The Next President is...

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Prozac said:

I do think there is a certain “regular guy” charm to Biden. That said, I’ll concede that it was probably more about Trumps lack of electability just as it was Hillary’s major deficiency in 2016. 

Joe represented a return to a pre-Trump world. Politically moderate and not addicting to twitter bombs.

 

What people didn't foresee, including myself, is that Joe would become *more* rather than less progressive after the primary. Usually it's the other way around.

 

Personally, I believe that's due to a combination of two things: heavily relying on ex-Obama staffers, and his own cognitive decline reducing his ability to steer the agenda. 

[M2]

10 hours ago, Prozac said:

I do think there is a certain “regular guy” charm to Biden. That said, I’ll concede that it was probably more about Trumps lack of electability just as it was Hillary’s major deficiency in 2016. 

Biden a "regular guy?!?"  Who are you hanging around with?

And Trump's "lack of electability" was solely personality-based (mainly based on those "mean Tweets!").  Most on both sides will agree he's a pompous ass, but his actual record as president was quite worthy of re-election!

[lloyd christmas]

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

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

Thank you for being honest.  #orangemanbad 
 

[Prozac]

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. 

[Lord Ratner]

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.

[lloyd christmas]

5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

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

That’s exactly right.  Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are as pure as the driven snow. 

[VMFA187]

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?

[Prozac]

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 April 9, 2021 by Prozac
Clarity

[kaputt]

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. 
 

[hockeydork]

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

 

[FLEA]

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 April 9, 2021 by FLEA

[Sua Sponte]

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.

[VMFA187]

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. 

[VMFA187]

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...

[lloyd christmas]

1 hour 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.

Like Russian collusion?  

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

Like Russian collusion?  

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.

[Sua Sponte]

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 April 9, 2021 by Sua Sponte

[SurelySerious]

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

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

[Sua Sponte]

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.

[VMFA187]

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. 

[Sua Sponte]

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).

[HeloDude]

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”?

[tac airlifter]

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.”

[Sua Sponte]

38 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

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

Apparently you didn’t read the Mueller Report?

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

[HeloDude]

23 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Apparently you didn’t read the Mueller Report?

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

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