.
So I care about climate change. The IRA will help my neighbors and I get solar panels and heat pumps. That’s a good thing. Trump and the Republicans are literally running on dismantling all of that. If my voting for West just because it makes me feel better, ignoring the reality of a two-party system, comes at the real cost of electing Trump— I’ve shot myself in the foot.
Those people that went to Israel for an official get-together? Mossad must have blundered royally. (incidentally Aug 2, 2023) The Nazi thing is straight out of Putinist newspeak. No, Ukraine ain't ruled by a Nazi regime as they propagandize. Old. You know, answering a question with a question like so is kind of rude (deflection, dodging).
Of course it is as Biden has proven to be as bad, if not worse than Trump. And Biden's appointments: Blinken, Austen, Abrams, Tanden have been awful and awful human beings
Quoting Mikie
Sorry, but none of those vague, unspecific suppositions counter what I showed above: Biden has been worse on the environment than Trump
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Because you just said too much is made about it. And now you are making too much about it, actually worrying about my vote, even
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Nonsense. As I showed, the strike-breaking, pro-cop, censoring, warmonger has been even more anti-progressive than Trump. So if you think voting West hurts Bidens chances, that's a good thing for West voters
And as I showed, votes going to West simply do not give a better chance to either Biden or Trump. You can keep erroneously saying otherwise, but it doesn't make it right
Quoting Mikie
You clearly don't care enough about the environment as you are fine with Bidens' terrible environmental record, which is worse than Trump's
Only touchy one here is you. I asked a serious question. You seem to like the Azov Nazis a lot
NoQuoting jorndoe
No, Ukraine's official Nazi battalion. And the Nazi thing is just truth; your denial of it is straight out of CIA and Banderite newsspeak
Here you go, Stepan. Educate yourself for once...and brush up on your courtesies:
https://multipolarista.com/2022/02/23/nato-atlantic-council-ukraine-nazi-azov/
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/359609-the-reality-of-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-is-far-from-kremlin-propaganda
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-of-ukrainian-nationalists-march-in-in-honor-of-nazi-collaborator/
Not on the environment— which is what I was talking about.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Canceling the XL and passing the IRA is hardly “unspecific suppositions.” They’re facts.
As far as the actions of the departments I mentioned— I can get into that more.
They exactly counter the claim that Biden is worse than Trump on the environment.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
In the sense that it’s not our only political move. I’ve now repeated that three times. Why is it not clear?
Voting is important. But it’s not the only thing we have.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Simply declaring you “showed” things is meaningless. You haven’t once showed that. You’ve made statements that it isn’t true. And I see no serious reason to believe it.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
So you’re actually arguing that the Biden administration is worse than the Trump administration in terms of progressive values.
That’s insane to me.
Sorry — I prefer Michael Regan as EPA administrator, not Scott Pruitt. Call me crazy. But you do you.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
You really should educate yourself on the environmental record of the Trump administration. Your assessment is just ridiculous, I’m afraid.
Anyone pretending to care should progressive goals has the minimal moral responsibility to examine the real world impacts of government policy.
Quoting Mikie
Your quote above was all opinion and suppositions; that's what I was talking about. And neither they, nor your mention of XL and IRA counter the claim Biden was worse than Trump on the environment in any way. My claim still stands true
Quoting Mikie
You have not made that clear and stop whining about it. Voting is important; so stop worrying about other peoples votes and stop voting for corrupt anti-environment, Zionist, pro-cop warmongers like Biden. And you don't have to tell me voting isnt all we have; it's presumptious of you to do so. I do lots of political and social work outside voting. What do you do?
Quoting Mikie
I have showed it and showed I did. Your simply saying didn't doesn't change that. You're the one who has made untrue statements and I have no reason to believe them.
Quoting Mikie
Yes I am, and I am correct. Your thinking otherwise is insane to me.
Quoting Mikie
No, you should really educate yourself on the environmental record of both trump and Biden. Your assessments have been ridiclous, not mine
Anyway, since you're now getting upset and being rude, we're done. Have a good evening and relax a bit
It does exactly that, in fact.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
No, it doesn't. It's ridiculously uninformed.
The passing of the IRA alone is better than anything Trump did on the environmental -- which was to dig more coal, pull out of the Paris Accords, and destroy hundreds of regulations. There's plenty of information on it with a google search.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
And yet you want to actively make this work harder.
Your false equivalency of Trump and Biden is your problem, really. But that's yours to solve.
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
I guess that proves it.
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Jack Rogozhin
Forgive me. At first I thought I was communicating with an adult.
I can see you won't last long on this forum. But nice talking to you.
Demonstrable bullshit, although I’m not going to press the point as you’re obviously trolling.
Quoting Quixodian
Clearly it isn't, as you fail to counter my point; so the one trolling is you
And this is a philosophical forum. So show it some respect by remaining adult and civil...instead of spewing childish vulgarities
The GOP is determined to roll back all of this. Trump showed no interest in the environment, calling global warming a hoax.
No, I have great interest in discussing philosophy. Political discussion is eminently philosophical as it entails issues of ethics, ontology, epistemology, Marxism, and existentialism. Are you saying Marx, Fanon, Gramsci, Derrida, and Levinas--political philosophers all. Are you saying they weren't being philosophical when discussing politics? I wouldn't think so. The fact you're on this political thread, and fired up and raging at me, proves otherwise
Quoting Quixodian
That quote is an anonymous, hyperbolic, and erroneous opinion. And Biden, as I have shown, Biden has been a terrible environmental president, granting more drilling licenses than Trump, backing the greatest eco-terrorist disaster by blowing up the Nordstream, and signing off on the terrible Willow project
Anyway, if you cool down, come join me on the Kant or Kierkegaard thread...I'll be checking those out next. Cheers
I prefer Ukraine win it's war against Russia, but I'm under no illusions what life in Ukraine would be like compared to my comfy existence in America, so I'm good where I'm at. You, on the other hand, seem to hate America and love Russia, so what's stopping you from relocating? Money?
"Trump’s tweet said, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.""
