Is there anyone else better than Biden or Trump for President?

[SimplyMe]

And that really says it all....because most Trump appointees were immediately fired after Biden took office.

Nope, false. Basically, most resigned as of Inauguration Day. In one of the interesting notes, politically appointees (at least those on the top level) are required to submit resignations if a President is re-elected -- allowing a President to easily make changes for his second term without having to actual fire individuals (though, ultimately, most resignations are not accepted and asked to continue their jobs).

The Attorney General Trump appointed? Fired.

You need to check your history. AG Barr quit just prior to Christmas and no permanent successor was appointed.

The DHS secretary Trump appointed? Fired.

Again, resigned. Can you imagine what would have happened if he had not resigned and continued to work under the Biden administration? It is simple to say that he'd likely never work in a Republican administration again.

Nearly everyone Trump appointed to positions large and small....fired and told not to apply again under this administration.

Nope, after an incumbent President loses (or doesn't run), a notice is sent out that all political appointees are to resign from their current job. It's done every time -- the only difference with Trump is that, due to his election denial, the letter was sent out later than normal.

Wray? He got to stay. Biden clearly thought he was the right man for the job.

Again, false. Wray was not a "political appointee" -- it is expressly set up that way by US law. It is true that a President can fire them but they rarely are (another area where Trump broke norms). They are expressly granted a 10 year term but are only allowed one term. Wray would remain FBI director until the person that wins the next election reaches close to the end of their term, so he won't automatically be "fired" on the next Inauguration Day.

After all, when Trump was Nearly impeached for requesting an investigation into Biden's connections to the Ukraine? Wray could have easily squashed that by pointing out he possessed a deposition from a Burisma insider who claimed to have proof Biden took millions to fire Shokin for investigating Burisma. He didn't though....he kept his mouth shut.

Actually, he couldn't have. If I am seeing the story right, Smirnov did not approach the FBI until 2020, when Biden was running for President. Since Trump was being impeached over the Ukraine call in 2019, I'm not sure how the FBI director could have given information they didnt' have yet. But beyond that, after the claims were made the FBI checked on them and found that the story was a lie. They found his timelines for the contacts he had with Burisma officials did not line up to the claims Smirnov made and further found that he likely gave the story in an attempt to hurt Biden's candidacy.

Even more interestingly, when he was reinterviewed last year, he gave different details -- including how he got the story from Russians, not from people within Burisma.

He claimed he isn't supposed to interfere in elections. He did interfere with the election though....as he sent agents to FB and Twitter to convince them that the story of Hunter's laptop containing evidence of corruption and bribery was Russian disinformation. He knew it wasn't Russian disinformation though....because he had the laptop in his possession for a year at that point and knew it was all genuine.

He did? I'd love to see the evidence that it occurred. I've always heard it was former FBI officials who worked at Twitter that were guilty of doing it. Instead, the most I've heard of the FBI is that they sent agents (unclear what Wray even knew about this) to warn social media of possible Russian disinformation attempts -- that this happened prior to the Hunter Biden laptop story and did not mention any particularly story or either candidate.

Despite claims that the Democrats want to prevent the spread of disinformation...Wray not only didn't prevent the spread of misinformation, he helped the spread of Biden campaign disinformation. Then he also had an interest in protecting his own behind since he had dozens of agents embedded into Twitter at the time who were very busy ensuring that the opinions of ordinary citizens and experts were silenced online if they disagreed with Biden or his preferred narrative. It's a case so criminal it's been described by the judges overseeing it was the biggest violation of 1st amendment civil rights in US history.

Not quite true. First, perhaps I missed it, but I have seen no evidence this came from Wray. In fact, what happened is the FBI was about to admit it was true but were stopped by an FBI lawyer, who basically told them they could not comment on the story. The reason for this, despite the conspiracy theory you are trying to claim, is that the FBI has a policy not to divulge information that might affect an election in the 60-days prior to the election. Since the Trump campaign was trying to push the idea of Hunter's laptop was some type of "evidence" that Joe Biden was guilty of various crimes, the FBI thought it best to stay out of the politics. They did not "quash" the story, they merely refused to comment.

