Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024. — Mr Bee

The fact people don't get decent choices reflects the USA is simply not a democracy. I would add complacency and arrogance also got you Biden in 2020. Entirely uninspired. They deserve the dog piling and the whining it's bad for Biden is not the media's fault but a direct consequence of their own arrogance. Democrats should just rename themselves to "never Trump" because that's what it's been about since Hillary.

That's 3 elections where voting is intended to stop Trump. It's insane the Democrats aren't capable of fielding candidates people actually like. Lichtman only considers this in terms of winning; I think there's more to elections than winning. It's also about why you're winning. This just further entrenches Dem vs GOP and sets up the terms for the next election which will not be about policy (again).

Biden has to go because he's unfit. Trump never should be the nominee but the GOP has been shit since Reagan.

Mr "absolute free speech" complains about people saying Biden should withdraw and calls it undemocratic. The hypocrisy. :rofl:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xT4YpIt9zLE

I still don't like him but it was well done indeed.

Aging is an issue for one of the most important jobs in the world and in Biden's case we're talking about dementia. He's a vegetable half of the time.

Seems like a good choice for running mate despite the one dimensional depiction of "white" poverty in Hillbilly Elegy.

That is obviously NOS4A2 calling out what he believes is hypocrisy: Trump incited an insurrection through words then Biden incited this attack through words. Anything else would be hypocrisy.

Because there's no way to resolve the territorial claims between Ukraine and Russia through diplomatic means as long as this stalemate persists. But this is a tangent. My point was, it's ridiculous to qualify every (or most) Trump voter(s) as "voting against their interest", "irrational" or "stupid".

I would've never opted for the communication that Ukraine would join NATO but now, yes, I most definitely would put boots on the ground in Ukraine to end that war as soon as possible.

Trump still thinks if he levies tariffs on Chinese goods that the Chinese pay them. — Wayfarer

I didn't say he was smart. I said it's the right thing to do. Chinese goods shouldn't compete with US or EU products unless they meet our EH&S standards as well. Until then it's just unfair competition that we're rewarding.

Should the risk of triggering a nuclear war between the country with the most nuclear weapons on the planet vs ‘the rest’ be a consideration? — Wayfarer

Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons is clear: only in defense of the motherland. As long as they stay clear of Crimea, it shouldn't be an issue.

I think Trump's stance on China and hitting it with tariffs is the only correct stance. It's ridiculous to give an autocratic country that oppresses its own people this much economic power and influence over our own economies, which it only reaches because it's not playing by the same rules as we expect of our own businesses.

I think the West's stance on Ukraine is cowardly. If Ukraine is to join NATO and Russia basically (predictably) attacks it because of those NATO statements, they should bear the consequences of those statements. Letting Ukrainians die and not being prepared to actually risk our own people is horrible. And if we're not prepared to stand up for our own security, we shouldn't antagonised Russia. Who knows what Trump would've done but it hardly could've been more callous than what happened now.

Not saying you have to agree with this assessment: but preferring Trump (or GOP) over Biden isn't the insanity people like to pretend it is.

I still think he should be in jail as well for J6.

does he? How are Ukraine and Israel going? Is China being handled properly?

Time will tell. If there's justice in the universe, there will be justice for J6. — fishfry

That's not how justice works. You have to actively work for it but I guess if you vote in the US you have to pretend justice is released like manna from the heavens because your political system is currently incapable of protecting it.

Instead you choose to judge Trump on his words, and not on his actions, which were in fact no different than Obamas. He used Obama's cages for God's sake, you can't say with a straight face that they were Lightbringer cages when Obama stuck kids in them and Orange Hitler cages when Trump did it. — fishfry

False.

Some cages were built by Obama and some children were separated under exceptional circumstances. Trump wrote a blanket policy to prosecute all illegal border crossers which resulted in a blanket separation of kids from their families. A lot more cages were build. There's your "action" to judge.

Biden, even in his old age, is hugely more competent and suitable for the role than Trump. But the issue is his electoral appeal, or absence of it. — Wayfarer

No he isn't. He's a vegetable halve the time and therefore he has no appeal. Don't dumb other voters down just because you think he's still competent. The arrogance everytime of telling other voters how they should think is astounding and definitely a contributory factor to the appeal of Trump.