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/
[sup]• Russia’s Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine: A Collection
• Nov 21, 2022[/sup]
Kushner created his investment firm the day after Trump left the White House in January 2021 and the Saudi government gave it the $2 billion six months later. The nepotism I was referring to happened in the 2016-2020 time frame when President Trump hired Jared and Ivanka in defiance of the anti-nepotism statute 5 U.S. Code § 3110.
That statute only says that they can't be paid for the work, and I believe they weren't.
Section b says they can't be appointed or employed. Section c says they can't be paid.
When the entire intelligence community, the 5 eyes, the crooked press, and the corrupt and incompetent state bureaucracy are running election interference and disrupting your administration, you have to hire the people you trust.
What he shouldn’t do is fly his crackhead son around in Air Force 2 and make lucrative deals with communists and oligarchs. But that’s me.
No, it means there are different ways of violating the statute: (1) by employing a relative, and (2) by paying a relative you employed. Nowhere in the statute does it say that you may employ a relative as long as you don't pay them. It would go against the point of having such a statute if it deliberately included a loophole that favored families wealthy enough to be employed without drawing a salary. You may not be paying them a salary directly, but you are giving them power, and that can be exchanged for or leveraged into money.
Actually, the statute is very specific about this -- bold added by me for emphasis: "(c) An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced."
Ass'n of Am. Physicians Surgeons v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Although the Court didn't outright say that it is allowed, they seemed open to it.
Also there's 3 U.S. Code § 105 which says:
So it seems that the White House is an exception to the "Executive agencies" mentioned in 5 U.S. Code § 3110.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/speaker-mccarthy-expected-endorse-impeachment-inquiry-president-biden/story?id=103114626
If he succeeds it would be a Pyrrhic victory.
Does anyone have to respond to subpoenas issued by Jim Jordan?
If not responding to a subpoena issued by Congress is a crime punishable with imprisonment (which seems to be the case for Peter Navarro), does that mean Jim Jordan will be going to prison any time soon?
Shokin claims that he was fired for investigating Burisma while Biden’s crack-addled son was employed there. According to him they have provided zero evidence for his corruption.
Trump was impeached for asking Zelensky about it.
https://nypost.com/2023/09/08/despite-bidens-claim-europeans-werent-trying-to-oust-ukraine-prosecutor-targeting-hunters-firm
For trying to coerce Zelensky to do something about it, actually...
Fearing to bite the hand that feeds them, I guess.
But it's tragicomical how Ukraine has been this center stage of US domestic politics with now two US Presidents getting impeachments (that won't go anywhere).
Well, if Ukraine gets to be an EU member sometime in the future, I hope they get their corruption into control. Perhaps starting with not feeding the corrupt Americans, eh?
Trump told Ukraine to look into corruption; Biden told him to look away from corruption.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/politics/hunter-biden/index.html
If Hunter committed a crime in this (which he almost certainly did), charge him! I don't want special treatment for dem politicians or their family.
(It would be wonderful if magats had the same attitude about their politicians)
I don’t think he should be indicted on this. I want to know about the tax evasion and unregistered foreign lobbying and human trafficking, some of which may implicate bigger fish.
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-08/VPBidenTPUkraineMeetingShokin.pdf
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/politics/house-oversight-republicans-hunter-biden-bank-subpoena/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66954626.amp
Now we have to deal with the inevitable politicization of the impeachment process, thanks to the two previous charades. I wish the politicians would take the higher road and leave the choice to their voters, but then again, we’re well beyond high road at this point and it would be a mistake to think that the GOP is not just as politically craven as the Dems.
The Dems seemed to think there was not enough evidence for an impeachment, and kept saying so, except it’s an impeachment inquiry. There is plenty of evidence of for an inquiry. It looks like the inquiry will be the impetus for subpoenaing bank records and all that, so any hard evidence ought to be forthcoming. Biden ought to be supportive of this because there is so much of a cloud around his name that this should clear up the air.
In other news, the government is about to shutdown due to House Republican shenanigans.
Who cares?
Anybody who desires a functional government acting in good faith
The big, bloated, and corrupt institution could use some time off.
What's the evidence Biden committed an impeachable offense? I must have missed it.
The point is exactly what you mentioned: if they do it, we’ll do it too— regardless of evidence.
The point of the shutdown is, as usual, to create as much chaos as possible so that they can blame the democrats for being so dysfunctional. It’s worked before — but I’m not sure if it’ll work this time.
It’s all being run by Trump’s stooges in Congress, in the mistaken hope that the shutdown will stop the legal system pursuing its cases against him, and also just for retribution, as he said he would do.
Jasmine Crockett knocks it out of the park. And hey, look which network.
I think it goes much deeper, to the heart of Republican distrust of government and democracy, and the task of dismantling government agencies.
The witness Jonathan Turley laid out his claims as to why the impeachment inquiry was justified here:
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/30/ten-reasons-why-the-biden-impeachment-inquiry-is-justified/
It’s odd if you had missed this because it has been public record for quite some time, but then again it’s not odd because none of it is what you want to hear.
https:/theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/30/democrat-jamaal-bowman-fire-alarm-house
Obstructing an official proceeding is what Trump was indicted for, as were many of the J6 protesters. Since “no one is above the law”, and “people should held to account”, I guess we should expect Bowman’s indictment soon. Hilarious.
The cultists sure are desperate these days.
This doesn't look like an accident. Unless either he's an idiot or it doesn't say it's a fire alarm.
Or a big, sloppy kiss on Putin's lips, as another commentator has it.
https://apple.news/AOHknXYmMRkiQ1mKqbwaevQ
Biden's saying that this clusterf*ck is the last gasp of the MAGA insurrection. As always, malevolence and hypocrisy hamstrung by complete ineptitude. Let's all sincerely hope he's right.
Seems a ridiculous thing to do. But if he did so on purpose— fine. Prosecute.
It’s just hilarious that MAGA wants to scream about it. It’s just pure vengeance and hypocrisy, since they don’t care about the rule of law anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Joe_Biden
Of course, if you're only wanting to make the inane point that crimes should be prosecuted irrespective of who committed them then this is so obvious you'll not find anyone here to disagree.
