RiverDog wrote:I'm not so sure Biden runs again. Close aides say that he's extremely distraught over the fact that he's less popular than the man he believes to be the worst POTUS in the history of the country, not to mention that he turns the big Ate Oh this fall.
curmudgeon wrote:Could be surprise “performances” by Stormy and Avenatti……
RiverDog wrote:I'm not so sure Biden runs again. Close aides say that he's extremely distraught over the fact that he's less popular than the man he believes to be the worst POTUS in the history of the country, not to mention that he turns the big Ate Oh this fall.
I-5 wrote:Source for 'close aides'? Did they use the word 'distraught' or is that yours? My assumption is Biden couldn't care less about his popularity....since he isn't a NARCISSIST.
I-5 wrote:Melodrama aside, whether he’s ‘frustrated’ or ‘distraught’, I see this president as more interested in making decisions for the good of the country more than poll numbers. Why do I think that? He was asked if he would accept the results of the election if he lost (a ridiculous question only made relevant by the narcissist 45th POTUS), and without any hesitation answered ‘yes’. I see him as way way more interested in legacy over poll numbers, and doing the best he could given what he inherited. He’s a very imperfect president but not corrupt or narcisístic, and most importantly, he listens to his cabinet. I’m not convinced he’ll run again at his age, either.
RiverDog wrote:Except that he hasn't really made any decisions other than to impose sanctions on Russia and his only piece of legislation that he's been able to get through, his "Build Back Better" bill, has contributed to the inflation we're having to deal with today. His solution for high gas prices was laughable, ie a strongly worded letter to the Big Oil execs. And if he signs onto this move for a gas tax holiday idea that's being floated, he'll make things worse by driving up the demand for gas without increasing supply. I do think he made a solid choice for SCOTUS, but I don't like the way he went about it, ie eliminating 95% of the candidates based on their race and sex.
I agree that Biden is leaps and bounds better than #45, that he's a decent, honest man that is more concerned about the country than he is of his legacy, and I'll be forever grateful for him giving the nation a giant enema and purge the White House of that POS. But at some point, we need some sort of justification for him other than his name isn't Donald Trump.
RiverDog wrote:Except that he hasn't really made any decisions other than to impose sanctions on Russia and his only piece of legislation that he's been able to get through, his "Build Back Better" bill, has contributed to the inflation we're having to deal with today. His solution for high gas prices was laughable, ie a strongly worded letter to the Big Oil execs. And if he signs onto this move for a gas tax holiday idea that's being floated, he'll make things worse by driving up the demand for gas without increasing supply. I do think he made a solid choice for SCOTUS, but I don't like the way he went about it, ie eliminating 95% of the candidates based on their race and sex.
I agree that Biden is leaps and bounds better than #45, that he's a decent, honest man that is more concerned about the country than he is of his legacy, and I'll be forever grateful for him giving the nation a giant enema and purge the White House of that POS. But at some point, we need some sort of justification for him other than his name isn't Donald Trump.
Aseahawkfan wrote:The only person I want in office less than Biden is Trump. But at this point I'd rather have Bill Clinton back than Joe Biden, maybe even Obama but he was lacking experience and connections in D.C. to get things done.
RiverDog wrote:I can think of a lot of possible candidates, both Democratic as well as Republican, that I'd want in office less than Biden. For starters, there's Hillary, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Ron DeSantis, and Greg Abbott.
But I'd definitely take both Bill Clinton and Obama vs. Biden.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I'd vote for DeSantis over Biden in a heartbeat. I don't know enough about Abbott to take him. I know he won office in a wheelchair. I'd actually be somewhat interested to see Sanders in office. He's kind of a wild card. Probably couldn't get much done, but he'd at least be interesting. I think his ideas are more interesting than Biden. Hilary I might take over Biden mainly because of her husband's influence. I'll give you Harris.
I've read on DeSantis. He's not near the crazy people try to paint him as. He kept his calm in the storms he's dealt with. And governed Florida in a way that kept the state functioning through COVID. Contrary to the left's belief, he did listen to the science on COVID. A whole lot more than a lot of liberal states did. Which is why he didn't pursue exactly the same methods even with a huge elderly population. I'll definitely be open to DeSantis in 2024 with a good VP candidate if he manages to win the nomination. He's not a Trump follower, but at the same time knows how to walk the line with Trump. DeSantis is also former military, which I personally prefer. The left has gone real hard to take DeSantis down and so far they have failed. If you read up on the man closer, you see why. He walks to the beat of his own drum and tends to run Florida in a way that makes them unique. He's not anti-Science or anti-tech save in their political stances. I would welcome a younger, progressive Republican who isn't a Trump Puppet or someone the left can easily destroy.
RiverDog wrote:I'd vote for DeSantis over Biden in a heartbeat. I don't know enough about Abbott to take him. I know he won office in a wheelchair. I'd actually be somewhat interested to see Sanders in office. He's kind of a wild card. Probably couldn't get much done, but he'd at least be interesting. I think his ideas are more interesting than Biden. Hilary I might take over Biden mainly because of her husband's influence. I'll give you Harris.
