CBS: U.S. attorney reviewing documents marked classified from Joe Biden's vice presidency found at Biden think tank

[Spaceman Spiff]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

We’ve talked about this a lot over the years. This is just another example. 
 

The gop gets to run with anything they want. Their behavior is constantly downplayed or excused. They only need to be “right” once in a while, and “right” is often playing pretty loose with words …

 

the dems have to be right every time. And when they mess up, it’s game over (per se)

 

 

What 

[hail2skins]

5 hours ago, tshile said:

It pains me to read that Trump is charismatic 

 

the notion that how he presents himself is appealing to anyone makes my brain hurt 

 

I’ve said this before, but watching your parents cheer for a guy that behaves in a way such that if you acted that way they’d smack you upside the head so hard … just baffles me. 
 

the number of people I know that are active/former military, that would punch me in the face without thinking twice if I said what he’s said about those killed/captured, yet still support Trump… just baffling. 

Trump appeals to people at a gut level on a number of issues, specifically US involvement overseas and immigration. Yes, such issues are complex, but most people don't think beyond their gut feel.

 

It is disheartening that so many GOP voters just love the guy after the nonsense following the 2020 election. As a former president, I would've expected him to be competitive in the primary with DeSantis and Haley. But for him to be running away with it is dispiriting.

 

It was interesting to read normal Trump supporter Kim Strassel take him to task in the WSJ today for torpedoing Lankford's immigration bill. It seems like encounter numbers were pretty low throughout much of Obama and Trump's presidency. Why have they spiked to the current levels?

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/

[tshile]

3 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

What 

I was just trying to highlight the double standard in the media with respect to the two parties. 
 

republicans are a clown car an get away with everything. Meanwhile any single issue with the dems, real or perceived, is turned into a crisis of epic proportions. 

Edited February 10 by tshile

[Spearfeather]

36 minutes ago, tshile said:

I was just trying to highlight the double standard in the media with respect to the two parties. 
 

republicans are a clown car an get away with everything. Meanwhile any single issue with the dems, real or perceived, is turned into a crisis of epic proportions. 

 

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, hail2skins said:

Why have they spiked to the current levels?

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/

 

It is likely a combination of things.  Partly it is a deterioration of the conditions and economics in their home countries.  In many countries the cartels have gained even more control.  While marijuana coming in illegally seems to have dropped, other drugs have increased to off set it.  There were also partly cuts in foreign aid that happened during the Trump regime and other practices like sanctions against Venezuela have made things worse in several countries.  There have also been climate affects.  As much of our west coast had significant drought problems, so did countries in Central America.  And they don't have the money for expensive or high tech irrigation systems.

 

Also, during Obama, with the great recession, there just weren't many jobs here so getting hired was tough.  That alone discentivizes (illegal) immigration here.  It doesn't make sense to come here if you can't get a job.  And many people actually "self-deported".  Then with Covid under Trump, something similar happened.

 

The economic boom under Biden has created jobs which means it is easier for everybody (including people that are here illegally) to get a job.  I think Biden's immigration policy has made it worse.  Under Obama, illegal workers weren't punished, and they didn't carry out many physical raids, but they would do "paper" raids and fine and arrest employers.  That disincentivizes companies from hiring people here illegally.

 

Trump pretty much took the opposite path and conducted physical raids and arrested illegal workers.  But both decrease the incentive for illegals to come here and get jobs and for employers to hire them (making it harder to get jobs). 

 

Biden has essentially said we don't care if you hire illegals as long as you treat them fairly (e.g. pay at least minimum wage, don't have them work in unsafe conditions (e.g. make them do things that OSHA wouldn't approve) etc.).  (I made a post a week or 2 ago in the "melting pot thread", from my perspective Biden's practical illegal immigration policy is to the left of any other President in my lift time.)

