I know that headline will get some heads-a-blowing. So be it. It’s true.
A CNN quickie poll of debate watchers conducted by SSRS found that the majority of registered voters who watched the debate believed that Biden lost in in a 67% to 33% split. 69% of Democratic debate watchers actually said that Biden won the debate.
There is no accounting for opinions or taste, but saying that Biden won last night’s debate cannot be defended except as dishonesty, denial, or insanity. If that performance won, how could Biden have lost? By simply lying supine on the stage, farting and drooling? With these people —69% of Democrats!—maybe they would have even called that winning. Fine, they could say that they won’t change their minds about the candidates just because Biden lost the debate, since they have been brainwashed into thinking Trump is Satan. They could say that Biden lost the debate but still has their trust that he can handle the job for four years, as absurd a position as that is. However, they cannot say that Biden won the debate unless they completely redefine “won” as “made a complete fool of himself and embarrassed his party, his supporters and his country.”
That 69% figure as well as 33% of the total group polled need to be immediately installed in the Bias Makes You Stupid Hall of Fame.
Another stat from the poll: a 57% majority of debate-watchers said they had no real confidence in Biden’s ability to lead the country, meaning that an astounding 43%, having watched Biden give the nation a primer on “how to tell when your parents need to be placed in a home,” do have confidence in Biden’s ability to lead the country.
How is that possible? I wouldn’t expect a responsible parent to have confidence that the guy we saw last night had the ability to be a baby sitter. 100% of everyone who saw that debate should know that Biden lost it and that Biden is clearly not able to lead the U.S., because nobody who is that addled and confused (even with a cold) isn’t even able to lead a scavenger hunt. It isn’t a partisan issue. It’s a matter of seeing something with unavoidable and obvious implications, and having the courage, intelligence and honesty to correctly identify what one has seen.
As for voting for a candidate who has revealed himself as that disabled, I get it: the Trump Deranged and Knee-Jerk Democrats would vote for a Pet Rock if it was on the ballot as the alternative to Trump. This reminds me of several posts I wrote in 2016 explaining why I would be voting for, ugh, Hillary Clinton despite being certain that she was corrupt, dishonest, diabolical and untrustworthy. I compared her opposition, Trump, to a lower primate aspiring to fly a passenger jet. I wrote, using that analogy more than once, that even a flawed human pilot was preferable to the chimp, so in my view, I had no choice but to vote for Hillary over a candidate whom I viewed as lacking any positive character traits that I associate with American Presidents, a contempt for ethics, and no relevant experience for the job.
But then the DNC emails were hacked. I learned that the nomination process had been rigged, and that Clinton had been fed questions for a CNN “town meeting” by a CNN employee in advance. That, together with the Obama Justice Department letting her get away with mishandling of classified documents and the spoliation of evidence made me realize that it wasn’t merely Hillary but her entire party that was corrupt, and worse than corrupt, was determined to achieve and hold power while distorting our democratic processes. I wasn’t going to vote for the chimp to pilot the plane, but I wouldn’t vote for both an untrustworthy candidate and her anti-democratic party. I wrote-in my vote.
Trump is no longer the chimp: he proved in his first term that he could pilot the plane, much to my surprise, and now has the experience he lacked in 2016. To me, he is to Biden as Hillery was to him with one material difference: this time, the lower primate pilot also leads the anti-democratic party, which since 2016 has become even more dangerously totalitarian. Indeed, the White House and its allied media’s efforts to deceive the public regarding an aging leader’s weaknesses is redolent of Red China’s fake photos of Mao swimming and the Soviet Union’s propping up of a series of doddering Politburo veterans as figureheads.
After watching Biden last night, I can understand a Democrat holding her nose and voting for Trump. I can understand a horrified partisan staying home and not voting, or casting a vote for a third party candidate, or, as I did in 2016, writing in someone else’s name . (I came very close to writing in Biden’s name.)
