All_Pro_Bills Posted July 23 Posted July 23 (edited) 18 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I try to take people at their word here, unless there is obvious sarcasm. I’ve suggested a number of times that I enjoy Frank’s posts, but the level of disconnect I have seen between reality and his opinion of Biden’s fitness really surprises me. I'm willing to give people the benefit of a doubt and a second chance. Given that, I don't want to hear the same people that needed to get hit with the baseball bat of reality in the face to see Biden's mental and physical health for what it was to immediately buy into the narrative being peddled by party leadership that Harris is a wonderful replacement for Biden. Rather than what she is, a dull-witted opportunist that will bring no original ideas or thinking to the job and is nothing more than a new front man, or front women, peddling the same policies and agenda. Edited July 23 by All_Pro_Bills
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 23 Posted July 23 7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I'm willing to give people the benefit of a doubt and a second chance. Given that, I don't want to hear the same people that needed to get hit with the baseball bat of reality in the face to see Biden's mental and physical health for what it was to immediately buy into the narrative being peddled by party leadership that Harris is a wonderful replacement for Biden. Rather than what she is, a dull-witted opportunist that will bring no original ideas or thinking to the job and is nothing more than a new front man, or front women, peddling the same policies and agenda. I can’t fault people for loyalty to their party, and lining up behind the person with an agenda that benefits them or their family members. Kamala Harris thus far has shown to be a not very popular candidate. She had a miserable time when she ran in 2020, but she did the heavy lifting for the Dems (the character assignation of Brett Kavanaugh, for example), and was rewarded for it. She certainly can win this thing, dem voters overlooked the obvious issue with JB 4 years ago and virtually every day of his admin until a couple weeks ago. Of she offers enough goodies—and she will—they’ll move past whatever it was that bothered them the first time. True believers believe truly. 1
Coffeesforclosers Posted July 23 Posted July 23 (edited) Democrats candidate is bad and is losing. Democrats decide not to run a losing candidate. Democrats change candidate. Internet brains lose their *****. Trump campaign shocked that the people they called idiots stopped being idiots, at least temporarily. Race temporarily becomes interesting again. Grown ups watch internet brained NPCs throw equal and opposite talking points at each other Edited July 23 by Coffeesforclosers 2
The Frankish Reich Posted July 23 Posted July 23 5 hours ago, reddogblitz said: It impresses me how they did it. They didn't even try to couch it that they were worried about his health. Just he couldn't win. They all love Joe (or so they say) but not one said they were concerned about his health or ability. Just that he can't win. When did this become a thing? If the current president or would be nominee is losing in the polls, kick them to the curb. In my lifetime can think of several Democrats that everyone knew was going to get their doors blown but they didn't do this. I'm thinking Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. I know you don't want to hear it, but this is why political norms should be respected, not broken. Set aside the J6 riot (insurrection if you prefer) for a moment. What was really going on there was a cynical legal theory trying to exploit some gaps in the constitution and statutes regarding the VP's acceptance of state slates of electors. This was the Eastman memo. Mike Pence and his legal counsel rejected that theory as unconstitutional. But one side had "gone there," and there was no turning back. This will not be the last time a political party pulls the candidate substitution trick. The norms have been broken, and it's now "what can we get away with and remain in technical compliance with the laws." To the extent there is consideration of the norms, it is in everyone rallying around the VP as the replacement candidate. Of course, that may have more to do with identity politics than with paying some attention to what remains of the norms. Some day (and probably soon) we'll see that brokered convention when a scandal or some such thing breaks out involving a major party presidential candidate. "Conservatism" didn't used to be synonymous with breaking things or reactionary activism. It also had to do with following established norms. The old "don't tear down a fence unless you first understand why it was put there." There is now no party that really cares about that, and that's the new political world we have to live in. 2
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted July 23 Posted July 23 3 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: Democrats candidate is bad and is losing. Democrats decide not to run a losing candidate. Democrats change candidate. Internet brains lose their *****. Trump campaign shocked that the people they called idiots stopped being idiots, at least temporarily. Race temporarily becomes interesting again. Grown ups watch internet brained NPCs throw equal and opposite talking points at each other Coffee alights from his high horse to declare himself above it all. 1 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted July 23 Posted July 23 5 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: Democrats candidate is bad and is losing. Democrats decide not to run a losing candidate. Democrats change candidate. Internet brains lose their *****. Trump campaign shocked that the people they called idiots stopped being idiots, at least temporarily. Race temporarily becomes interesting again. Grown ups watch internet brained NPCs throw equal and opposite talking points at each other So glad you're here. I could never follow along without u.