The crime is the same and just as stupid in both cases. It’s a witness tampering crime used to prosecute political opponents who inconvenience congress because the law is stupid.
It appears to be so. Ridiculous, isn’t it?
That may be ONE of Trump's crimes, I guess, though I don't know that he's even been charged for it.
It’s the crime in his indictment. What am I misrepresenting?
Quoting NOS4A2
Regarding the Jan 6 case, the charges are:
18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to defraud the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1512(k) Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
As far as you can tell isn’t very far, I suppose.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2023/aug/02/donald-trump-indictment-what-are-charges-what-happens-next
The title of the statute, the reason the statute was brought into law, and the entire history of its use. But It wouldn’t hurt to look at the crimes themselves and come to your own conclusions.
Exactly right. So naturally one wonders why he’s being charged under these statutes. I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know.
Can you tell me why he’s being charged under that statute? And why pulling a fire alarm is now a federal crime?
18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/07/28/what-crimes-was-trump-charged-with-in-federal-documents-case-heres-what-to-know-as-doj-brings-new-charges/
This gives some detail as to why 1512 is ONE OF the specific charges. It doesn't seem to be about witnesses at all.
It isn’t about witnesses, victims, informants at all, but according to a provision under that statute it is now a federal crime for pulling a fire alarm in Congress, with punishment up to 20 years in prison.
That isn't what you were saying before
You’ll quote me saying otherwise, I’m sure.
Quoting flannel jesus
Quoting NOS4A2
Now quote the statute.
(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
And what statute is that a provision of?
Well, I’m sorry for reading the title of the statute.
Are you willing to go on record saying that this provision has nothing to do with the statute?
There's a reason why when I Google "Donald trump witness tampering", the only results I get are articles about what he hypothetically could be charged with, and not what he is charged with.
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191493880/trump-january-6-charges-indictment-counts
I don't know why c2 is documented alongside witness tampering codes, all I know is c2 is not witness tampering.
You need to read more than just the title. He's been charged under subsections (c)(2) and (k):
Well then I apologize for believing the provision had anything to do with the statute.
Yup. My bad.
Regarding its genesis, see the Sarbanes–Oxley Act
Thank you.
[quote=Politico] Gaetz keeps pressure on ahead of move to oust McCarthy
McCarthy has brushed Gaetz’s threat aside. “If somebody wants to remove [me] because I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try,” McCarthy said on Saturday, adding: “If I have to risk my job for standing up for the American public, I will do that.”[/quote]
The expression, 'the adult in the room', came into popular use when Trump hired John F Kelly as Chief of Staff, with commentators designating him in those terms because it was hoped he could keep Trump's childish impetuosity in check.
Now, however, McCarthy seems to think it's a boast! As if 'being an adult' is something the brag about. But then, I guess with the company he's keeping, it kind of makes sense, sad though that may be.
Reminds me of the skit from Chris Rock "I take care of my kids!" as if it's a boast "you're supposed to you dumb fuck!"
And we really haven't even started in earnest the "silly season" of the US elections...
I think it's going to be a complete fiasco. Commentators are saying that the reason McCarthy was dumped was because he had the gall to work with Democrats to avoid the massive consequences of a US debt default and later to keep the Government open. This clique of hardliners (let's just call them 'fanatics') may be willing to precipitate such catastrophes just to prove their point - even though they don't really have one, other than hating Democrats and defending Trump. They're not the least interested in solving the problems of actual government. One of them has said more than once that Government is useless and should be abolished. So there's every reason to think that come November, when the temporary funding resolution expires, there will major Government shutdown conducted by the MAGA fanatics and Trump minions.
It should be shouted from the rooftops that refusing to fund the Government (and a large part of the debt that was incurred under Republican presidents!) on pain of massive cuts to social welfare, is not a legitimate form of political discourse. It is essentially blackmail and extortion which has become almost business-as-usual through several decades of Republican malfeasance. It's a dreadful state of affairs and a sign that the ship of state is listing dangerously.
Here in Australia, there is a mechanism for what happens if the Government is denied funding (it's called 'blocking supply') or reaches impasse through some other means. A double-dissolution election is called ('double' meanining both Senate and House of Representatives, equivalent to Congress.) We've had some, over the years, and it breaks the deadlock by allowing the electorate to essentially re-make the Government. There doesn't seem to be any such mechanism in the US political system, so a deadlock appears quite possible.
The only possible silver lining to this very dark cloud is that in the end, Republicans are harshly punished at the ballot box next year, losing both Congressional majority and the Presidency.
I agree with you.
The way it's going I really think they will let the US have a default. The theatre has perhaps been played so many times that some people will say let's get on with it.
Of course, as it's the US, nobody will call it what it actually is, a debt default. And likely when the markets start to howl too lowd, then something will be done. Only through a crisis will anything be done.
Actually I believe the next debt limit vote is not required until 2025 - that was part of the agreement between Biden and McCarthy signed off in June (and one of the causes of his overthrow). But the next round of appropriations are due Nov this year - that's the next crisis on the menu.
Usually they are required far more earlier than anticipated.
So why would he be a bad choice?
(If you have enough time to enlighten a foreigner on this subject, I'd be happy.)
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/06/donald-trump-backs-jim-jordan-house-speaker
“Jordan is one of Trump’s biggest champions in Washington DC and has been leading spurious investigations into prosecutors who have charged the former president. He was also part of a group of Republicans who worked with Trump to overturn his defeat, ahead of January 6.”
Fiasco for sure. I'm surprised the Dems voted for removal TBH. It would have been a good move towards forcing the GOP towards the sort of compromise politics they should be pursuing considering they hold just one chamber and on razor thin margins.
But apparently the GOP leadership has reneged on several previous compromises, so I can see why the Dems decided to let them deal with their own mess. Still, it isn't good, it makes a shutdown highly likely. And the idea that a "shutdown is good because Republicans will get blamed for it in an election year," is the same sort of politics that has destroyed the GOP's ability to govern.