But to vote to keep the chimp in the pilot seat with a metaphorical plane full of souls, that is indefensible, logically and ethically. What matters is, Biden’s the chimp. That he wasn’t always the chimp, that one really, really hates the alternative to the chimp—none of these justify actively allowing the chimp to keep flying the plane.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m just hoping for an Act of God. In both directions, preferably.
I voted for Biden. I find it irresponsible to vote for him again, I think it’s irresponsible for the Dems to have Biden as his candidate. He needs to be replaced.
I am now waiting on your post about Trump’s falsehoods he put forth during the debate.
At least Biden was honest.
Read the previous post and the comments. He wasn’t honest. His misrepresentations were more substnantive than Trumps. In addition to repeating the “Very fine people” lie AGAIN, Biden…
said his tax plan would take in an additional 500 billion in a 10 year period.
It wouldn’t.
He said that 500 billion would cover Trump’s debt.
It wouldn’t.
He said you don’t need a degree to make $100,000/year making semiconductors.
You do.
He said that Trump wants to end Social Security.
Trump has never said that.
He said that he wouldn’t increase taxes on people earning less than $400,000.
He did.
Biden said that no service members have died under his watch.
There have been. [That from commenter Humble Talent]
Biden also said Trump told people to inject themselves with bleach. He never said that. Biden said no service men had died during his presidency. Not true.
There were other whoppers. The trope that Trump lies and Biden doesn’t is itself a lie, and you shouldn’t be fooled by.
Some of those, like the soldier line, are legit whoppers. Others, like the semiconductors claim, I have trouble seeing as substantial at all. And others are disputed numbers that I would like to see an actual fact check for. Saying Trump wants to end social security is an opinion. And you didn’t compare this to any of Trump’s lies.
I feel that people here are looking for any excuse to argue that Biden is more dishonest or a more unethical leader than Trump. The debate certainly provided lots of people with plenty of excuses to make that claim. But the people looking for that were going to vote for Trump anyway. Biden’s performance may have convinced some people to stay home, but there are still months to go. Trump is not getting any less corrupt or selfish. And Biden is still the better choice.
So, Trump’s lies are eeeevil, but Biden’s lies are gooder!
Isn’t that just the inverse of what Jack is saying? That Trump’s lies aren’t as serious as Biden’s?
Great! Now where’s the post going over Trump’s lies?
the thing is: we don’t agree on what the lies are.
both of them exaggerated when they said, “I/you was/ were the best/worst president ever.”
there were numerous examples of that regarding the economy, etc.
those are not lies. In the law, it would be puffery. In the real world, it’s just boasting; it is not rational to expect Trump (or Biden) to say “I/you oversaw the third best/worst economic recovery in the history of the country/last 150 years.”
and, Biden’s fumble over visiting the cemetery in France for WWI veterans (pretty sure he meant WWII veterans). Not a lie, but, if Trump had said that, it might have been tagged as such. Biden misspoke. The problem is: he likely misspoke because he is impaired, not simply because he fumbled his words.
-Jut
I agree. But EA put together a list of falsehoods spoken by Biden, so I would expect to see a list of falsehoods spoken by Trump.
Keep it fair and balanced.
in this post?
he gave a list in this post? (Serious question because I a skimming at this point).
and, because this is specifically a post about Biden’s support.
Trump’s lies was a theme for the Left.
Biden’s lies have not been a theme for the right.
so, expecting symmetrical treatment may not be called for.
highlighting Biden’s “lies” serves to highlight the hypocrisy of the Left.
considering that the Left has spent years tabulating Trump’s “lies,” I don’t expect Jack to do that.
-Jut
Yes in this post in the comments.
The great thing about a comment section is you are free to list the lies you believe Trump told if you think that’s missing from the discussion. If something is missing from the discussion, add it. Your comments until now are just whataboutism.
Jack is listing the lies during the debate, but interestingly, Trump’s lies are no where to be found. He also said Biden’s lies were “more substantial”
I wonder why that is.
But here:
Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump made false and misleading claims during CNN’s presidential debate on Thursday – but Trump did so far more than Biden.
Trump’s repeat falsehoods included his assertions that some Democratic-led states allow babies to be executed after birth, that every legal scholar and everybody in general wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, that there were no terror attacks during his presidency, that Iran didn’t fund terror groups during his presidency, that the US has provided more aid to Ukraine than Europe has, that Biden for years referred to Black people as “super predators,” that Biden is planning to quadruple people’s taxes, that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 National Guard troops for the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, that Americans don’t pay the cost of his tariffs on China and other countries, that Europe accepts no American cars, that he is the president who got the Veterans Choice program through Congress, and that fraud marred the results of the 2020 election.
“I wonder why that is.”
It is because the media is listing alleged “Trump lies” and the Biden cover-up camp is letting him get away with saying that he tells the truth.
First warning: Don’t state or imply that I am writing in bad faith. I’m not, you’re a guest here, and I don’t tolerate insults from my guests.
And sometimes one warning is all you get. Capiche?
Good list. The “abortion to the moment of birth” lie is particularly repellant and substantive to me. No one has ever presented a single example of this happening, and it’s leading to laws being passed that are harming pregnant women going through horrible medical dilemmas with no remedy.
“No one has ever presented a single example of this happening.” This is 1005 wrong, and, as is too ofetn the case, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Ralph Northam, while governor of Virginia and a MD, said, discussing late term abortions, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” In other words, if the mother wants a live-born “severely deformed” baby killed, they kill it. You can’t spin this, and more than one friend of mine who is a physician confirms the practice of post live birth hospital killings for liability reasons. You want to argue about the term “executions?” Fine. But don’t sa there is noevidence that this isn’t done. It is done. A lot. Trump was not lying.
At least five of your “falsehood” are contrived “lies” in which the meaning is clear and accurate.
Regarding babies being killed after birth: “executed” was a poor word choice, but Trump was talking about late term a abortions. Several Democratic strongholds, like DC, have no limits on abortion at all and no restrictions on the reasons for the abortion. An abortion in the 9th month of a viable fetus is indistinguishable from killing a newborn child. Moreover, and I have been todl this by hospital workers, a late term aborted child who survives is routienly killed as a matter of policy and liability. And Virginia Governor Northam, a physician, admitted as much.
2. That fraud marred the 2020 election is an opinion, and a legitimate one. It is not a lie. Trump believes it. There are good reasons to.
3. Trump was wrong on the details, but he was correct that Pelosi as Speaker was responsible for Jan 6 security and yet did not activate the National Guard for “optics” reasons. And she has admitted as much.
4. Biden never used the tern “super-predators” —that was Hillary—but he had used the term predators in a racially suggestive manner. You really want to call that mix-up a lie?
5. I already debunked the “legal scholars” nit-picking in another thread. Just Trumpian hyperbole. Most legal scholars not tied to the abortion movement admit that Roe was a poorly reasoned opinion. And it was.
3.
But you said Biden’s lies were more substantive, but they weren’t. Biden is more honest than Trump and a better human being. That’s why I’d still rather vote for Biden.
I was just hoping for more balance here.
“a better human being”
You’re something. You write something completely subjective and biased like that, and then say you want balance. You don’t want balance. You want Left-wing cant.
You just flunked “The Stupidity Rule” from the Comment policies.
HI! It’s me, your host and Mad Commenter Banner! “Bio Student has triggered the EA “Stupidity Rule” (several times, actually.)The Stupidity Rule holds that some people are just too ignorant or stupid to take part in the discussion here, and interfere with the orderly exchange of opinions and ideas. It is invoked at my discretion. My guess is that Bio Student is about 15, or if not, he argues at that level.
He or she is banned. I should have done it earlier.
Don’t respond to any future illicit comments. There is one that came in after this one, and I responded to it. That one is Ok for a response.
In other words, if the mother wants a live-born “severely deformed” baby killed, they kill it.
This is infanticide, and illegal in every state in America. That’s one major falsehood Trump told during the debate.
Trump said ““Hard to believe, they have some states passing legislation where you can execute the baby after birth. It’s crazy”
This is not true.
During the debate Trump said “So that means he can take the life of the baby in the ninth month and even after birth”
This is not true and illegal.