Of course, it is of further interest that nothing on the laptop proves any violations of the law by Joe Biden. I'm sure you'll claim that Joe was "the Big Guy" -- something that although re-affirmed by Bobulinski (who was working with the Trump campaign in 2020 when he originally claimed it) is disputed by others, including by the author of the email. Regardless, at most it shows Joe Biden allegedly involved as a silent partner in an investment deal with the Chinese when he was a public citizen, and as such it would not break any laws if he had. Beyond that, the deal ultimately fell apart, no deal was accomplished and no money was made. Yet, for some reason, it still seems to be believed to be the evidence that proves Joe Biden's corruption (despite zero evidence of it), instead of merely showing evidence of Hunter committing crimes.

I'm sorry....you must have meant to word that differently.

Are you saying that because a process exists for whistleblowers to come forward exists.....then that somehow shows you that "the president isn't controlling things"?

Is that what you meant to say or was it some sort of momentary lapse of thinking and you meant to say something else entirely?

I am assuming you meant to write something else because the above makes zero sense. Can you rewrite it in a way that reflects whatever you meant to say? If by some wild chance you did mean to write that....can you explain how those two things are connected in your mind?

One last point, since I can't comment on what the poster you responded to meant, it is not really true that the DoJ is controlled by the President. Instead, the DoJ (since Pres. Ford, because of Nixon's overreach) has internal regulations that set it up as an independent department -- one that does not take orders or direction from the President. It was an issue Trump was bothered by over and over, as both AG Sessions and AG Barr refused to act as his lackeys and do what Pres. Trump told them to do (such as prosecute Hillary). There is zero evidence that it has changed today, in fact, all the evidence is that Biden has remained out of all the various investigations -- and to further prevent tampering by Biden, the investigations have been placed in the hands of Independent Counsels who work independently of the DoJ and the White House.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe Barry Goldwater can help...

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Barry sounds like an anarcho-capitalist and since the name sounds familiar but I can't recall his deeds...I'm inclined to think he probably called himself a libertarian.

If I'm correct, I'm curious what happened to him? Libertarians are notorious for their short careers. I've also found it odd that libertarians and communists share...

1. A lack of understanding of economics.
2. The belief that government prevents people from being the best version of themselves.

I am also curious if Barry is familiar with one of G. Washington's first acts as president...the passage of a tax on spirits which the people of his newly formed republic rebelled against paying (ironic, isn't it?). Washington warned these men, then marched on them, and then put down the Whiskey Rebellion the way he knew best....with muskets and bullets.

Since then I'd suggest that the voter decide if this is a time for a talker....or a doer. Washington isn't known for his words...and that's fine....as his time called for a doer.

I think Machiavelli's The Prince is the only text to openly "tell it like it is" regarding an effective ruler....to both those who would rule and those who would be ruled....arguably the least Machiavellian thing one can do.

 

[sprknjc]

Sentiment in the last days and weeks of my actual voice talking with friends and family across the nation is neither Biden nor Trump is fit for office. From that, albeit here quite a small sample, learning from conversations more of them planning to do Republican write ins or voting for the independent Robert Kennedy Jr if both Biden and Trump end up being nominated by their parties this summer. If Kennedy (very possible) and Haley wins even a small number of electoral votes and the general election between Biden and Trump is close depending on piolitical fallout on each of the two between now and then (mental state unhinged and trials outcomes), and each Biden and Trump receive nearly the same number of electoral votes; then what happens if no one gets the 270 votes needed in the Electoral College to win the election in November?

With all the division and uncertainty, I think much of James 4:13-16 and Isaiah 40:31 .