It's insanity. It's going to be an absolute nightmare if Trump wins again, which seems quite possible. I really, really wish Biden would have stepped down. It seems the height of hubris for him to run again at his age, with his abysmal approval ratings, during one of the most consequential elections in US history. Then again, from what I understand, he basically got the nomination by threatening to stay in no matter what, giving the nomination to Bernie and thus, in his and his rivals' estimation, making a Trump victory far more likely (probably true). Despite the media blitz to boost his image, his actual actions at key moments make him seem a good deal like Mitch McConnell, e.g. "if I can't sit in the important seat I'd rather watch the ship sink."
But, on the plus side he's generally staffed the Administration with competent leaders, so my problems are more political than on policy.
It's insane to me that the Democratic party did not foresee this situation and make plans right after they won in 2020. It was always clear Biden would not have a great chance at a second term.
It is beyond me that this massive, powerful party is apparently incapable of coming up with a suitable replacement candidate and unable to enforce the necessary discipline to get them nominated.
It's like they want to be defeated. Perhaps the party leadership secretly agrees with the GOP plans and would rather live in a "managed democracy" where the rabble cannot question their wealth?
Parties can enforce discipline on rank and file members by threatening to withhold fund raising assets, donations, endorsements, committee assignments, etc., but once the person is famous enough and has their own funding resources and runs their own patronage network they are hard to contain.
Biden entered the 2020 race with enough name recognition and support from his association with Obama that he could be a spoiler, throwing the race to Bernie, and that seems to be what got him the nomination in the end. Parties have a much easier time punishing less well known candidates or legislators.
Plus, the Dems were gunshy about using party influence to corral the number of nominees after their near coronation of Clinton blew up in their faces.
Ultimately, the other candidates threw in with Biden to avoid what happened in 2016 to the GOP, a candidate the RNC absolutely did not want winning because there were too many other people fighting over the remaining votes (seems likely to happen again).
Truman and LBJ ultimately didn't run because they themselves thought it would hurt the party, not due to party discipline for example.
I don't have a particularly high opinion of Biden but his administration has been fine. But because of his history, I feel like this has more to do with him bringing on a ton of Obama people simply because they are part of his patronage network and Obama was a good leader/selector of talent. Biden's history shows his stands tend to blow with the direction of popular sentiment in most cases, not unlike McConnell. But I'd call Obama one of the best Presidents in the past century, so to the extent parts of Biden's administration is Obama 2.0, I don't have too many complaints, his ability to pass legislature
being hamstrung anyhow.
The whole last 8 years has turned me sour on presidential term limits. Obama would have won against Trump in a landslide. Taking him out was like removing Pedro Martinez or Randy Johnson from a game because of the pitch count when your bullpen is trash.
I guess being partisan is the trend now.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
So Trump is young???
Anyway, it's actually the problem of parties that they don't have good people in the wings growing up. Isn't the geriatric leadership of the both parties obvious case of this? It should be.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Democracies ought not to be dependent of one man.
I don't know if "being better than Trump," is necessarily the standard to aspire to. But yeah, the lack of a focus on developing young leaders is a problem and I would also argue that the reason mid to long term problems are so hard to tackle in the US, and in the developed world writ large, is partly because of gerontocracy. Climate change is likely to be far more of a problem in the second half of this century, a US debt crisis is probably a decade + away, etc. It's rather enraging to hear politicians dismiss issues that might come up as soon as 2040 as ridiculous to consider. If you're having a child today, they aren't going to get out of high school until 2041.
The population has grown older, but the representation is not at all in line with this growth. People under 45 are over a third of the adult population but represent 6% of legislators and a very small share of cabinet level positions too. And it's not like being in your mid-40's is young. It's middle aged. The Baby Boomers took over a majority in Congress and the White House at close to the same point in the "generation's" aging.
Unfortunately, across the West, the lopsided age-wealth gap also tracks very closely with ethnicity, so the two become tangled together in politics, forming a destructive witches' brew. "Why build schools, it's for those people," versus "why pay for pensions? Those are the racists who didn't want to pay for our schools."
And then on top of that you have the issue of the debt in the US, and funding the massively expensive entitlements for retirees (a problem everywhere), running smack dab into the time bomb issue of appropriate levels of inheritance taxation. This issue will become acute because wealth has come to skew very heavily towards older citizens, and inheritance will tend to keep that wealth very concentrated as it is passed on because Baby Boomer's had way less children on average, with most new growth coming from migration instead. Inheritance split between 8 kids does a good deal more to level it our, but 1 or 2...
Bit of a side rant, but I find the whole thing very dispiriting, but also fascinating. I think it could actually help ease ethnic tensions for people to realize that they are, in part, also just the time old tensions between the priorities of the old and the young that exist in any society, and that the trick is to try to find a fair compromise.
But that would have been dead in the water. Gaetz said before the vote, 'If the Democrats want him, they can have him.' So if he had been 'saved' by the Democrats, then he would have had even less sway with the MAGA faction than he had already had. And, as you note, McCarthy had already reneged on various deals to placate the fanatics, AND launched a groundless impeachment enquiry against Biden with no floor vote (in blatant contradiction of his own protests about Pelosi doing the same against Trump after the infamous 'Ukraine shake-down' call). It would have been beyond the pale for the Dems to have stepped in.
The election of Trump has kinda soured Obama's legacy for me. It seems evidence that, while a competent administrator, Obama has failed to be a transformational leader.
These days it seems to me his affable manner and generally positive policy goals did not amount to much progress in solving the US' most pressing problems, both domestic and international. It wasn't stagnation, but it also fell short of what's needed.
Alternatively, all we've been seeing since is the backlash. The transformation being resisted.
That fiasco is now seen when the US should react to the situation in Israel. (Yes, Israel needs more weapons and ammo for Gaza!)
Really? I would have thought they'd have plenty.
Remember it's not the AIPAC or the Jewish living in the US. Many of them who follow politics in Israel might actually not like so much the Likud. It's the Christian evangelist crazies for whom Israel isn't an ordinary country, but has in their heart this special place, because to be good Christians they have to support Israel. And if Israel is attacked, it's end times. The rupture. Everything as crazy like that.
Both parties just love them. And AIPAC.