Edited February 10 by PeterMP

[The Evil Genius]

 

Edited February 10 by The Evil Genius

[GhostofSparta]

10 hours ago, Larry said:

Maybe my point would have been better phrased as "No, the Democrats did not make a mistake in nominating Hillary.  Maybe the term that fits best is that she was certainly a worthy candidate."  Or "No, Trump did not win the election because Hillary was worse than Trump."  

I mean, I know the last couple pages have dipped into the "Foresight vs Hindsight" debate, but still, it's hard for me to believe that "surely those of us in the future can't blame the Democrats in the past for nominating the 1 person that could have, and therefor did, lost to Donald ****ing Trump" is a good argument. I grew up in a VERY Republican house in the 90s, so to me it was absolutely not a shock that Hillary lost, because I spent 2+ decades surrounded by people who hated everything about Hillary. Every idea, every word, every action, every pantsuit, all of it. As much fun as it is to blame The Bernie Bros^TM for costing Dems 2016, it's still a little frustrating to see Dems and left-leaning Independents refuse to admit that nominating the one person the Republicans had spent over 20 years vilifying may have been a bad idea. Yes, there were a lot of factors that led to Trump winning, many of which weren't Hillary's fault and she couldn't overcome (racists being super-mad about a Black President and finally being able to publicly be assholes about it, a bunch of idiots thinking the President shouldn't have any political experience, general "this party has been in power for almost a decade, we're bored and want a change" idiocy from true swing voters, etc.), but I know there were a few crossover voters basically saying "Hey look, I can admit I was wrong and vote for Hillary....but there aren't a lot of us, the propaganda has been very strong for too long to shake the truly unsure."

 

For a multitude of reasons, Republicans have the advantage of throwing out any candidate and saying "He's our guy, vote for him or else" and the party mostly falls in line. Democrats don't have that same attitude, but damn does the DNC act like they do for some reason. I'm not going to relitigate Hillary vs. Bernie or Hillary vs. Trump, but to look back at 2016 and claim "Hillary was the best candidate! Nobody could have done better! Who could have forseen such an outcome?!" seems like a silly stance to take with almost a decade of hindsight to learn from the mistakes of that election.

 

It's easy to just say "We would have been better under Hillary!" and pretend that proves anything. But let me ask a couple follow up questions if I may:

 

-If Hillary wins in 2016, the Republicans still control the Senate. Does Mitch suddenly back down and let Hillary nominate Scalia's replacement, or do they hold firm for 4 years?

-If Hillary is President in 2018, do the Dems take back the House/Senate, or do the Repubs keep/expand control?

-If the Republicans never lose the Senate, does RGB get replaced by Hillary, or does Mitch pull the same trick as 2016 and refuse to hold a vote?

-Does Kennedy retire from the court under Hillary? Trump got to replace 3 SC members, but there's not guarantee Hillary would have gotten more than 1 person on the court, if even that much. So that 6-3 Conservative SC is, at best, 4-3 Liberal with 2 openings, possibly 3-3 split with 3 openings awaiting whoever wins in 2020. Maybe Roe doesn't get overturned, and that would be huge, but it's no guarantee

-How does the public, especially the Republicans, react to Covid under Hillary? Even if she does everything right and minimizes the impact, the Conservative freak-out over government overreach with Trump and 4 years of his lackeys in charge. Under Hillary and the Dems, they might have gotten more overly violent in opposition

-Does Hillary win again in 2020? With 12 years of Dems in the WH, with yet another 4 years of constant Republican attacks, with a potential Covid-backlash at the polls, could the Republicans nominee really face that much of a challenge? If I really wanted to be a jerk, maybe I assume that 2020 is a 2016 re-match and Trump absolutely crushes Hillary in the rematch. He's probably get 2, maybe a 3rd SC nominee served up to him, and the Hillary/Covid backlash might cause a legitimate Red Wave close to what the Dems had in '08.