I just explained how it is true. And it is (though obviously after birth it is no longer legal, just unenforced).
You mean “doesn’t want.”
I didn’t say it was legal, I said that in a state where late-term abortions occur, it happens. You read the Northam quote. What do you call that? (Withholding life-saving care is identical to killing.) I have written several times about the Hensel Twins, who are basically a two-headed woman. I have asked two medical professionals what would have happened if another mother gave birth to such an extreme deformity and did not want the child/children. They both said that in all likelihood the twins would be humanely allowed to die. It is one of many reasons we don’t have freak shows any more. So called “monsters” don’t survive the hospital.
I’ve often heard the claim that voting third party is “throwing your vote away.”
After actually seeing a couple elections and watching what makes a “battleground” state, the optimal pattern is to vote third party or opposing party _whenever_ your preferred candidate is expected to win your state.
If you’re in California and you vote Democrat, your presidential vote is thrown away. If you’re in Wyoming and you vote Republican, you’re throwing your vote away.
If you vote to “even the playing field” and your state is reliably always in party X’s pocket, your actually voting for an increase in electoral power for your state.
Is there a difference between a president that works to hide character traits that are treated as disqualified in another who is more transparent? I don’t think so.
I keep hearing from Biden that Trump is a threat to democracy and a threat to our freedoms. Why cannot I get an answer as to what evidence there is for such a claim. I do know that the Biden administration has worked to prevent disfavored information from being published or uttered. I know that his administration is trying to prevent me from making choices regarding the type of energy I can use for transportation or other household activities. I know that his administration has been rebuffed by the SCOTUS yet ignores their rulings. I know that it appears that there are two systems of lower court justice in certain federal courts that favor his supporters. Giving favorable benefits to those working in public service or organizations disproportionately supportive of his administration seems like a vote buying scheme. And it goes without saying that if given the opportunity this administration would eliminate the 2nd amendment.
I am open to anyone giving me evidence that Trump behaves like a dictatorial president. I would like to know how reducing the growth of federal rules and regulations reduces my freedoms more than Biden’s expansionary regulatory agencies.
So far I have heard nothing on how Biden supports the claims Trump is a threat to our democracy and freedoms.
Oh, the evidence, as usual, that he’s a bad guy and says stuff, and that putting the Democrats out of power is itself a threat to democracy. Beyond that, it’s the whole “insurrection” narrative.
“Why cannot I get an answer as to what evidence there is for such a claim.”
Look up Project 2025.
“I do know that the Biden administration has worked to prevent disfavored information from being published or uttered.”
The Supreme Court, including conservative justices appointed by Trump, just tossed out such a case based on lack of evidence.
“I know that his administration is trying to prevent me from making choices regarding the type of energy I can use for transportation or other household activities.”
That’s not true.
“I know that his administration has been rebuffed by the SCOTUS yet ignores their rulings.”
Be speciifc. Which rulings has the Biden administration ignored?
The SC has said the Executive branch cannot forgive student loans. Biden continues to try to expand the student loan forgiveness programs.
The SC said that the eviction moratorium was unconstitutional, but that the case they were examining lacked standing because the moratorium was about to expire (I may be misremembering why the case was essentially put on hiatus). So what did Biden do right after that ruling? Extended the moratorium.
There are probably many others but those are two just off the top of my head.
That is not what the Supreme Court said.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/22/politics/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court/index.html
And I’m sorry if I don’t put “forgiving student loans” on the same moral playing field as “trying to stay president for life in order to avoid prison.”
just tossed out such a case based on lack of evidence.
perhaps I should revisit the text of the ruling. I understood it that the court ruled that the accused behavior was not happening now and was unlikely to be predictable as to happening in the future… Which is different than lack of evidence.
Lack of standing and lack of evidence are two different things.
Project 2025 is a policy recommendation from the Heritage Foundation and is not evidence of a threat to Democracy. It could be a threat to tyranny however. Simply because it does not comport with your ideals does not make it tyrannical. I have taken an excerpt from the defense portion as an illustration of what is typically found in that document. Instead of pointing me directly at some part that diminishes citizen liberties you instead just point to a document that is a compendium of recommendations by conservative think tanks.
