The Biden Presidency



Have we ever seen a Democratic president so much at odds with his own voters and with the general public?
 
Pintu said:


Have we ever seen a Democratic president so much at odds with his own voters and with the general public?
Click to expand...


What do you mean? they are aligned with their donors. Not with the general public, silly. AIPAC, Evangelical, conservatives, military complex industry, oil, etc...All have interests in Israel to succeed
 
Idxomer said:
Click to expand...

For what it's worth Friedman is really good to listen to on the conflict and area in general, and has been saying biden is doing the wrong thing for at least 3 months now. So I guess it's good news that they speak at least.
 
I don't mind the US having a normal president, but i guess it is a really hard decision for most americans.
 
We allowed to say that was pretty good? Some excellent lines in there. Loved the one about taking the money for their districts after voting against it. And a dig at the SC!

No idea if he has the energy to do this once a week til November, but if he could, polls would immediately change.
 
Beachryan said:
We allowed to say that was pretty good? Some excellent lines in there. Loved the one about taking the money for their districts after voting against it. And a dig at the SC!

No idea if he has the energy to do this once a week til November, but if he could, polls would immediately change.
Click to expand...

No, that's genocide enablement.

But seriously, it's good if he did well. The bar is so low, that even just a somewhat coherent and energetic performance will count in his favor.
 
Mike Smalling said:
But seriously, it's good if he did well. The bar is so low, that even just a somewhat coherent and energetic performance will count in his favor.
Click to expand...


It's his record v a cult and the stoking of fear and hatred and Patriotism. Biden will run on policies and Trump will be Trump.

I don't know why they bother spending the billions on campaigns, everyone knows what they will be getting either way.
 
Beachryan said:
We allowed to say that was pretty good? Some excellent lines in there. Loved the one about taking the money for their districts after voting against it. And a dig at the SC!

No idea if he has the energy to do this once a week til November, but if he could, polls would immediately change.
Click to expand...

This is the downside with attacking Biden for gaffs and "cognitive decline". The excpectation bar is lowered and he shows up and surprises everyone by giving a pretty good speech, which makes him look like's been playing 4D chess with his detractors all along; often leaving them with egg on their face.
 
Last edited:
So, Biden was demented and sleepy before, now the problem is that he was too loud and energic(fine when Trump does it though).

You can't please a good 40% portion no matter what you do though.
 
Morty_ said:
So, Biden was demented and sleepy before, now the problem is that he was too loud and energic(fine when Trump does it though).

You can't please a good 40% portion no matter what you do though.
Click to expand...

They don't want to be pleased. Is a football team fan approach. Till the end with your team no matter if they dive, foul and blame the referee
 
"Hur was appointed as a US attorney by Donald Trump in 2017."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Hur

I really cannot understand this whole thing. Biden appointed Garland, a republican, who appointed Hur, another republican. Can someone explain to me why Biden appointed Garland in the first place?

I know that Obama tried to appoint Garland to Supreme Court and the republicans did not allow a vote. So what? Why did Biden have to appoint him to some important position? Just to show to us that he is willing to work with Republicans? Wasn't it obvious to Biden during his Obama years that the Republicans have zero interest in working with him? Or did he expect that Garland would now help him hurt the republicans because he was sour he wasn't appointed to Supreme Court? This Garland appointment seems such stupid thing to do! Especially for a seasoned politician like Biden. Garland has proven to be a disaster, he dithered with everything, slow, ineffective, useless.
 
frostbite said:
"Hur was appointed as a US attorney by Donald Trump in 2017."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Hur

I really cannot understand this whole thing. Biden appointed Garland, a republican, who appointed Hur, another republican. Can someone explain to me why Biden appointed Garland in the first place?

I know that Obama tried to appoint Garland to Supreme Court and the republicans did not allow a vote. So what? Why did Biden have to appoint him to some important position? Just to show to us that he is willing to work with Republicans? Wasn't it obvious to Biden during his Obama years that the Republicans have zero interest in working with him? Or did he expect that Garland would now help him hurt the republicans because he was sour he wasn't appointed to Supreme Court? This Garland appointment seems such stupid thing to do! Especially for a seasoned politician like Biden. Garland has proved to be a disaster, he dithered with everything, slow, ineffective, useless.
Click to expand...
That to me is the crux of it (bolded part). Feels a bit like Dems trying to stick it to em but as per usual with so often when the Dems try to be "dirty" back....it backfires somewhat.
 
Redplane said:
That to me is the crux of it (bolded part). Feels a bit like Dems trying to stick it to em but as per usual with so often when the Dems try to be "dirty" back....it backfires somewhat.
Click to expand...

Stick it to them, how? Garland is not even a Democrat!
 
Raoul said:
Garland is a centrist lib. He's been nominated and or interviewed in the past by the likes of Clinton and Obama as well.
Click to expand...

And why did Garland appoint a Republican (who had been appointed by Trump in the past) to investigate Biden?
 
frostbite said:
And why did Garland appoint a Republican (who had been appointed by Trump in the past) to investigate Biden?
Click to expand...

That's not unusual for the likes of DOJ people. Some of them are installed by one admin and wind up playing roles in the next one. Its not supposed to be a banana republic where each party only nominate extremists from within their own camps.
 
Raoul said:
That's not unusual for the likes of DOJ people. Some of them are installed by one admin and wind up playing roles in the next one. Its not supposed to be a banana republic where each party only nominate extremists from within their own camps.
Click to expand...

Of course, but how many banana republics had crowds invading their parliament in recent years? After Jan 6th, it is not a normal situation, everyone can see the polarization and the repercussions of the Attorney General's actions (or inactions). I can't believe that Garland is so stupid that he cannot realize what it means to appoint a registered Republican to investigate Biden.

If Biden committed a crime, he should be prosecuted. If he didn't commit a crime, there was no reason to mention that "he forgot". It is not a defense to just "forget", it is only a reason for a lower sentence. Either a crime was committed and there should be prosecution, or a crime was not committed and there should not be any prosecution. The sentencing is a separate process.

The whole thing was only petty politics, just like a banana republic.
 
frostbite said:
Of course, but how many banana republics had crowds invading their parliament in recent years? After Jan 6th, it is not a normal situation, everyone can see the polarization and the repercussions of the Attorney General's actions (or inactions). I can't believe that Garland is so stupid that he cannot realize what it means to appoint a registered Republican to investigate Biden.

If Biden committed a crime, he should be prosecuted. If he didn't commit a crime, there was no reason to mention that "he forgot". It is not a defense to just "forget", it is only a reason for a lower sentence. Either a crime was committed and there should be prosecution, or a crime was not committed and there should not be any prosecution. The sentencing is a separate process.

The whole thing was only petty politics, just like a banana republic.
Click to expand...

You said Garland was a Republican. He's worked in Dem administrations and was praised by the ACLU.
 
Raoul said:
You said Garland was a Republican. He's worked in Dem administrations and was praised by the ACLU.
Click to expand...

Okay, I was wrong about that, he may not be a registered Republican. But that's not an important point.

He is not a registered Democrat, either. Right? It is not like he is an important Dem Party figure, who was somehow wronged by the Republicans and Biden *had* to give him some position.

So, why was such a need to appoint him to a top position? Aren't there any other capable lawyers around? I bet there are plenty of independent lawyers out there who are not dithering morons. After Jan 6th, this was the most important appointment, and Biden picked an impotent guy.
 
frostbite said:
Okay, I was wrong about that, he may not be a registered Republican. But that's not an important point.

He is not a registered Democrat, either. Right? It is not like he is an important Dem Party figure, who was somehow wronged by the Republicans and Biden *had* to give him some position.

So, why was such a need to appoint him to a top position? Aren't there any other capable lawyers around? I bet there are plenty of independent lawyers out there who are not dithering morons. After Jan 6th, this was the most important appointment, and Biden picked an impotent guy.
Click to expand...

Its relevant because you proceeded to build the rest of your argument based on something you completely made up. His entire judicial record is largely in sync with the Dems, which is why he was previously nominated as a SCOTUS by Obama and prior to that served in the Clinton administration, which not coincidentally is also why he was praised by the left leaning ACLU. You're criticizing him because he isn't behaving towards Biden in a similar way to how Trump would want his AG to behave for him. That's not how the DOJ or the AG are supposed to work. He's not a lawyer who is working on behalf of the Dems or Biden. He's there on behalf of the entire country.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Banana Republic or just bananas republicans?
Click to expand...

Is it just the Republicans?

After 3 years, there is still no trial for Trump for Jan 6th. Three years! This should have been the number one priority for the State. How many European countries had crowds invading their parliaments in the past 20 years? This was very serious. How long do they need to determine if Trump committed a crime or not? Two months? Five months? It is unbelievable that such an important matter takes that long, it is inexcusable.


(Personally, I want to see Trump in jail. But that's not the point here. Either he committed a crime on Jan 6th, or not, the Justice Dept should not need more than a couple of months to determine if he committed a crime and he should be prosecuted or not. )
 
Raoul said:
Its relevant because you proceeded to build the rest of your argument based on something you completely made up. His entire judicial record is largely in sync with the Dems, which is why he was previously nominated as a SCOTUS by Obama and prior to that served in the Clinton administration, which not coincidentally is also why he was praised by the left leaning ACLU. You're criticizing him because he isn't behaving towards Biden in a similar way to how Trump would want his AG to behave for him. That's not how the DOJ or the AG are supposed to work. He's not a lawyer who is working on behalf of the Dems or Biden. He's there on behalf of the entire country.
Click to expand...

I criticized Garland because he is a dithering moron. Who is obviously not Biden's friend.

I said he is Republican and I was wrong on that, you are saying he is Independent, that's fine. My argument does not change. Biden did not need to appoint that particular Independent, there are many others. Why did Biden need to appoint this particular person? It is a blunder.
 
Out of curiosity, I googled the date that Garland appointed Smith. November 18, 2022. He needed more than 18 months, just to appoint the special prosecutor!!!

Biden should have fired him before that, just for dithering.

(Well, perhaps Biden wanted to fire him ... but he forgot. )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.