Americans love fighters so Trump surviving this and his impeccable instincts with his fist pumping will win him the presidency.

Bunch of unarmed, peaceful protesters were invited in by the Capitol police, things got out of hand and a riot ensued.
— fishfry

:rofl: I see you're thoroughly misinformed nowadays. — Benkei

I have no clue why you started talking about cages. Maybe you have more in common with Biden than you think? :wink:

Perhaps you can explain what I'm misinformed about re the family separations and cages. — fishfry

Perhaps you should stick to the part I quoted?

Bunch of unarmed, peaceful protesters were invited in by the Capitol police, things got out of hand and a riot ensued. — fishfry

:rofl: I see you're thoroughly misinformed nowadays.

Threat. And he lobbed a few missiles at Syria. Drone strike against Soleimani. No new wars. He uses threats to keep the peace. I didn't call him a milquetoast. I called him a peacemaker. Based on results. No new wars. First prez in my lifetime who can say that. — fishfry

Love the cavalier attitude to the use of armed force. This really underlines my point. Let's pretend it's not a war and then it's ok. No matter that "war" isn't the appropriate legal term any more. No matter that the President can unilaterally decide to put soldiers, e.g. US citizens, into harm's way because "technically" it isn't a war. No matter that it's still armed aggression, which is prohibited under the UN Charter so the President is unilaterally deciding to breach treaties Congress signed up to. It's authoritarian and it was his primary M.O. with respect to international relations. Of course, other US Presidents have done the same thing but presenting Trump as a peace candidate is silly and not borne out by the facts.

And in our lifetimes, what president started no new wars? It was Trump. — fishfry

False. Look it up. Military intervention and threat was his primary foreign policy tool.

And yes, Republicans are more authoritarian than Democrats even if they both are. Only Republicans have had sitting presidents and advisors argue in favour of it and the unitary executive theory. Most recently in court. Or did you miss that?

Many of what? I'm talking about contemporary history; I didn't go further back than Reagan for my list!

Good luck with that. Most philosophers use it as a crutch to maintain dumb ideas like: anti-natalism, "god exists" and "murdering babies is fine".

I hardly see the GOP as authoritarian. Going back a ways, which of these postwar GOP presidents were authoritarians? Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump. Feel free to explain to me what these folks did that was authoritarian. I opposed the hell out of 43's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those wars never could have happened without the enthusiastic consent of the top Dems such as Hillary, Schumer, Biden, et. al.

In theory, the GOPs should be for free enterprise. Not that they really are, but that's more of libertarian sensibility. But I'm open to understanding you observation. When Obama ruled "with a pen and phone," was that the unitary executive? Or when the Supreme Court told Biden he couldn't transfer student loans to the taxpayers and he did it anyway, was that the unitary executive? — fishfry

You hardly see because it's a feature not a bug. But some things that have me grimace in distaste are the ability of US Presidents to:

• Rule by executive order (which have included travel bans, torture (Bush's classified "directive"), immigration, listening in on all data (for "security" EO 12333), healthcare reform and environmental policies).
• Veto legislation.
• Deploy troops in foreign territory without congressional authority (because technically it isn't a war)

Yes, this is absolutely authoritarian from the view of a European democracy. Unitary executive theory would take this even further.

What are and were the substantial policy differences between other GOP candidates and Trump? What exactly was the choice there?

I recall qualifying the 2020 election as a choice between two evils. One of those evils got a lot worse.

It clarifies once again that the USA doesn't qualify as a democracy. If the political system cannot produce choices beyond a vegetable and a criminal then quite obviously other people are in control what you get to vote on. We call that banana republics.

You don't have a left in the US. You have a slightly left of centre Sanders who is silenced by the Democratic Party which is itself right but not as authoritarian as the Republicans (unitary theory of government Bullshit).

Ok, so theoreticially possible but practically unlikely.

Dual career ladders are great but not enough companies have them. A good manager for true subject experts is basically having a secretary that does all the crap you don't want to do.

But why not? If an alternative candidate would stand he/she is allowed to try to persuade the pledged delegates because they aren't strictly held to vote for Biden.

That's what he must do - it can't be taken from him, he has to pass it on, and I'm sure he will. — Wayfarer

People keep saying this but contested conventions have happened. Isn't that a process where it can be taken from him?