 

All that said, I'd take Hillary over Trump 15 times out of 10. But Hillary isn't some martyr that would've completely saved America if she had just been smart enough to realize that Rust Belt voters actually matter (a lot, as it turns out) and didn't like being ignored. As a relatively recent convert to the party, it just annoys me that, as much as 2016 sucks, the DNC had a lot of lessons they could have learned to put them in a great spot by now. Sadly, while Biden has done some great things, him and his people ignoring the Age Issue completely is giving me a horrible feeling of dejavu. Biden could've done a lot of good by promising (and following through) to be a 1 term President to stop Trump and then step aside for someone under retirement age.

8 hours ago, tshile said:

I’ve said this before, but watching your parents cheer for a guy that behaves in a way such that if you acted that way they’d smack you upside the head so hard … just baffles me. 

I was already a RINO by 2016, but what pushed me away from the GOP for good was not just Trump, but the way the Evangelical community flocked to him. The same people I grew up with in church who spent years talking about how Bill's personal flaws meant his was unfit for President fell in lock-step with a guy that was 100x worse in his personal life than Bill ever was. Both are rapists, both are adulterers, both are liars, etc., but somehow that made Trump, the wealthy NYC failson of a rich dad "relatable" and "down to earth" and "one of us normal folks" while it made country-bumpkin Arkansas Bill "an elitist unfit for office." It was at that point I knew that I was done, rightly or wrongly, with both the GOP and Church.

6 hours ago, tshile said:

the dems have to be right every time. And when they mess up, it’s game over (per se)

Reminds me too much (correctly) of what the IRA said to Thatcher after a failed assassination attempt: "Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always." Republicans can **** up, get caught in blatant lies, break the law, rape people, traffic children, and none of it matters to the "average" voter as much as a Democrat being smug or pointing out the truth when it counteracts the voter's worldview.

[Jumbo]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/garland-decision-release-hur-report-00140806

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Jumbo]

Just more of a side issue with me, one I alluded to in a previous post, but **** you Merrick Garland you gutless wonder of poor judgment. 

[PeterMP]

26 minutes ago, GhostofSparta said:

For a multitude of reasons, Republicans have the advantage of throwing out any candidate and saying "He's our guy, vote for him or else" and the party mostly falls in line. Democrats don't have that same attitude, but damn does the DNC act like they do for some reason.

 

So a few points here:

 

1.  From my perspective, this is just wrong.  The Republicans have elections with low turn out.  And the lose.  Romney, McCain, GWB are all low Republican turn out.

 

2.  The idea that Sanders wins if Democrats DON'T turn out just for a Democrat is laughable.  Hillary easily won the Democratic primary, ignoring the super delegates.  And if you ignore caucus states and non-open primary states, it wasn't even close.  And if you look at African Americans, who Bernie Sanders has never made any significant effort to reach out to (unlike the Clintons), it is even worse.  The only way Sanders actually wins the election is if African Americans show up and vote for Sanders at a level not suggested by the primary or by any history he has with African American voters.  And that would essentially require them to show up and vote for him because he's a Democrat.

 

(I don't know if  it was this thread or another thread, but previously somebody called Trump a weak candidate.  And your comments echo similarly.  That just isn't true.  Trump turned out Republican voters that didn't normally vote.  And it wasn't just an anti-Clinton vote because he did it in the primaries too.  That isn't somebody that is a weak candidate or a bad candidate.  For Sanders to win, you have to imagine that somehow those people that showed up to vote for Trump in the primary don't show up and vote for him in the GE AND that Sanders can pull together the Democratic coalition (which African Americans are a huge part of), which he's never shown he can.)

Edited February 10 by PeterMP

[Simmsy]

19 hours ago, Fergasun said:

There was no need to put a Trump appointed special counsel on this case.

 

Merrick Garland kind've sucks at his job.

 

This right here!

 

1. Garland is a spineless, gingerly, pathetic loser. Why the **** would Obama ever want to put this guy on the SC? Oh yeah, Obama was a corporate shrill as well. Mitch McConnell saved us from a generation of useless, cowardly Merrick Garland rulings that saves him the trouble of ever having to put America on his shoulders and save us from terrible legislation because I think Garland would rather do the wrong thing than do what is right for this country.