Oh, you were being sarcastic. :up:
Israel needs more PGMs because PGMs are expensive and no one has enough for any sort of sustained warfare. This was made obvious during Odyssey Dawn, etc. where the whole of NATO was running out of PGMs not that long into a (relatively) small air campaign in Libya. Even your cheapest base model Excalibur 155mm shell is $70,000 a piece, and those are only so "precision guided." They have a much better safety profile (for civilians and your own forces obviously, not for the targets), but you're still talking pretty wide variance in where you can expect the shell to land.
Missiles that are sure to get on target tend to be much more expensive and have to be used with platforms that are intrinsically expensive to utilize (i.e. aircraft). The safer they are to use in urban areas, the smaller their effective radius tends to be. So, something like the R9X Hellfire variant, which deploys spinning blades instead of explosives and thus has a very targeted lethal radius is great if you don't have many targets and they don't know you're coming and so aren't hiding under cover. But otherwise, they lose effectiveness.
The case for giving Israel PGMs at this point would be:
1. To deter Iran. The idea is that, if Iran thinks Israel isn't being resupplied, they might think they are low on munitions and decide now is a "window of vulnerability." This might in turn incentivize them to attack if they think it's likely they'll fight at some point, since it's better to fight when your opponent is weak than when they are strong. And to the degree that this calculus holds, and that it would not be good for a wider war to start, this makes a certain type of sense.
2. Using PGMs is safer for civilians. More accurate munitions let you use less powerful munitions. Most countries don't use 300lb 203mm shells any more because artillery has gotten more accurate and a 90lb 155mm shell will do. But obviously, when it comes to unintended targets, larger shells have a bigger blast radius and are more likely to hit civilians or damage civilian infrastructure. This problem simply scales up with we compare relatively small payload guided missiles that can hit a given window with 1,000lb dumb bombs used to level the entire building.
3. PGMs are more effective at hitting the intended target. The flip side of hitting unintended targets less is hitting the intended targets more. And if you can hit targets more effectively from the air you have less incentive to invade on the ground. And since pretty much everyone agrees that a ground invasion will produce significantly more civilian deaths, giving PGMs might be justified to the extent that it stops a ground invasion or makes it more contained.
4. If you're providing arms to a country you have some degree of leverage in that you can say "don't do x or we cut the sales/aid."
You had the same factors in play with US sales to the Saudi's vis-a-vis Yemen. The Saudis were in the war and weren't likely to leave if the US backed out of sales. So to the extent that they'd just use Chinese rockets and Russian dumb bombs, not selling them weapons wouldn't have made things better.
But, of course, the key question at play here is "would the country getting the weapons actually still pursue the war, and pursue it as long and as widely without the sales? And if not, then aren't the sales making things worse even if they do make civilian deaths less likely in local instances?"
Those are very important questions, but also maddeningly hard to answer.
I would say this probably was more applicable to the Saudi situation, in that I think they would have quit Yemen earlier if they had more losses and less success due to not receiving the same weapons systems.
But Israel is probably going to attack to try to heavily damage or destroy Hamas no matter what the US offers in the short term. If that's true, then it doesn't really do Palestinians any good for them to be trying to accomplish that by raining down old dumb fire artillery shells except in the jaded sense of: "but maybe if they kill enough civilians they otherwise could have avoided killing if the IDF had more accurate weapons the world/Arabs will unite to turn on Israel." Given the number of atrocities we've seen in the world, and in that same region, and given how little has generally been done about it, this seems like a pretty long shot thing to hope for, a sort of nihilistic millenarianism where somehow its better if more, less accurate, higher payload weapons go flying into an urban area because some unlikely cascade of geopolitical shifts might happen.
The best justification for US sales/aid to Israel would obviously be if they could somehow convince Israel not to do a ground invasion in exchange, or do only a limited one. And who knows? They might not. I have considered that the mobilization could be to force Hamas to mobilize and build fighting positions and give out weapons so that said activity can be spotted from the air and Hamas soldiers targeted that way, but that might be too much to hope for.
That just sounds crazy. I've been figuring the point was to just use shock and awe to make an impression... tamp down violence until the next generation gets it going again.
If the stocks of missiles, guided munitions and overall ammo supply gets low, armies you them less frequently. If they are plentiful, then you can use them far often and not only when the most urgent need arises.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Uh, I'm really not sure about that, apart from weapon systems that can hit Iran itself. Israel isn't facing a conventional enemy, hence it's not fighting a conventional war. Just look at the videos and photos that come from Southern Israel: it can park equipment next to each other and mass the troops who walk in large groups. This would be absolute suicide in Ukraine... if Israel would be facing an enemy like the Russian armed forces.
In a conventional war you truly get to be short in all kinds of ammo as you have the urgent need to destroy the conventional enemy before it's artillery and aircraft destroy you. Hence the wars against Egypt and Syria were actually quick with the Arab side being the one that had gone through it's ammo and vulnerable to Israel marching to the Capital, basically.
Sure, but Israel is at risk of running low on PGMs in the short turn, not "all munitions." They would run low on dumb munitions only after firing 60 years of surplus into a heavily urbanized area where the population has nowhere to flee from. You see the problem, right?
By the time they have to start rationing shells Gaza could be destroyed. Second, in Ukraine the front line could be evacuated. What do you think would have happened to civilians in Bakhmut if they had been there as Wagner human waves rolled down the street? This is why everyone agrees that a ground invasion will produce more civilian deaths.
And the guided munitions used in either case are radically different?
JDAMs aren't long range. Hellfires aren't long range. The drones and fighters they are used with are long ranged. The weapons being used in Gaza are exactly the sort of weapons that would be used to fight Iran in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Iran itself and are being deployed off the same platforms. You don't need special "long ranged weapons," for your strike aircraft.
Egypt and Syria got more munitions and hardware in 1973 than Israel did through Nickel Grass. The problem wasn't that the Soviets weren't resupplying them, they even escalated to nuclear threats to bat for the Arabs, the problem was that the Syrians kept lying to the Egyptians about their successes and forced them to abandon their modest, quite successful attack for "push them into the sea," antics where they left their SAM umbrella and chaotically tried to advance into defenses. The Arab offensive didn't collapse because they ran out of PGMs, which they had virtually none of anyhow, or because they ran out of munitions more generally, but because poor strategy and leadership led to a rout once the tide turned. Essentially, the problems documented in De Atkine's influential "Why Arabs Lose Wars," which have more to do with training, culture, trust, NCO structure, centralization, etc.
Iron Dome was designed to intercept sporadic attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. and they may not have had stockpiles to have it operating under the conditions we see today.
Obviously they can't go around saying their Iron Dome is out of ammo.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Quoting Tzeentch
Here's a perfect example how peacetime policy goes out of the window once a war starts. Israel can look at the past statistics of how many rockets has it had to shoot down, and then make the calculation how much it needs lets say for the next five years. I'm pretty confident that at no time did they acquire an arsenal of missile for "what if Hamas shoots 1/3 or half of it's rockets in a couple of days". But now they basically ought to have such an arsenal. And do note that this arsenal of expensive missiles has an expiry date, when you simply have to destroy them and make new ones.
(Did you bring the popcorn? Israelis watching the bombardment of Gaza: )
Yeah, but the US can't do much about Iron Dome, that's the Tamir. The US co-production with Iron Dome is on Arrow 3, which is for long range missiles. The US jumped on because its need to to deal with Chinese ACBMs and to support the general anti-IRBM, ICMB, SLBM umbrella its built for itself. From what I understand, the US couldn't really support Israeli AD without deploying its own hardware there (obviously it could scramble fighters for some threats, but not the type that actually exist now).
The US has two SkyHunter batteries that are (maybe) compatible, since they are based on the Tamir, but they wouldn't be on a forward deployed carrier, so that can't be the impetus for that move. IDK if they even work together because that was a Raytheon - Rafael project and has a different "brand name." But sometimes they just name stuff differently under license, "Trophy" APS is called something different in Israel and is an Israeli system now used on the new M1 tank variant.
But rocket fire has trailed off substantially, including a 13 hour gap without any fire. Which might be:
1. Hamas trying to signal desire for a truce (I really don't think they expected their attack to be near as successful as it was or what it would mean. With a competent defense, you would have expected many of those parties to be turned back in short fire fights).
2. Hamas is unable to fire as many missiles because of the extent of the bombardment as a whole, i.e. wide spread destruction making logistics impossible.
3. Israel is being very effective in destroying launch sites, hitting Hamas targets, and destroying munitions storage.
Or some combination of the three, but we can hope less of 2.
The only good news I've seen is that Netanyahu and the far-right are getting blamed and are tanking in the polls such that they will be absolutely crushed if an election is held before a reversal. Makes sense to me. Much of the attack was not remotely sophisticated. The para-gliders could have been shredded if just a handful of people were on watch with GPMGs. It's clear that the party that campaigned on strength left the border incredibly weak, in part because of infighting over their most prominent member's corruption.
The idea of impeaching the corrupt Joe Biden is wrong, in my opinion. It isn't up to congress to decide who should or should not be president, especially when the "high crimes and misdemeanors" under discussion occurred when he is not in his current position of power. It's enough that most adults believe that he is unethical and corrupt.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/05/hunter-joe-biden-business-testimony-00125056
The problem with that theory is that nominations close real soon now, and Newsom is not on the ballot. He's also declared a number of times he's not running (e.g. here). There's a lot of bullshit being thrown around about Biden being senile or mentally incompetent. Granted, he's never projected well on the podium - nobody could call him a great orator - but he's quite competent, and the scuttlebutt around his age is just part of the Republican disinformation machine. It's still staggering to me, not to mention extremely dissappointing, that Trump is even considered a candidate, but I'll save that for the other thread.
I believe Biden will run, but next in line is Kamala Harris if he doesn’t (as Gavin Newsom said).
If some Republican other than a MAGA fanatic were to win, that wouldn’t be a bad outcome as far as I’m concerned. It’s Trump/MAGA that is a threat to the Republic.
Biden will be the nominee unless he decides not the run. I think he's doing an excellent job. Do I wish he was younger? Yes. Every year after 80 is a year of decline toward the drain for most people.
Given his ability (or lack thereof) I can’t say Biden is really running the country. He even needs direction on which side he should leave the stage. It would be interesting to know who is really calling the shots here.
Sounds terrible. Although inflation is down. The Fed is probably through raising rates.
I think it's mainly because large numbers of Americans are nuts.
Let's pretend the next presidential election has a financial criminal running against what many perceive to be a somewhat demented nitwit and his political cohort a lady who giggles a lot. How would you vote?
Perhaps you would ignore the figureheads and vote the liberal party. But, wait, that party has led to America being a "failed state", according to Britannica (lost control of its border). And it virtually overnight returned Afghanistan to the Middle Ages under the control of extremest religious zealots. Never mind that Suzy Orman states that 75% of Americans can't put their hands on $400 in an emergency. (She may or may not be right).
BingAI
I've had former academic colleagues who are "nuts", as you put it.
I wonder if [s]Americans[/s] GOP voters know that their likely presidential candidate has said, on the record, and out loud, that he will suspend the constitution and sack all his antagonists in the public service if he's elected. Do they know what they're voting for? Do they care? Do they understand? I think the answer is 'no' on all counts.
Errr... Which president invaded Afghanistan and which president handed it back to the Taliban?
I think you may be correct. Many might assume democracy has broken down and a Glorious Leader is the answer.
What the fuck. This is ridiculous.
I even felt bad for Blinken on this one.
Someone stop this man. :lol:
Unfortunately this won't be an issue in the election, even if it actually should be.
Who would raise a subject where both Biden and Trump are the culprits???
Is there a viable third party candidate? Nah... :worry:
Good. Biden deserves to lose for facilitating the mass killing of civilians and destruction of Gaza.
Biden is one badass oldie.
He's going to be on his ass by the looks of things. :razz:
It's too soon to tell.
Perhaps it’s the same mistake as Ruth Bader Ginsberg. No one had the heart to just say your age is an issue. But then again, a moderate old man might be better than X. Newsom is from California, not a battle ground state. You need Midwest or South nowadays if you’re a Democrat.