“The bloated DHS bureaucracy and budget, along with the wrong priorities,
provide real opportunities for a conservative Administration to cut billions in spending and limit government’s role in Americans’ lives. These opportunities include privatizing TSA screening and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government, eliminating most of DHS’s grant programs, and removing all unions in the department for national security purposes.
A successful DHS would:
Secure and control the border;
Thoroughly enforce immigration laws;
Correctly and efficiently adjudicate immigration benefit applications while
rejecting fraudulent claims;
Secure the cyber domain and collaborate with critical infrastructure sectors
to maintain their security;
Provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and
preparedness;
Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
Secure our coasts and economic zones;
Protect political leaders, their families, and visiting heads of state or
government; and
Oversee transportation security
Next point:
“I do know that the Biden administration has worked to prevent disfavored information from being published or uttered.”
The Supreme Court, including conservative justices appointed by Trump, just tossed out such a case based on lack of evidence.
The SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing. They did not rule there was a lack of evidence. You either are lying or mistaken. There is plenty of evidence that various agencies attempted get information it did not want competing with its narrative by seeking to label it disinformation. Hell, they even employed the infamous singing disinformation lady until the it became a public problem.
From the BBC
The Supreme Court has rejected a case claiming the Biden administration illegally coerced social media platforms into taking down posts about Covid-19 and the 2020 election that were considered misinformation.
Five social media users, along with the attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri, had brought the case, saying the Biden administration’s pressure on companies like Facebook and X, formerly Twitter, violated the constitutional right to free speech.
In Wednesday’s 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said the plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to sue.
The three most conservative justices opposed the decision, with Justice Samuel Alito publishing a blistering dissent that spanned 34 pages, where he wrote that this may be “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years”.
Even though the ruling was on a technical issue and not the heart of the case, it was a win for President Joe Biden.
Point 3
“I know that his administration is trying to prevent me from making choices regarding the type of energy I can use for transportation or other household activities.”
That’s not true.
2035 CAFE requirements will effectively make us reliant on electric automobiles. These overweight expensive cars, made significantly from materials that China enjoys a monopoly in ownership does force me at some point to buy their preferred product. The administration does not have to prohibit the use or manufacture of a product but it is working to distort cost benefit analysis through unnecessary regulation on the manufacture and sale of goods that use fossil fuels as energy sources – Montgomery County MD just banned the sale of gas powered leaf blowers and use will be banned next year. Try buying an incandescent light bulb over 40 watts. Biden did not ban that Obama did. DOE is pushing for gas ranges to be phased out. When it became known they pulled it back to only be commercial units. It is just a matter of time. Without pushback it would have become law through the regulatory body.
“I know that his administration has been rebuffed by the SCOTUS yet ignores their rulings.”
Be speciifc. Which rulings has the Biden administration ignored?
Student loan forgiveness comes immediately top mind
In 2021 the SCOTUS ruled Biden must continue the Remain in Mexico initiative started under Trump. He ignored it until this past month when it was part of his get tough on the border initiative.
Now please be specific as to how Trump will destroy democracy. It seems to me the only people trying to prevent the people from making independent choices are the Democrats.
You’re intentionally choosing the most innocuous parts of Project 2025. It calls for banning porn. That violates the first amendment. You have the right to free speech under the constitution—you don’t have the right to buy certain types of lightbulbs (the pettiest shit imaginable, my god). It calls for banning trans people from the military and ending all workplace protections for LGBT people. Yes it calls for mass firings of government bureaucrats, but only so they can be replaced with right-wing ideologues. This is about power, not rights.
Most alarmingly, it calls for eliminating the independence of the DOJ and for the President to give direct orders about who to investigate and prosecute. In other words, they want Trump to do exactly what they have falsely accused Joe Biden of doing: to order the prosecution of political rivals.
First, the Heritage Foundation is no different than Brookings, Southern Poverty Law Center or any other progressive think tanks.