 

[RoBo1988]

Barry sounds like an anarcho-capitalist and since the name sounds familiar but I can't recall his deeds...I'm inclined to think he probably called himself a libertarian.

If I'm correct, I'm curious what happened to him? Libertarians are notorious for their short careers. I've also found it odd that libertarians and communists share...

1. A lack of understanding of economics.
2. The belief that government prevents people from being the best version of themselves.

I am also curious if Barry is familiar with one of G. Washington's first acts as president...the passage of a tax on spirits which the people of his newly formed republic rebelled against paying (ironic, isn't it?). Washington warned these men, then marched on them, and then put down the Whiskey Rebellion the way he knew best....with muskets and bullets.

Since then I'd suggest that the voter decide if this is a time for a talker....or a doer. Washington isn't known for his words...and that's fine....as his time called for a doer.

I think Machiavelli's The Prince is the only text to openly "tell it like it is" regarding an effective ruler....to both those who would rule and those who would be ruled....arguably the least Machiavellian thing one can do.

Goldwater was a 1964 Republican president nominee, and a long time Arizona senator. He does sound like a libertarian, which is okay by me. The country needs a shift towards simplicity in government.

Calvin Coolidge said he would rather kill bad bills than pass good ones. More of this please.

A short bio of Goldwater.

Barry Goldwater - Quotes, Election & Death

Barry Goldwater was an American politician best known as a senator from Arizona and the Republican candidate for president in 1964.

www.biography.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sentiment in the last days and weeks of my actual voice talking with friends and family across the nation is neither Biden nor Trump is fit for office. From that, albeit here quite a small sample, learning from conversations more of them planning to do Republican write ins or voting for the independent Robert Kennedy Jr if both Biden and Trump end up being nominated by their parties this summer.

Barring a catastrophic medical event, both will be the nominees. There was a small chance that the RNC might replace Trump if he was convicted, but his recent move to take control of the RNC virtually eliminates that tiny chance. Trump-Biden II it will be.

If Kennedy (very possible) and Haley

Haley is unlikely to actively campaign for a write-in.

wins even a small number of electoral votes and the general election between Biden and Trump is close depending on piolitical fallout on each of the two between now and then (mental state unhinged and trials outcomes), and each Biden and Trump receive nearly the same number of electoral votes; then what happens if no one gets the 270 votes needed in the Electoral College to win the election in November?

It doesn't have to be nearly the same, just both under 270.

If no one has 270 there will be a contingent election in Congress. It will start on Jan 6th after the votes are counted and continue until there is an election. The House votes for President by state delegation and the Senate for Vice President individually.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What some call "tribalism" I see as the people waking up to the corrupt uniparty that gets their will regardless of who is in the majority

I don't see "tribalism" on the right. I know the left has devolved into individual tribes but they don't actually share any values or principles and are largely created around shallow superficial characteristics like race, sex (which certain tribes deny exists), gender (an imaginary characteristic which allows white people, the scapegoat of these tribes, to adopt a tribal identity without any visible signifiers of tribal identity. The tendency of the left to perceive themselves as members of various political tribes has caused them to label the right in similar ways....but these attempts at categorization tend towards the absurd and insulting rather than reflecting any political reality.

Consider recent attempts at creating a group on the right known as "Christian nationalists". Despite a rather serious attempt to create this group without any actual members....there's a handful of quotes from political or non-political figures that have managed to give credence to this otherwise mysterious and memberless group. Or my personal favorite the "MAGA cultists"....so dehumanized they are seen as a feral, drooling, violent group of bigoted white supremacist democracy hating neo fascists who worship Trump as a living god. Their views, problems, and beliefs are not to be considered or even discussed....to the point where even giving them a chance to speak these things aloud is considered a grave mistake. Indeed, they are considered an impediment to improvement, not people, so occasionally whenever the mask of the left slips....the solutions for such people involve indoctrination their children, deprogramming them, otherwise silencing them entirely politically, physically assaulting them at rallies, denying them service at public establishments, and even denying them work through demanding they be fired, boycotts of those who refuse to fire them, or denial of a job in the first place through discrimination.