Trump will be the Republican nominee.
All of this is foregone. I imagine Biden sqeaks out another win, despite his age. Polls are way too early to learn anything from.
There’s going to be a godawful s***fight at the Republican Convention if he is. They almost derailed him first time around.
Thanks.
A lot will depend upon Trump calming his rhetoric and presenting himself as the more energetic and middle of the road candidate. Stranger things have happened.
My prediction: there won’t be.
I also have a bet going regarding Biden being the nominee: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807026
True— he has a shot, no doubt.
I can't imagine Joe and Kamala for another four years. But stranger things have happened.
If Trump is re-elected, we may very well be doomed. It’ll do irreversible damage— especially to the environment, where we have already lost 30 years thanks to the kind of denialism he embodies.
But yes, it’s possible. Unfortunately so.
Except when American crave for and desire so old politicians to lead them, these people can all of a sudden die or get hospitalized. Yet it has to be Octogenarians!
I'm not sure anything stranger actually has ever happened. Regardless, my impression is that his rhetoric is what gets him elected: "owning the libs", catering to the tendencies of his base (including racists and conspiracy theorists), and corralling members of Congress who fear losing office if they incur his wrath.
They have shit the bed, entirely, since then, basically ignoring their jobs.
This year, the right-of-center(ROC) party won, but needed a coalition to govern. So we have a very mildly ROC main party, and two coalition partners who respectively go further and then even further right in their politics.
And for all the utterly ridiculous preening and alarmism from other quarters, the right-of-center government really was the only reasonable choice. Most of the suggestions people are having an issue with amount to either socio-political discussions or outright alarmism (bear in mind, the types making those claims are the types who thought hte Hamas attack was (in the same breath as denouncing it??) understandable, and that Israel should've just taken it on the chin and given Palestine some more land or whatever. They aren't serious people.
I can't really see the US election going different, excepting some major occurance or revelation between now and voting time. And hten the cycle starts again... I can see Biden being the first Dem 1-Termer since Carter.
Edit after Wayfarer's post below: I am always struck but just how intensely partisan people get with politics. I've never found it to be worth the time - it's all a bit of a farce.
In other words, an impeachment investigation into whether there are grounds for an impeachment investigation. An investigation into whether they can find something they have not been able to find, something to charge him with.
Hunter Biden has exposed the cloak and dagger tactics of their Hunter hunt by not complying with the House Oversight Committee's requirement for closed door testimony. Why their refusal to open the door and let in some light?
Openly admitting it's a political stunt.
Quoting NOS4A2
What high crimes and misdemeanors has Biden committed?
He said "Donald Trump 2024", therefor he's admitting it's a political sham.
He also said this:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RepTroyNehls/status/1735072362754609189?s=20[/tweet]
Therefor he's admitting real concern for the president's behavior.
He said in response to being asked what he was hoping to get from an impeachment enquiry.
Quoting NOS4A2
He's feigning real concern.
Where are the quotes from everyone else involved, for instance those outlining the evidence so far? I imagine those are all minimized while this one is amplified.
You mean like this?
Some House Republicans Admit There Is No Evidence to Impeach Biden
It’s not an impeachment. They don’t have the receipts because they are being stonewalled. Hence the inquiry. Wouldn’t want to mention that.
They don't have anything. At best it's a fishing expedition, at worst they know there's nothing to it and are simply carrying it out as a political stunt to hurt Biden and help Trump.
There is quite a bit, actually.
https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/
No comment on these, I suppose.
A sham impeachment inquiry opened, in obvious retaliation for the legitimate impeachments of the degenerate con man. :yawn:
What's the issue there? How much money did "the Trump family" receive from foreign nationals whilst Trump was President?
It’s not that they made money, but that it is unclear what they’re selling. I can name any number of goods and services sold by the Trump organization. Can you name one by Biden Inc.?
"After the Chinese company wired the Biden associate account the $3 million, the Biden family received approximately $1,065,692 over a three-month period in different bank accounts."
Who is the "Biden associate"? What work was he doing for the Chinese company? Which members of the "Biden family" received money from him, and what work were they doing?
I suspect that the Republicans are being intentionally vague so as to give the false appearance of impropriety as part of their political stunt. Which is why they refused Hunter Biden's offer of a public testimony. They can't falsely accuse him of saying things he didn't actually say if everyone can hear it for themselves.
That’s why an inquiry is in order, to find the answers. It should be no problem if they have nothing to hide. Hopefully with some authority the stonewalling will end.
So because some member of Biden's family (Hunter?) received money from some foreign company an impeachment inquiry into Presidential corruption is warranted? That's one hell of a stretch.
It's far more tenuous than any of the allegations against Trump, and yet you railed against them as being politically motivated. Do you recognize the hypocrisy and bias in your approach to this allegation against Biden?
Yes, it’s warranted in my opinion, especially given Biden’s lies about his son’s dealings, many of which occurred while Biden was present and in power. I guess he should not have lied.
Given that the stage has been set by previous impeachments, this is par for the course, anyways. At least the house members you cited are acting in good faith, unlike the last ones.
Well that's delusional thinking.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The only "lie" allegation I'm aware of is Joe saying he wasn't involved with Hunter's business, despite being put on speakerphone greeting Hunter and companions at business dinners. Am I missing something?
"Given that the stage has been set by previous impeachments, this is par for the course, anyways."
In the case of Trump's impeachments, there was probable cause: good evidence of crimes having been committed by the President. There's no evidence of a crime involving Joe. Hunter's been indicted for crimes that have nothing to do with Joe,. Beyond that, it's clear Hunter engaged in peddling the perception of influence. However, there's no evidence Joe WAS influenced. Even the ludicrous allegation about his firing of Shokin wouldn't be relevant, because it occurred prior to being President.
I don't care that the MAGA House wants to go on a fishing expedition, but this doesn't seem at all parallel to Trump's impeachments.
That's nice of him.
It was his war on drugs and crime bills which put them in jail in the first place. What a nice guy.
Lev Parnas didn't testify in Trump Ukraine scandal. Will he appear in Biden impeachment?
[sup]— Antonio Fins · Palm Beach Post · Dec 29, 2023[/sup]
(Should this be posted in "Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)"?)
I mean, no kidding. We all knew that two years ago.
Perfect example of Trump handiwork. Take a few grams of bullshit and turn it into wholesale social catastrophe spanning continents. That’s how you Make America Great Again. :victory: And it’s the dead horse those morons in the GOP sham trial committee are trying to flog towards a finish line.
But the worst indictment was of his mind. The most popular president in the history of US politics turns out to be also the most feeble and absent-minded.
It all raises the both hilarious and tragic question of who is in charge of the most powerful country in history?
I’ll put forward one theory. A recent scoop suggests the country is actually run by Biden aides and Jill Biden.
Scoop — Jill Biden after 2022 news conference: "Why didn't anyone stop that?"
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/09/forthcoming-book-jill-biden-why-didnt-anyone-stop-that
Robert K Hur might be a fine jurist but he is not a clinical cognitive neuroscientist and he did not conduct the battery of tests needed to make such a diagnosis. What conclusions would he have drawn from interviewing Trump or anyone else under similar circumstances?
Questions about both the mental and physical health of candidates has long been used as a political weapon. Biden might not remember it but Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's and Trump's mental health has from the start been called into question by mental health professionals - narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and paranoid personality disorder.
Come on... Joe Biden, the guy is like Breznev at the end. Similar vitality!!! Just look at the following and see the similarities.
Now compare to the elan of Biden, when he's talking about Mexico being run by President Sisi and having a border with Israel:
We just had our Presidential election. Two decent candidates, whom many said both could have been good to win.
In the US, I just feel sorry that Americans still believe in these two parties.
Quoting Fooloso4
Speech, demeanor, gaffes, are not sufficient measures of cognitive ability and decision making capacity. Biden has dealt with the problem of stuttering since he was a child. This means that he is always aware of what he is saying. It is similar to talking on the phone is hearing what you said repeated.
As he has acknowledged, the problem gets worse when he is tired. His age is a factor here, but even a much younger person would find his schedule exhausting.I came across a comment about how every other president except Trump appears to have aged when leaving office. The explanation was that unlike the others he spent little or no time briefings, reading intelligence reports, and deliberating. Biden spends many late nights prepping.
Quoting ssu
For many of us it is not a question of believing in these two parties or the electoral college but rather of what it would take to change things. It is not as simple as a third party or independent running. The problem of politicians hanging on past their prime goes well beyond Biden - Trump, Grassley, McConnell and others I am too old to remember. The system is designed to resist change.
Never underestimate just what voters can do.
But yes, the voters can play with the balls given to them and not care about anything else. But once there is a will, there's a way.
Yet actually the GOP ending up with Trump has made people believe in the system of "primaries" and biparty system, where you can change parties from inside.... and not simply have new parties.
And never underestimate what they would need to do to bring about such change.
Quoting ssu
I agree. But I think that this is a clear indication that not all change is for the better. In addition, if Trump is as successful as he hopes to be, this may be the end of the two party system. The democratic republic will be replaced by a plutocratic autocracy.
A hang-up?
Quoting Benkei
Most Americans prefer a degree of freedom and choice. Under an autocratic leader both are imperiled. It may not be possible to vote an autocrat out of power. If there is to be civil war success depends a great deal on which side the military takes. Opposition to an autocrat backed by the military and intelligence would be extremely difficult to defeat. Unless the borders are closed and emigration restricted I think much of the population would leave rather than fight a loosing battle.
Added: On the Trump thread you said:
"Thank God for term limits whatever will be the end result."
An autocrat who intends to stay in power will not allow term limits.
I think it's creating an unnecessary boogeyman to imagine Trump successfully becoming a dictator abolishing term limits.
As a result, the Biden administration can get away with anything, and they have a lot they need to get away with.
Yet the paradox here is the extreme faith in the Presidency to be this power of change, if there's something wrong with the system. (The US president is this kind of superstar, that people pin hopes upon. Just look at the Hollywood movies and their portrayal of the US president.) And be it Ross Perot or Donald Trump or anybody else, this is a very far fetched idea, but shows the thinking that the US President is this all powerful person who if not omnipotent, is something nearly so. Especially when the President doesn't have a loyal party backing him or her in the Congress. In short, it seems that many people don't like that power is decentralized.
Thus I personally favour the president / prime minister model: the prime minister being the head of the administration, yet the president having credible power and the ability to blow the whistle and stop things if the prime minister is out of bounds. Because in the US system when the opposition party takes control of both houses, the President is simply a lame duck. Now, should there be a prime minister, that party in control has to do something, not just say no to basically anything the President proposes.
Of course in the Parliamentary model one thing that can be hard for people to accept is that they don't personally choose the prime minister, especially in a multi-party system. The party that got the most votes might not be able to create an administration and there can be an impasse. Something that you perhaps know well.
Why the West Coast? Resistance to autocracy is not unique to the West Coast. But how effective would such resistance be without the backing of the military?
The Republican Party is already controlled by Trump. If reelected career bureaucrats and civil servants who constrained Trump last time would be gone under Schedule F. With the implementation of Project 25 and an extreme version of the unitary executive theory federal agencies would be abolished or completely loose their independence. The Justice Department would not simply come under his control but would do his bidding and take revenge against his enemies.
Here with the newly elected conservative leader Margaret Thatcher, before her being prime minister.
Here as a senator (already) with president Carter:
https://www.axios.com/2025/05/16/biden-hur-tape-special-counsel-audio
But the fact that one can steal classified documents and get away with it for being too stupid isn't the whole of the scandal. A battery of propagandists set out to deceive the public.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/us/politics/biden-hur-audio-interview.html
A recent prostate cancer diagnosis raises further questions. Was his clean bill of health a coverup? Why did Garland refuse to release the tape even though Congress subpoenaed it? Perhaps the Big Lie was just a smoke screen for a bigger concern: who the hell was running the country? Congress should act before Biden passes. I wager the answers would lead to treason territory and one of the greatest scandals in American history.