We need to end the myth that the DOJ is independent. Garland and Holder are the president’s wing men giving him aid and cover. If Heritage advocates for prosecuting those who violated laws what is the problem. It was progressives who campaigned to “get Trump”. The number 3 guy at Justice Colangelo resigns to go work on the Trump prosecution in NY.
If we have a bloated bureaucracy, it makes sense to reduce the numbers for efficiency. If we have employees trying to undermine the duly elected administration they should be terminated as well. You assert they want these people replaced with right wing ideologues with no factual evidence. If you rely on the fact that new people may be hired who support the administrations agenda that does not make them right wing ideological borgs. What you seem to want is left wing ideologues in government.
The focus of the military should be on ensuring superiority. I don’t care if we have an entire military of trans people if they can win wars or defend the country. I don’t believe that taxpayers should have to pay for the change. I also believe that women should be subject to the draft.
”We need to end the myth that the DOJ is independent. Garland and Holder are the president’s wing men giving him aid and cover.”
Garland has by all accounts slow-walked the investigations into Trump. He was extremely hesitant to have the DOJ look like they were on a partisan witch hunt and thus appointed a Republican special prosecutor to look into the Trump cases. There are multiple degrees of separation here and no evidence of interference by Biden.
Garland also kept on the Republican special prosecutor hired by Trump to investigate Biden himself. There is no evidence that Biden or Garland pressured Hur to drop his investigation. Contrast this with how Trump behaved with Jeff Sessions, whom he fired for recusing himself from the Russia investigation as he was ethically required to do given his personal involvement in the case. Trump also threatened to fire Robert Mueller but only backed down after White House counsel threatened to resign. Well, he won’t have to worry about any such threats or recusals this time with the people he hires.
And of course, there is the fact that Biden’s own DOJ just successfully prosecuted Biden’s son Hunter. Again, with zero interference by Joe Biden.
The independence of the DOJ is not a “myth.” It is a norm that has been followed by both Democrat and Republican administrations. It is necessary precisely because the president is not above the law. When he or his close associates and family members break the law, Americans deserve to know they will be investigated and punished if necessary, in a fair and non-partisan way. If the DOJ isn’t independent, then we can have no such guarantee. Biden has kept to this norm as we can see in the special counsel investigations against both himself and Trump, and in the DOJ prosecution of his son. Zero evidence that Biden interfered in any of these. Trump, as I’ve demonstrated, threatened that norm like no other president since Nixon, but he did not succeed in destroying it; however, the people he will hire in a second term are either committed to helping him do so or are too weak to stop it.
You said Trump will get a VP who will do his bidding to keep him “President for life”. That is not a direct statement but is derived from 2 points you made. In 2022 Congress included amendments in a spending bill that reformed the electoral college to eliminate the arguments that Eastman was suggesting. It eliminated the VP’s ability to reject a slate of electors who had been challenged by up to 2020 by Democrats.
As for the DOJ, Hunter was initially given a sweetheart deal giving him immunity for everything by David Weiss the DOJ attorney who also allowed many more serious criminal allegations to expire by statute. The firearm charges were just too much of a slam dunk to ignore.
Before you tell me that Weiss was a Trump appointee he was a DOJ attorney put forth by Chris Coons who had veto power over any attorney Trump may actually want.
You know full well that if you do not investigate you won’t find direct evidence. Congress has uncovered considerable evidence that Biden was influence peddling and using Hunter as his bag man. Unfortunately, the DOJ has no interest in investigating the Biden family as it does going after Biden’s opposition. We do have evidence that prosecutors going after Trump from NY and Georgia had meetings at the Whitehouse. What was purpose of those meetings and explain Collsngelo’s departure from the DOJ and taking a demotion to be part of the team of ex DOJ lawyers working with Alan Bragg.
”Congress has uncovered considerable evidence that Biden was influence peddling and using Hunter as his bag man.”
No, they haven’t. Their star witness turned out to be a literal Russian spy who lied to the FBI. Come on.