Of course, none of these tactics have been very successful....so a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth are in our immediate future.

I don't see that. Virtually every candidate I want to support is gone before our state has a chance to vote, in every election cycle.

Indeed.

The only thing most of our representatives do well is to milk the "system" to reward their voters lobbyists, and of course, themselves.

If they reward their voters....that's a day to mark on your calendar.

"Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

That's certainly debatable. Other concepts that may have been too idealistic to succeed are multiculturalism and classical liberalism.

It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

The voters deciding the allocation of taxes is a fundamental feature of democracy....and it's unclear what exactly one would be voting on without it.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

I'm not sure what we would be voting for if not for how taxes are allocated. This is a distinguishing feature of democracy.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Ancient China was a regional superpower for 3000 years at least...

Rome wasn't built in a day.

These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
-Alexander Fraser Tytler

We're in 'apathy' at this point...

I'm not familiar with Tytler...but I'm sure his cyclical political history is off a bit.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Lowering Drug Prices and Investing in Infrastructure are Most Popular and Known Biden Accomplishments

Poll: Biden's Most Popular Accomplishments Include Lowering Drug Prices and Investing in Infrastructure

Polling data on Americans' latest awareness and attitudes towards President Biden's record since taking office.

navigatorresearch.org

30 Things Joe Biden Did as President You Might Have Missed

Drone armies, expanded overtime pay and over-the-counter birth control pills are just some of the new things Biden has ushered in as president that you might not have heard about.

www.politico.com

 

[BPPLEE]

I don't see "tribalism" on the right. I know the left has devolved into individual tribes but they don't actually share any values or principles and are largely created around shallow superficial characteristics like race, sex (which certain tribes deny exists), gender (an imaginary characteristic which allows white people, the scapegoat of these tribes, to adopt a tribal identity without any visible signifiers of tribal identity. The tendency of the left to perceive themselves as members of various political tribes has caused them to label the right in similar ways....but these attempts at categorization tend towards the absurd and insulting rather than reflecting any political reality.

Consider recent attempts at creating a group on the right known as "Christian nationalists". Despite a rather serious attempt to create this group without any actual members....there's a handful of quotes from political or non-political figures that have managed to give credence to this otherwise mysterious and memberless group. Or my personal favorite the "MAGA cultists"....so dehumanized they are seen as a feral, drooling, violent group of bigoted white supremacist democracy hating neo fascists who worship Trump as a living god. Their views, problems, and beliefs are not to be considered or even discussed....to the point where even giving them a chance to speak these things aloud is considered a grave mistake. Indeed, they are considered an impediment to improvement, not people, so occasionally whenever the mask of the left slips....the solutions for such people involve indoctrination their children, deprogramming them, otherwise silencing them entirely politically, physically assaulting them at rallies, denying them service at public establishments, and even denying them work through demanding they be fired, boycotts of those who refuse to fire them, or denial of a job in the first place through discrimination.

Of course, none of these tactics have been very successful....so a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth are in our immediate future.





Indeed.




If they reward their voters....that's a day to mark on your calendar.





That's certainly debatable. Other concepts that may have been too idealistic to succeed are multiculturalism and classical liberalism.



The voters deciding the allocation of taxes is a fundamental feature of democracy....and it's unclear what exactly one would be voting on without it.



I'm not sure what we would be voting for if not for how taxes are allocated. This is a distinguishing feature of democracy.





Ancient China was a regional superpower for 3000 years at least...

Rome wasn't built in a day.





I'm not familiar with Tytler...but I'm sure his cyclical political history is off a bit.

The way I heard it was that societies start with hunting. Then comes agriculture which means cooperation, large families to work the farms, traditional values and religion. Next comes industry, people move into cities, they don’t need large families and they move from religion to science.
Then somehow it leads to large deficits and socialism.
Something like that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Goldwater was a 1964 Republican president nominee, and a long time Arizona senator. He does sound like a libertarian, which is okay by me. The country needs a shift towards simplicity in government.

Calvin Coolidge said he would rather kill bad bills than pass good ones. More of this please.

A short bio of Goldwater.

Barry Goldwater - Quotes, Election & Death

Barry Goldwater was an American politician best known as a senator from Arizona and the Republican candidate for president in 1964.

www.biography.com

I know a lot of self proclaimed libertarians at work....but only 1 was able to come remotely close to explaining what a libertarian is. It's not a unique phenomenon to them. Here in the US there's no lack of people adopting or throwing around labels that they don't understand.

Libertarians ascribe to laissez-faire capitalism which is frankly a really bad version of capitalism. It runs into big problems very quickly and has no solutions for them. In short, not everything is a market, because not everything has the normal aspects of a consumer market like supply, demand, and choice....to drive innovation and lower prices.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lowering Drug Prices and Investing in Infrastructure are Most Popular and Known Biden Accomplishments

Poll: Biden's Most Popular Accomplishments Include Lowering Drug Prices and Investing in Infrastructure

Polling data on Americans' latest awareness and attitudes towards President Biden's record since taking office.

navigatorresearch.org

30 Things Joe Biden Did as President You Might Have Missed

Drone armies, expanded overtime pay and over-the-counter birth control pills are just some of the new things Biden has ushered in as president that you might not have heard about.

www.politico.com

It's remarkable that the infrastructure bill is touted as an achievement.

Whenever an omnibus bill moves through that quickly despite being too big to read, you can be certain of 2 things....

1. The donors wrote it.
2. It mainly benefits the donors.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't see "tribalism" on the right. I know the left has devolved into individual tribes but they don't actually share any values or principles and are largely created around shallow superficial characteristics like race, sex (which certain tribes deny exists), gender (an imaginary characteristic which allows white people, the scapegoat of these tribes, to adopt a tribal identity without any visible signifiers of tribal identity. The tendency of the left to perceive themselves as members of various political tribes has caused them to label the right in similar ways....but these attempts at categorization tend towards the absurd and insulting rather than reflecting any political reality.

Consider recent attempts at creating a group on the right known as "Christian nationalists". Despite a rather serious attempt to create this group without any actual members....there's a handful of quotes from political or non-political figures that have managed to give credence to this otherwise mysterious and memberless group. Or my personal favorite the "MAGA cultists"....so dehumanized they are seen as a feral, drooling, violent group of bigoted white supremacist democracy hating neo fascists who worship Trump as a living god. Their views, problems, and beliefs are not to be considered or even discussed....to the point where even giving them a chance to speak these things aloud is considered a grave mistake. Indeed, they are considered an impediment to improvement, not people, so occasionally whenever the mask of the left slips....the solutions for such people involve indoctrination their children, deprogramming them, otherwise silencing them entirely politically, physically assaulting them at rallies, denying them service at public establishments, and even denying them work through demanding they be fired, boycotts of those who refuse to fire them, or denial of a job in the first place through discrimination.

Of course, none of these tactics have been very successful....so a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth are in our immediate future.





Indeed.




If they reward their voters....that's a day to mark on your calendar.





That's certainly debatable. Other concepts that may have been too idealistic to succeed are multiculturalism and classical liberalism.



The voters deciding the allocation of taxes is a fundamental feature of democracy....and it's unclear what exactly one would be voting on without it.



I'm not sure what we would be voting for if not for how taxes are allocated. This is a distinguishing feature of democracy.





Ancient China was a regional superpower for 3000 years at least...

Rome wasn't built in a day.





I'm not familiar with Tytler...but I'm sure his cyclical political history is off a bit.

There actually are bona fide "Christian Nationalists." Those are the Dominionists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again...so what?

What do you mean so what?

Are you saying it doesn't matter that you're wrong?