If the files aren’t as one found them there is no way to know the contents are accurate. Not only that but they lied to the court about it. Looks like you’re parrottting Jack Smith verbatim. — NOS4A2

That's a dumb comment for a variety of reasons. How do they know the order changed? Because the FBI records. So we have a record of what was in it before the contents were shuffled. It's legally an inane point as to establishing what was kept and therefore no more than a delaying tactic. This was all from your link by the way. Maybe you should just learn to read instead of jerking off and getting excited because you think you're onto something everytime you read something critical about the government.

In fact, it’s a double lie because you refuse to mention (even suspiciously removing it from the sentance you quoted) the failings of that investigation as discovered in subsequent investigations. — NOS4A2

First of all, I'm only quoting you so far. I assume you remember what you wrote a few hours ago so not sure what you're going on about. Whatever failings the investigation had, none of them gave rise to indictments, and none of them discount the multiple crimes Müller established in his investigation. The lie was yours to pretend the Müller report was fraudulent and didn't establish any crimes. It did. Multiple ones.

His name is Mueller, not Müller.

Sorry, but “the investigation did not establish that the
Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities”.

What Kremlin influence on the presidency are you speaking about? — NOS4A2

It's Müller where I'm from since we actually know how to spell a German name, so tough luck. In any case, Müller has repeatedly refused to exonerate Trump and he did so for a reason. So it's a misrepresentation on your part because you fail to include the fact that while the investigation doesn't prove it, it's because they were frustrated continuously in their investigation. In other words it was neither wasteful or fraudulent and should've been investigated further.

That’s spoliation of evidence or mishandling of classified documents. What do you call it? — NOS4A2

Irrelevant. If you think the order of the files in a specific box has any relevance as to the evidence of the content of that box then please make a cogent argument to that effect but on the face of it, it's just another delay.

When a wasteful and fraud investigation didn't turn up Kremlin influence in the presidency — NOS4A2

This is a false representation of the Müller report. Stop lying.

The classified documents case might have occurred before the election had they not bungled it, tampered with evidence, or tried use it to influence the election. — NOS4A2

Not sure what you're referring to. Has there been a decision on this or are you just parroting Trump lawyers verbatim?

50 is old. Presidents should be 50 at the most. I'm 45 and I read a lot and make music so I can't say my brain isn't regularly used and I can tell my retention rate for information is a fraction of what it used to be. I can barely memorise new pieces and forget them in a few months after I do but will play your anything I learned when I was a teenager.

:lol: It's funny because it's true. But you'll get another candidate instead of Biden.

Here's Pelosi throwing Biden under the bus:

https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/pelosi-biden-s-mental-fitness-is-legitimate-question-recommends-interviews-with-serious-journalists-214089797740

I'm much more confident now that he'll be replaced before the election.

Probably not but hopefully you and others find the facts (or at least my interpretations of them) interesting.

It's not about the kill count. It's really sad that after so many pages of discussion you reduce the position of people on the other side of the debate to strawmen, kindergarten arguments. Maybe a philosophy forum isn't for you.

You're equivocating strong and weak with oppressor and oppressed. Which really is silly.

What's nonsense is having barely read the SCOTUS opinion is you having such strong opinions about it. The decision is fine and fully in line with what I would expect coming from a Dutch legal background. @Tobias maybe you want to have a look as well but I find the media reporting on this ridiculous and dissenting opinion confused.

Sure. But why would anyone need immunity from prosecution? Because they broke the law. Why would anyone want immunity? Because they did and they will.

Would you ever say to a parent, "Acting as a parent, you can not be prosecuted for anything you do to your child"? — tim wood

All civil servants have civil immunity. Judges and prosecutors even have absolute or qualified immunity.

"Acting as a parent, you can not be prosecuted for anything you do to your child"?

But this is exactly what happens. Anti-vaxxers get to not vaccinate their kids. Other people get to vaccinate. Some people teach them to believe in fairy tales. Some love their kids, some don't. You cannot be prosecuted for bad parenting, only for things that clearly fall outside of your responsibilities and obligations as parents. And the ruling is the same; everything a President does within the remit of the powers conferred to him is protected by immunity and even then they could be prosecuted if prosecuting poses no danger or intrusion on the authority and functions of the Edecutive Branch.