It was both a standing and evidentiary issue. Amy Coney Barrett said that the plaintiffs had not shown any link between government action and the decisions of social media companies.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/amp/
As for how Trump specifically will destroy democracy: if a Democrat wins office in 2028, Trump will once again demand his VP decertify the election. Except this time, his VP will not be Mike Pence; it will be someone who will concede to that demand. Trump’s number one requirement for his VP this time will be that they say they would not have done what Mike Pence did, which Trump sees as a betrayal, since he puts loyalty to himself above loyalty to the Constitution. Decertification will likely cause a constitutional crisis, and if Trump ends up appointing more justices during his second term, we cannot say with confidence they will side against him.
This may sound ridiculous, but if I had told you five years ago that Trump would tell Mike Pence to decertify the election in 2020, leading to a riot on the Capitol, that would have sounded ridiculous too. But it happened.
”In 2021 the SCOTUS ruled Biden must continue the Remain in Mexico initiative started under Trump. He ignored it until this past month when it was part of his get tough on the border initiative.”
Wrong. It was a Texas district judge who ruled Biden must continue the Remain in Mexico program. The Supreme Court ruled he did not have to continue it.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/29/supreme-court-migrant-protection-protocols-remain-mexico-biden/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled,way%20through%20U.S.%20immigration%20courts.
I concede that I was mistaken on that point
To expand on JunkMailFolder’s list—
It is true that the Biden administration is dictating that I drive an electric vehicle in spite of their limited range and high price and that charging it would stress an electric network to the breaking point, and they want to make me stop using natural gas (or propane) to heat my home and cook my food. My state, ruled by Democrats, has outlawed my use of gas-powered equipment like chainsaws and weed eaters.
So, Not a Lawyer, Biden is dictating how I manage my property and what I use for transportation. It is plain to see to anyone who is not a troll. Get a life.
Biden is not “dictating you drive an electric vehicle.” That’s nonsense. It’s a lie.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/government-verify/epa-biden-not-banning-gas-diesel-cars-trucks-in-united-states-like-afpm-ads-claim/536-cd452577-9862-4aad-970f-738f1848c7d9
That is disingenuous. It’s like saying that the federal government did not mandate a 55mph speed limit back in the 70s.
No, technically the government is not proposing to ban gas powered cars. They are raising emission standards so high that car companies will not be able to sell gas powered cars. That’s how the federal government bans things without actually banning things.
If EVs were such a great thing, people would flock to buy them. Look at cell phones, look at home computers and now laptops. The government didn’t have to mandate that people buy these new inventions — they filled a need and people lined up to get them.
We’ve all heard the expression — That’s the greatest thing since sliced bread!
Where do you think it came from? Well, I’ve had the opportunity recently to check on it — it turns out bread slicing machines were first introduced just under a century ago, in 1928. It was a technological breakthrough and came just after the introduction of the pop-up toaster, and it took the country by storm.
How many loaves of bread do we buy nowadays that are not sliced by the baker?
We give $7500 to people who buy an EV and it’s still a very niche market. It is very questionable whether EVs actually result in lower total emissions compared to gasoline cars.
So no, the federal government is not ‘banning’ gasoline cars — they are just just trying to make it impossible for car companies to sell them.
If, as, and when EVs are capable of filling the needs of drivers at an economical price — well, then maybe they’ll start to catch on. That day is not yet on the horizon.
actually NaL may be right Biden may not be dictating policy. We have forgotten that Obama is pulling his puppets strings.
a few days ago, a Facebook friend posted something about preferring to vote for a decent human being who sometimes misses the mark than a cruel sociopath.
I concluded she was not planning to vote this year.
She responded that she would vote for Biden if he were brain-dead.
citing Wilson and FDR, I observed it was sort of a Democrat tradition, even as they derided Reagan’s onset of dementia.
her response was simply that the alternative was unpalatable.
I have held my tongue, which wants to explain how grossly irresponsible the Party’s nomination of Biden (and any vote for him) is.
last night’s performance more than confirms that (though he did perform better than I expected: no catatonic deer in headlight gazes)
-Jut
“By simply lying supine on the stage, farting and drooling?”