I've read on DeSantis. He's not near the crazy people try to paint him as. He kept his calm in the storms he's dealt with. And governed Florida in a way that kept the state functioning through COVID. Contrary to the left's belief, he did listen to the science on COVID. A whole lot more than a lot of liberal states did. Which is why he didn't pursue exactly the same methods even with a huge elderly population. I'll definitely be open to DeSantis in 2024 with a good VP candidate if he manages to win the nomination. He's not a Trump follower, but at the same time knows how to walk the line with Trump. DeSantis is also former military, which I personally prefer. The left has gone real hard to take DeSantis down and so far they have failed. If you read up on the man closer, you see why. He walks to the beat of his own drum and tends to run Florida in a way that makes them unique. He's not anti-Science or anti-tech save in their political stances. I would welcome a younger, progressive Republican who isn't a Trump Puppet or someone the left can easily destroy.
All I need to know about DeSantis is that he's pro Trump. That's my litmus test for any R candidate. I won't even read their statement in the voter's pamphlet if they're pro Trump.
NorthHawk wrote:Anyone not voting Democrat in this election is voting to give away democracy.
It's that simple.
The Republicans will abuse any power, gerrymander any district, and make any law that will give them power to the point of overruling the voters in some states.
We've seen this playbook over the last 10 years and it's at a critical point. If they aren't stopped now, you are going to look back in 10 years and wonder what the hell did we do.
RiverDog wrote:All I need to know about DeSantis is that he's pro Trump. That's my litmus test for any R candidate. I won't even read their statement in the voter's pamphlet if they're pro Trump.
Aseahawkfan wrote:We'll discuss this more when we see how the midterms go. I expect big Republican losses due to the Roe vs. Wade decision. I don't think Trump will want to run in 2024 if the Democrats take Congress. He won't be able to get away with his trash if the Democrats take Congress and he'll be even more open to prosecution or political censure.
I don't expect you to vote for any current Republicans because no non-Trump supported Republican has a chance of winning the presidency right now. That's just the reality of our situation. If you won't vote for someone that at least garners Trump's support, you won't be voting for a mainstream Republican until Trump is dead. But it won't change that a mainstream Republican like DeSantis is a strong candidate and one who can pull the Republicans back from crazy land.
I-5 wrote:Except Riv, what Hutchinson described under oath about Trump’s actions before and on Jan 6 do rise to crimes, and if it can be corroborated, could easily lead to an indictment of Trump by the DOJ.
Aseahawkfan wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/politics/cassidy-hutchinson-statement/index.html
One of Hutchinson's claims is already being undermined. If they undermine even one, they will discredit much of her testimony and open holes for lawyers in defense.
It's times like this where I seriously wonder if the Republicans are sending in disinformation witnesses to the January 6th Committee to undermine the investigation. They send someone in like Cassidy, have her provide testimony, then seed some testimony that can be undermined, which will lead to the undermining of her entire testimony on purpose just to set the committee up to fail. I guess we'll see if the Secret Service comes on to refute this.
There is no end to what either party will do to set the other side up in my opinion.
I-5 wrote:I don't think one refutation from the SS that they're willing to testify undermines ANYTHING about her testimony. Can we all agree that nothing said in the media counts for shite, and the only thing that counts is what is said under oath? Since the only witness to the lunging incident is the Deputy Chief of Staff and the driver himself, they can deny it happened, but it doesn’t mean she’s lying. Her testimony is that she was in the West Wing listening the Deputy CoS tell the story and that Engel was present. I’d like to see them deny telling her that - then one of their testimonies will for sure be false.
Why is it most republicans are loathe to testify under oath - or am I wrong about that? Hillary for all her flaws, sat through hours and hours of testimony under oath. Republicans trying to tear down a former Trump staffer are all taking shots in the media, but so far none under oath.
I-5 wrote:And I’m saying it depends what exactly the SS is refuting. Her testimony is that she was TOLD about the incident by Ornato (Deputy COS). If Ornato and Engel do testify under oath, they can say it never happened, which doesn’t change her story but if they’re saying that Ornato never told the story, and Engel denies being in the room, then they in essence are saying she’s lying. I’d like to hear that.
What is the most damaging is not the lunging incident, but the firsthand testimony she gave about directly hearing Trump tell security to do away with the magnetizers and allow armed protestors into the event, and her eyewitness testimony quoting him saying he knows they won’t hurt him.
RiverDog wrote:
IMO Ms. Hutchinson shouldn't have even testified to the lunging incident, especially given that she didn't actually witness it. As you said, that incident, if it happened, doesn't do anything to support any of the potential criminal charges that the Justice Department may take up, so why even mention it? It's like the temper tantrum of Trump throwing dishes around when he heard Bill Barr say that there was no evidence of election fraud. Will the Justice Department prosecute Trump for damaging government property?
The committee allowed that testimony to take place because it was sensational and would have an impact on viewers/voters, which is one of the reasons why I was originally against the formation of this committee. Now they've opened themselves up to criticism that it's political theatre and not a true, fact finding investigation.
RiverDog wrote:
IMO Ms. Hutchinson shouldn't have even testified to the lunging incident, especially given that she didn't actually witness it. As you said, that incident, if it happened, doesn't do anything to support any of the potential criminal charges that the Justice Department may take up, so why even mention it? It's like the temper tantrum of Trump throwing dishes around when he heard Bill Barr say that there was no evidence of election fraud. Will the Justice Department prosecute Trump for damaging government property?
The committee allowed that testimony to take place because it was sensational and would have an impact on viewers/voters, which is one of the reasons why I was originally against the formation of this committee. Now they've opened themselves up to criticism that it's political theatre and not a true, fact finding investigation.
I-5 wrote:You and I both know full well that they were calling political theatre before it began. Her credibility is intact unless and until we hear otherwise under oath.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests