Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lloyd christmas said:

Thank you for being honest.  #orangemanbad 
 

I see nothing wrong with being so disgusted by another human being that you want nothing to do with them regardless of whether you may agree with them on a few issues here and there. I find it far more problematic to be disgusted by someone, but to throw one’s support behind them if it may further one’s own agenda in some small way. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I see nothing wrong with being so disgusted by another human being that you want nothing to do with them regardless of whether you may agree with them on a few issues here and there. I find it far more problematic to be disgusted by someone, but to throw one’s support behind them if it may further one’s own agenda in some small way. 

You imply that there were options that weren't disgusting.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2021 at 5:30 PM, Prozac said:

I wouldn’t have voted for him even if I agreed with all of his policy goals.

Did you think the last election was for Prom King? WTF dude.

To be fair, most Americans do make decisions based upon emotion as opposed to logic, so I shouldn't be surprised. 

On 4/7/2021 at 8:40 PM, Prozac said:

I do think there is a certain “regular guy” charm to Biden.  

Regular guy? The dude who has been in politics since 1972? That'll be 50 years, next year. That seems "regular" to you?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, Biden certainly isn’t perfect. Far from it. There are any number of Democrats I would’ve rather seen run against Trump. But the “Biden’s character is just as bad/worse than Trumps” argument blows my mind. So he’s a career politician. So was Lincoln. So was Jefferson. So was Reagan. So what? It’s easy to hate politics as usual. It’s messy and inefficient. It’s also largely worked out for us for ~240 years. I’m inclined to go with the establishment option vs the “burn it all down” one. Burn it down usually sounds good until you follow through with it and only after the fact realize you are left with nothing but ashes. 

Edited by Prozac
Clarity
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden/Harris is one of the worst, if not the worst, presidential pairings we’ve had in a long time. And it has nothing to do with politics but the fact that it’s frankly a weak pairing of two incompetent people.  
 

Biden, a man losing his mental faculties (this is honestly sad for me to watch from a human perspective) who was also a mediocre senator that accomplished nearly nothing of note in his 50 years of service.    
 

Harris is actually even worse. She was not even remotely competitive in the Democrat primaries because she was such a terrible candidate; she couldn’t even produce a single coherent position on key issues in the primaries. Slept her way up the ranks in San Francisco to then get a chance to run for a senate seat (funny how this was barely mentioned, guess only Orange man can take part in affairs).  But thanks to Obama connections she now has a non-zero chance of becoming President.
 

The border crisis is case in point of complete ineffectual leadership. Biden appointed Harris to manage it. She hasn’t been to the border once, laughs at questions about the border, and hasn’t given any press conferences or updates on a plan of action. It doesn’t even matter if you think flooding the country with refugees is good for political reasons; there are still kids getting chucked over fences left to fend for themselves in the desert and then sitting in cages at risk of sexual assault, and our top two leaders can’t even lift their finger to do anything or even remotely provide a plan of action. 
 

Now Trump is no shining example of leadership, far from it in fact. Personally I considered voting 3rd party several times this past election. But when it came down to analyzing every candidate available, including the 3rd party ones, Trump was by far the most qualified to actually run the country, and it wasn’t even close. 
 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far from a “follow the left, the world is all rainbows & unicorns”. To add some stance on some hot topics:  I had zero ethical problems with building a border wall, just doubt it will work (they’ll just cut holes in it or tunnel under it). I don’t think anybody has the right to restrict a law abiding citizen from owning an AR-15. Tragic mass shooting deaths, are currently insignificant compared to the number of people getting taken out by drugs, alcohol, car accidents/texting & suicide. Are we gunna ban cellphones too? Yet it’s all CNN wants to talk about. And FOX news, with its “windmills kill birds, green energy is bad lets burn coal until we’re back in the stone ages”…please, GTFO of here. Whether its Fox or CNN I can smell horse sh*t 3 miles out.

I am interested in understanding the divide more than anything else, especially on a forum where at least everybody is genuinely concerned about the country’s future.

Does the disagreement really come down to just deciding between…do you take someone who is morally deficient but going to do good things policy wise (at least in w.e your respective opinion is) vs. someone who is a good dude at heart but may stumble policy wise?

My logic: there is the system and there are policies the system makes. The policies change with the current political tide and can be undone just as easily as they can be done, depending on what the people want. But damage to the system itself is not easily undone. And as history shows, people who enjoy power…they usually want to grab more and more of it. Putin seems to be in love with it, as does Kim Jong-un. I don’t see Americans running to live in either of those places.

Disregarding any policy, IMO when you objectively look at Trump…he exhibits the same attributes as somebody who would be at risk for abusing power. The glitz, the glamour, the ego, the compensating personality & bully persona. Hypothetically, you could have a King/dictator who is great at making policy. But as history shows, long term….rarely do those situations end well for the people in those places. If Trump isn’t that guy…he did a hell of a job making it look like he might be. Rile up the working class who are scraping by on groceries from Walmart while you gallivant around in a gold plated 757 = does not compute. So I stand to reason that Trump lost the election for himself. He either chose not to be professional, genuine, & presentable, or he is actually a D-bag and a threat to the system. And judging by how he reacted to his loss, it’s the latter. While any good competitor would be disappointed at a loss, successful & confident people don’t let losses slow them down in life and start whining.  Those disappointed at his loss, should blame Trump himself for giving the election to a pretty weak democratic candidate (Biden, whose cheese may be sliding off his cracker).

I for one think we should just starting throwing darts at a board of random people who graduate from idk the military academies, med schools,engineering schools or something, somewhere where people have proven they are intelligent, committed to helping others and are problem solvers. “Hey Tommy, real sorry man. The dart hit your name on the board. dean wants you in his office, your president for the next 4 years. Pack your shit”.

“Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it”-Plato

 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Look, Biden certainly isn’t perfect. Far from it. There are any number of Democrats I would’ve rather seen run against Trump. But the “Biden’s character is just as bad/worse than Trumps” argument blows my mind. So he’s a career politician. So was Lincoln. So was Jefferson. So was Reagan. So what? It’s easy to hate politics as usual. It’s messy and inefficient. It’s also largely worked out for us for ~240 years. I’m inclined to go with the establishment option vs the “burn it all down” one. Burn it down usually sounds good until you follow through with it and only after the fact realize you are left with nothing but ashes. 

Uhhhh.... Bidens history with racism, sex assault allegations with Tara Reade, the potential cover ups for his son (not just Ukraine but dozens of shady business dealings), his scetchy history on accepting graft from lobbyist, draft dodging (if trump draft dodged than so definitely did Biden), I mean, you can make a pretty good case he is a despicable human being. 

 

Edit: almost forgot plagiarizing through law school. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Uhhhh.... Bidens history with racism, sex assault allegations with Tara Reade, the potential cover ups for his son (not just Ukraine but dozens of shady business dealings), his scetchy history on accepting graft from lobbyist, draft dodging (if trump draft dodged than so definitely did Biden), I mean, you can make a pretty good case he is a despicable human being. 

 

Edit: almost forgot plagiarizing through law school. 

Allegations or charges? I can allege anyone to commit a crime, but if any level of prosecutor doesn't indict or a judge/jury doesn't find them guilty, they're just nothing more than allegations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Look, Biden certainly isn’t perfect. Far from it. There are any number of Democrats I would’ve rather seen run against Trump. But the “Biden’s character is just as bad/worse than Trumps” argument blows my mind. So he’s a career politician. So was Lincoln. So was Jefferson. So was Reagan. So what? It’s easy to hate politics as usual. It’s messy and inefficient. It’s also largely worked out for us for ~240 years. I’m inclined to go with the establishment option vs the “burn it all down” one. Burn it down usually sounds good until you follow through with it and only after the fact realize you are left with nothing but ashes. 

I'd QA which side is into "burning it all down." Not just literally, but figuratively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Allegations or charges? I can allege anyone to commit a crime, but if any level of prosecutor doesn't indict or a judge/jury doesn't find them guilty, they're just nothing more than allegations.

Allegations against Republicans are apparently enough to completely stop the press and focus on a story for days, weeks, or months at a time...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Allegations against Republicans are apparently enough to completely stop the press and focus on a story for days, weeks, or months at a time...

So, like Clinton’s impeachment for lying about banging/getting a blowie from an intern?

Edited by Sua Sponte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SurelySerious said:


Banging a subordinate? Sounds like something you’d expect a leader to be fired for.

Only if you’re Enlisted. Officers get “forced” retired and obviously enough Senators didn’t give a shit about a private matter to removed Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Only if you’re Enlisted. Officers get “forced” retired and obviously enough Senators didn’t give a shit about a private matter to removed Clinton.

It's the opposite in the USMC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

It's the opposite in the USMC. 

Yeah, they just interfere with court martials and due process of the accused (Amos with the Marines who pissed on the dead insurgent) and make, or allow, poor leadership decisions that violate safety and cost Marines their lives (Camp Bastion Attack).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Well the DOJ couldn’t legally indict a sitting president due to OLC “rule”, but since the House voted to impeach, that was considered somewhat of an indictment.

So why wasn’t Trump impeached for “Russian collusion”?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Prozac said:

 But the “Biden’s character is just as bad/worse than Trumps” argument blows my mind. So he’s a career politician. So was Lincoln. So was Jefferson. So was Reagan.

Historical sidebar, but your 3 examples are totally wrong.  Lincoln- soldier/lawyer.  Jefferson- plantation owner/ lawyer.  Reagan- actor.  None of the examples you gave were career politicians; all had successful careers before and outside politics.  

As Reagan said  “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.”

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Historical sidebar, but your 3 examples are totally wrong.  Lincoln- soldier/lawyer.  Jefferson- plantation owner/ lawyer.  Reagan- actor.  None of the examples you gave were career politicians; all had successful careers before and outside politics.  

As Reagan said  “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.”

You’re being a bit disingenuous here. Lincoln spent 30 years in politics. Jefferson over 30, and Reagan over 20. By any account they were all career politicians, regardless of how they got their start. As a matter of fact, off the top of my head, I can’t think of any prominent politicians who were elected prior to doing some sort of other work (I’m sure there are a few).  I don’t think “knowing so much that isn’t so” is an affliction that is limited to liberals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Once again...I’m asking:  Why wasn’t Trump impeached for “Russian collusion”?  

Here, I quoted the report because you either:

A. Can't Read

B. Are Stupid

C. Both (I assume C)

Quote

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Sorta hard to push impeachment for collusion with Russia, as it should be, when an independent commission found that Trump did not collude/coordinate with the Russian Government to interfere with the 2016 election.

Edited by Sua Sponte
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...