Big Blitz Posted July 23 Author Posted July 23 Coerced. But yea everyone - it was for the good of the country. It was a coup - and keep telling yourselves that Trump really was committing crimes in office from Day 1. These people can do whatever they want. Like North Korea. 1 1 1
Big Blitz Posted July 23 Author Posted July 23 On 7/21/2024 at 3:09 PM, boyst said: OP change the title. He wasn't forced to drop. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 23 Posted July 23 45 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: It was a coup Was it a coup when LBJ withdrew from the presidential race? Was it a "coup" when Nixon resigned? Was it a "coup" when Spiro Agnew resigned, allowing Ford to be appointed VP, which in turn allowed unelected Ford to ascend to the Presidency when Nixon resigned? Or were these the orderly processes set forth by the constitution and statutes? This country is just like a West African state! Coup! Coup! Coup! 1
BillsFanNC Posted July 23 Posted July 23 1 hour ago, JDHillFan said: Coffee alights from his high horse to declare himself above it all. Too bad for coffee...there is only one KING.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 23 Posted July 23 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: I know you don't want to hear it, but this is why political norms should be respected, not broken. Set aside the J6 riot (insurrection if you prefer) for a moment. What was really going on there was a cynical legal theory trying to exploit some gaps in the constitution and statutes regarding the VP's acceptance of state slates of electors. This was the Eastman memo. Mike Pence and his legal counsel rejected that theory as unconstitutional. But one side had "gone there," and there was no turning back. This will not be the last time a political party pulls the candidate substitution trick. The norms have been broken, and it's now "what can we get away with and remain in technical compliance with the laws." To the extent there is consideration of the norms, it is in everyone rallying around the VP as the replacement candidate. Of course, that may have more to do with identity politics than with paying some attention to what remains of the norms. Some day (and probably soon) we'll see that brokered convention when a scandal or some such thing breaks out involving a major party presidential candidate. "Conservatism" didn't used to be synonymous with breaking things or reactionary activism. It also had to do with following established norms. The old "don't tear down a fence unless you first understand why it was put there." There is now no party that really cares about that, and that's the new political world we have to live in. Sure, politics should be clean, green and above board. We should all respect and demand normal, sensible standards be followed. You may not want to hear it, but standards of acceptable behavior vary greatly. Set aside Jan 6 for a moment ( a dark day in our nation's history, though questions remain on whether not the scales of justice operated fairly for all defendants). What happened in the lead up to the Trump inauguration on 1/20/2017, and continued thereafter, was the leveraging of emotions of the American people with historic distrust in a cold war adversary in a manner not seen since the days of Joseph McCarthy. The democrat leadership understood the hatred for the duly elected President, understood that their base would accept virtually anything said or done to Trump, and proceeded accordingly. The democrat party and many supporters cared little for unity, little for respecting the results of free and fair elections, and embraced the chaos. At the same time, sensible American citizens, intent on seeing through the agenda of the duly elected President, watched as one political dirty trick after another was launched, watched as the msm spread fanciful stories based on anonymous sources, and became increasingly frustrated with this new version of attempting to remove the President from office. Conservatism, as it turns out, is not something that fits neatly into a box, or that is defined by one individual based on his/her expectations. I cannot recall a time when I read, or signed up for, a passive and apathetic mindset when the events of 2016+ are viewed in the context of the actions of the opposition to free and fair elections and acceptance thereafter. What you seem to consistently lobby for is not conservatism, it's acquiescence. Certainly, it would be nice if after Trump was elected, the world did not go sideways, if many people who who voted for HRC didn't lose their minds, fully and completely embrace election denialism and national discord, but things did not play out that way. That they were surprised to see a similar, though admittedly more aggressive version of a stolen election scandal, reveals a lack of understanding of human emotion and the nature of escalation. It was completely predictable. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 23 Posted July 23 (edited) 17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Sure, politics should be clean, green and above board. We should all respect and demand normal, sensible standards be followed. You may not want to hear it, but standards of acceptable behavior vary greatly. Set aside Jan 6 for a moment ( a dark day in our nation's history, though questions remain on whether not the scales of justice operated fairly for all defendants). What happened in the lead up to the Trump inauguration on 1/20/2017, and continued thereafter, was the leveraging of emotions of the American people with historic distrust in a cold war adversary in a manner not seen since the days of Joseph McCarthy. The democrat leadership understood the hatred for the duly elected President, understood that their base would accept virtually anything said or done to Trump, and proceeded accordingly. The democrat party and many supporters cared little for unity, little for respecting the results of free and fair elections, and embraced the chaos. At the same time, sensible American citizens, intent on seeing through the agenda of the duly elected President, watched as one political dirty trick after another was launched, watched as the msm spread fanciful stories based on anonymous sources, and became increasingly frustrated with this new version of attempting to remove the President from office. Conservatism, as it turns out, is not something that fits neatly into a box, or that is defined by one individual based on his/her expectations. I cannot recall a time when I read, or signed up for, a passive and apathetic mindset when the events of 2016+ are viewed in the context of the actions of the opposition to free and fair elections and acceptance thereafter. What you seem to consistently lobby for is not conservatism, it's acquiescence. Certainly, it would be nice if after Trump was elected, the world did not go sideways, if many people who who voted for HRC didn't lose their minds, fully and completely embrace election denialism and national discord, but things did not play out that way. That they were surprised to see a similar, though admittedly more aggressive version of a stolen election scandal, reveals a lack of understanding of human emotion and the nature of escalation. It was completely predictable. I will grant you this: the norm about potential criminal investigations of a sitting president was broken by Newt and the Republicans vs. the Clintons. And since turnabout is fair play in politics, the Democrats did the same thing with Trump. (I will note that the Trump-Russia investigation was at least tied to electoral politics, whereas the Clinton-Whitewater thing wasn't.) In retrospect, the impeachment over the Ukraine matter was a mistake. I thought it was warranted at the time since it struck me (and still does) as a clear abuse of power. But strategically (particularly since he would never be impeached/removed from office) an error. The post-January 6 impeachment was necessary and appropriate, and it is shameful that Republican Senators did not vote in favor of impeachment. But that one exposed a flaw in the constitution: what do you do when the President commits a high crime or misdemeanor in the waning days of his presidency? Now with the Supreme Court's decision piling on, the answer is: nothing. He gets away with it if his party's Senators hold the line. January 6 was, again, not about the riot/"insurrection." It was about a radical reading of the powers of the Vice President to reject properly-certified electoral results from the states. The riot was about intimidating Mike Pence to do something he thought was beyond his powers. Good on Mike Pence. It really would have worked for Trump if Pence had done Trump's bidding. The only other check was the Supreme Court, and Lord knows what they'd have done. It was based on a cynical deliberate misreading of the VP's powers, which in turn was based on unproven (still to this date unproven) allegations of voter fraud. That Mike Pence didn't let this happen should be celebrated, not condemned. He allowed a critical norm to remain in place. But you see what I'm saying. That in turn made it easier for the Democratic leaders to think outside the box, to look for a loophole of their own. And they found it. The primaries are, at their core, beauty contests. Those electors can switch to someone else if the pressure is sufficient and if there's time before the party certifies a candidate. I'm sure there were old school lawyers and Democratic leaders who said, "but we can't do that; that's contrary to everyone's understanding of how this process works, and it will lead to the same kind of pressures in the future, for us and for our opponents." That is a conservative view. It didn't hold. Don't be so quick to tear down those fences for immediate political gain. Edited July 23 by The Frankish Reich
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 23 Posted July 23 56 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Was it a coup when LBJ withdrew from the presidential race? Was it a "coup" when Nixon resigned? Was it a "coup" when Spiro Agnew resigned, allowing Ford to be appointed VP, which in turn allowed unelected Ford to ascend to the Presidency when Nixon resigned? Or were these the orderly processes set forth by the constitution and statutes? This country is just like a West African state! Coup! Coup! Coup! We have not seen Biden in almost a week, and we have no idea who wrote his resignation letter, except to say it was definitely not his signature. If it was a coup what would be different? 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 23 Posted July 23 3 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: We have not seen Biden in almost a week, and we have no idea who wrote his resignation letter, except to say it was definitely not his signature. If it was a coup what would be different? If it was a coup, he wouldn't be President anymore.
Coffeesforclosers Posted July 23 Posted July 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, JDHillFan said: Coffee alights from his high horse to declare himself above it all. I did no such thing, Sir! And I demand satisfaction for your dastardly imprecations! Excellent use of "alights" btw. 2 hours ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: So glad you're here. I could never follow along without u. It's why I write at a 5th grade level. Edited July 23 by Coffeesforclosers 2 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 23 Posted July 23 5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: If it was a coup, he wouldn't be President anymore. So you actually believe he is making decisions right now? But to my point so long he remains the president in name it is not a coup even if he has no power to make any decisions? 1
Recommended Posts