 

2. We DEFINITELY need new blood in the Democratic party, we can't survive like this going forward. Why would Garland pick a Trump loving prosecutor? Why would he release the report, let alone all of the report? This would be the perfect time to pull a Bill Barr, exonerate the president, release SOME of the report and then release the full report later. Dems always try to appear fair by letting the corrupt and incompetent GOP run investigations against them and this ALWAYS happens. They fall into the same trap over and over again, quit picking the GOP to investigate you, you ****ing morons! Don't think Gavin would let this happen.

[tshile]

11 hours ago, PeterMP said:

(I don't know if  it was this thread or another thread, but previously somebody called Trump a weak candidate

Not sure if this is direct at me (it may be) but what I said was he was a historically bad candidate - and I meant that in the he sounds like a moron, had no political experience, public image of wealth is a bit of a fraud, long time and active criminal behavior, assaults/rapes women, affairs galore. 
 

in terms of the quality of the person standing on stage soliciting votes, just cursory background research would tell you he’s among (if not the) worst candidate ever

And in hindsight we can add “tried to overthrow the government” to the list of candidate flaws 

[PeterMP]

45 minutes ago, tshile said:

Not sure if this is direct at me (it may be) but what I said was he was a historically bad candidate - and I meant that in the he sounds like a moron, had no political experience, public image of wealth is a bit of a fraud, long time and active criminal behavior, assaults/rapes women, affairs galore. 
 

in terms of the quality of the person standing on stage soliciting votes, just cursory background research would tell you he’s among (if not the) worst candidate ever

And in hindsight we can add “tried to overthrow the government” to the list of candidate flaws 

 

All those things are true, but to me when you talk about being candidate what is important is are people passionate enough about voting for that person to show up and vote for them. 

 

In that context, he was a better candidate than McCain or Romney (and anybody else that ran in that GOP primary).  And while I'd argue that Hillary wasn't a bad candidate, she was worse than Trump.  She turned out what were essentially normal Democratic levels of turn out while Trump exceeded normal Republican turn out.   A good candidate drives people to vote for them.  Trump did that consistently during the 2016 election cycle (in both the primaries and the GE). 

[hail2skins]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

In that context, he was a better candidate than McCain or Romney (and anybody else that ran in that GOP primary).  And while I'd argue that Hillary wasn't a bad candidate, she was worse than Trump.  She turned out what were essentially normal Democratic levels of turn out while Trump exceeded normal Republican turn out.   A good candidate drives people to vote for them.  Trump did that consistently during the 2016 election cycle (in both the primaries and the GE). 

I had forgotten that Mitt ran in 2008. In 2012 he ran against an incumbent president, who have recently won reelection unless they are running against a rock star (Bill Clinton), buffoon who had the bad luck of a pandemic (Trump), and most likely a guy whose age is seen as a major liability (Biden). I think Obama would've beaten McCain in 2008 no matter what, but the economy cratering in the fall didn't help the GOP.

 

Trump's America First message did resonate with a lot of people, but isn't the general feeling that he won the presidency because he ran against someone more disliked than he was?

[Jumbo]

The "group" psychology of "hating" Hillary Clinton to the degree it was apparently so is of great interest to the study of political science.

 

And I'm good with substituting something like "intense and overpowering dislike" and not actual hatred for many, but which I still think is fascinating.

 

Obviously, I am not talking about the simple to understand, independent of level of validity, the more "normal" explanations,  like policy, "personality" (which is kinda of a weird area given the facts of her life and behaviors vs some perspectives taken) the connection to all things Bill,  and general lib "hate."

 

It just seemed so weirdly overblown, and I see many people who show the capacity to be fairly rational and intelligent as more their norm just dive down into wtf zones over hillpill. 

 

Side note, one I've  made from time to time here: it's useful to remember that "even intelligent, rational, and decent people" can often display thinking and behavior that is  contrary to those qualities. 