The actions taken were not within the scope of his official responsibilities, so there is no immunity.

Whoa whoa whoa....here's what you said....


Not in the sense that Trump is arguing for. There is no specific provision in the Constitution or elsewhere precluding criminal prosecution for criminal acts taken while President after his term has ended.

You didn't say anything about "scope of official responsibilities".

You said "criminal acts taken after his term has ended."

Those are two wildly different arguments.

The first one isn't being made by anyone. I pointed that out so you can understand that you were wrong.

I don't want to end up in a circular discussion because you don't understand when you said something incorrect.

Do you understand that you were wrong or not?

As to the bit you highlighted...how am I wrong about that, exactly? If you feel there IS a "specific provision in the Constitution or elsewhere precluding criminal prosecution for criminal acts taken while President after his term has ended" perhaps you can cite that.

His term hadn't ended.

Why would I need to cite some exception to an argument no one is making.

Yup. How is that wrong, exactly?

His term didn't end on January 6th. It ended on January 20th.

Any legal arguments about the President's actions on January 6th have nothing to do with his actions "after his term has ended".

You keep asserting I'm wrong, and yet fail to show how I'm wrong.

I've shown it to you several times now. It's alarming you don't seem to understand it.

What is the day, month, and year that Trump's term as president ended?

Do you know the answer to this yet?

 

[A2SG]

What do you mean so what?

Are you saying it doesn't matter that you're wrong?

I'm not wrong. I said "so what" because when Trump's term ends has no bearing on the issue. Trump's legal team is arguing for absolute Presidential immunity, something the SCOTUS has already ruled on in US v Nixon: "neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

Whether or not they will reverse this decision remains to be seen, of course. But I doubt it.

Whoa whoa whoa....here's what you said....

Not in the sense that Trump is arguing for. There is no specific provision in the Constitution or elsewhere precluding criminal prosecution for criminal acts taken while President after his term has ended.

You didn't say anything about "scope of official responsibilities".

That's the limit of presidential immunity. From the above link, in the case of Mississippi v Johnson, the SCOTUS ruled they had "no jurisdiction . . . to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties."

Interfering with an election does not fall within those official duties. Thus, Trump can be prosecuted for doing it.

You said "criminal acts taken after his term has ended."

Those are two wildly different arguments.

You misquoted me there. What I said was: "criminal acts taken while President after his term has ended."

Trump interfered with the election during his term as President.

The first one isn't being made by anyone. I pointed that out so you can understand that you were wrong.

I wasn't wrong. You misquoted me, and misunderstood.

Try to refrain from doing that again, okay?

I don't want to end up in a circular discussion because you don't understand when you said something incorrect.

Do you understand that you were wrong or not?

I wasn't wrong. You misquoted, and missed the point. Not my fault.

His term hadn't ended.

Yup. I know.

Why would I need to cite some exception to an argument no one is making.

I based my comment on the argument Trump's team made in court (which lost twice), and is now making to the SCOTUS. You seem to think that interfering with an election comes within the President's official responsibilities, and is therefore subject to the limited immunity he has for his official duties. If you don't think so, then perhaps you could be clearer when explaining your position.

His term didn't end on January 6th. It ended on January 20th.

I know. You can stop pretending I ever indicated otherwise.

Any legal arguments about the President's actions on January 6th have nothing to do with his actions "after his term has ended".

I never said they did. You only think so because you misquoted me.

Stop doing that, and maybe we won't have a problem.

I've shown it to you several times now. It's alarming you don't seem to understand it.

I understand perfectly. You misquoted me.

What is the day, month, and year that Trump's term as president ended?

Do you know the answer to this yet?

Sigh.

Are you going to discuss the issue honestly, or do you intend to keep playing around with misquotes, pretending I said things I didn't say? I'm more than willing to engage with you in the former, but if it's the latter, you're on your own.

-- A2SG, can only take so much of the stiggying....