 

But the Hillary stuff is a tangent, though I mention it cuz of the connections to perception of both Biden's situation here, and the other tangents of the proposed weakness of his candidacy, vs trumps secret document issues is a big deal.

 

As it is in so many matters. 😄🙄😉

[The Evil Genius]

Fwiw I suspect Trump is now considered a bad candidate in 2020 and will be so in 2024. He's had historically large numbers come out to vote against him starting in 2020. 

[Jumbo]

16 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Fwiw I suspect Trump is now considered a bad candidate in 2020 and will be so in 2024. He's had historically large numbers come out to vote against him starting in 2020. 

 Have to keep in mind that the number of votes he did get was second only to the number Biden got.

[Fergasun]

No one has convinced so many of his ability to hold an office he is grossly unqualified for.  This makes Trump a fantastic politician/marketer/candidate in my book. No one has taken over our politics like him. If he wins 2024, he will be the most consequential American politicial figure of the 21st century.  Currently, I think Obama is.  For Trump, It's more negative than positive, but it is what it is.

 

I think we are bound to see a Trump like figure on the left in the next 6 years or so.

[Jumbo]

I've contributed too much to an ongoing off topic tangent. I'll cease and I encourage others to do the same. If you have one more burning desire, go ahead but then let's get back to specifically commenting on what the thread title described. Danke. 🙂

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

No one has convinced so many of his ability to hold an office he is grossly unqualified for.  This makes Trump a fantastic politician/marketer/candidate in my book. No one has taken over our politics like him. If he wins 2024, he will be the most consequential American politicial figure of the 21st century.  Currently, I think Obama is.  For Trump, It's more negative than positive, but it is what it is.

 

I think we are bound to see a Trump like figure on the left in the next 6 years or so.

You already have the template. A young populist progressive in the mold of Bernie Sanders.  Could that be AOC?

Joe is guilty. He knowingly took the papers so he can write his book.  
 

He wasn’t charged because when he was asked to return, he did and the fact the Trump prosecuter felt he was to old remember.

[ixcuincle]

 

 

 

[Jumbo]

Fox news headline on one of my news feeds:

(of course I wouldn't click on it)

 

"Dems one step closer to replacing Biden with Michelle Obama after damning report" 

 

The crap Fox news headlines I see on these news feeds...

 

My opinions of and wishes for everyone involved with the fox news division from ownership to employees on-air and otherwise, and all their loyal supportive audience, are not warm and fuzzy. 👹

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Fwiw I suspect Trump is now considered a bad candidate in 2020 and will be so in 2024. He's had historically large numbers come out to vote against him starting in 2020. 

 

I think he was bad in 2020 as the sitting incumbent President during the pandemic and the resulting societal and economic turmoil.  He preformed in the upper 1/2 of the expected range of EC votes and the popular vote of economic models.

 

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

 

Which suggest that he was in fact a strong candidate that was hampered by global events.

 

I think the vast majority of incumbent Presidents would have lost.  I think his handling of the pandemic was bad, but beyond that we were just unprepared.  And the global effects of lock downs would have been an issue nobody who was President.

 

(Somebody asked above what happens if Hillary was President.  I think the net out come is pretty similar in terms of the pandemic and Hillary loses in 2020.)

 

This year, I just 100% disagree.  It appears he's going to sweep his party's nomination process.  When was the last time that happened for somebody that wasn't a sitting incumbent President?

 

National polls indicate he's at worse slightly behind if not a head of a sitting incumbent President with a pretty strong economy.  And historically electorally he's out preformed polls.  Any disruption in the economy (e.g. gas prices, etc.) can likely swing the election to Trump if he wouldn't actually win today.  The way the system works today, it is hard to beat an incumbent President.  And it appears he'll come very close to doing it if not actually pulling it off.

 

**EDIT** Sorry.  I'm done.  Didn't see Jumbo's post until after I was done.

Edited February 10 by PeterMP

[The Evil Genius]