Somebody pissed my pants.
“It’s a matter of seeing something with unavoidable and obvious implications, and having the courage, intelligence and honesty to correctly identify what one has seen.”
Credit where credit is due:
MONEY QUOTES (from career Lefties! [bolds/caps/italics mine throughout]):
Former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe: “(a) DEFCON 1 moment”
Former Obama administration speechwriter Jon Favreau: “Obviously that debate was a F***ING DISASTER,”
Former Obama national security spokesperson Tommy Vietor: “It’s F***ING INSULTING to people who care deeply about the country and know how much is on the line,”
Former Obama senior advisor David Axelrod: “I think there was a SENSE OF SHOCK, actually, at how he came out at the beginning of this debate. […] I think you’re going to hear discussions that I don’t know will lead to anything but there are going to be DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE SHOULD CONTINUE.“
And for the everLUVin’ coup de grâce/kill shot, we’ll toss it mover to Former White House national security adviser Ben Rhodes: “TELLING PEOPLE THEY DIDN’T SEE WHAT THEY SAW IS NOT THE WAY TO RESPOND TO THIS.”
PWS
Nice work, Paulie. But the people you’ve quoted are not INSIDE the Biden cabal or the DNC, you know, the group that is running the country and Charlie McCarthy, er Joe Biden. They and the paid disrupters polluting EA of late don’t give a shit what any of these people think.
Reality check y’all. This post was actually about JOE BIDEN. So… quit dodging. This is #2 (Whataboutism) on the amazing list Jack developed. At this point, both parties are defending undefendable people. He doesn’t have to call out Trump’s lies when the post is not at all about him. It’s hilarious to me how Trump has become this omnipresent entity. No matter what you begin with, the comments always go to Trump.
The mythological “TRUMP!” the Dems have created is all they have to run on and against. See the talking point/misdirection where they all chant in unison at Sam Kinison volumes, “Yeah, Biden’s demented, but Trump lies!”
They might as well be repeating, to infinity, a la Pee Wee Herman, “I know you are, but what am I?”
Well, here’s somebody who’s still voting for Biden, the debate not withstanding: (18) Biden Lost the Debate, But I’m Still Voting for Him (thebulwark.com)
Adam Kinzinger. Hilarious. I bet he’s representative of most Democrat voters.
OB
I have come to the conclusion that DC attracts two types of people. I believe there are some who come to government to help shape an agenda in which they believe. Another group comes to DC and chooses to be on a side they believe will provide them the greatest reward. Biden and Kinzinger and others are in the latter camp. Trump is a bit unique insofar as I believe he derives immense satisfaction in being on top. However, unlike others who make political choices based on what side they believe will vanquish the other he is not in it for the power, prestige and money that attaches to the people in power.
NaL made a point about how many in the administrative class left the Trump administration relative to Biden’s. I can postulate two reasons: one Biden’s technical subordinates are actually the ones making policy decisions so leaving would vitiate any accrued power they gained whereas Trump’s subordinates were often used simply to validate Trump’s strategy. And two, if you believe the administrative state will chew up and spit out the guy you are working for it is rational to jump ship like a rat and align yourself with another group that will give you cover to protect your long term economic interests as a high paid government consultant, appointee or employee.
I tend to respect those who will hold fast to their core beliefs when they are losing even if I don’t agree with those beliefs. It is a mark of integrity. Biden in my mind has none.. Trump is lacking in that department as well but his vacillations tend to involve peripheral issues not core beliefs.
”However, unlike others who make political choices based on what side they believe will vanquish the other he is not in it for the power, prestige and money that attaches to the people in power.”
You have GOT to be kidding me. He’s one of the most transparently selfish people on the planet. He ran in 2016 for the attention. He refused to accept his loss in 2020 because he can’t accept defeat and didn’t want to lose power. And he’s running now to stay out of prison. All he talks about is how great he is and how much everyone loves him, and how anyone who doesn’t is a loser or human scum. As for money, he exploited his office for money, including foreign money, many times. If you think Trump has any “core beliefs” and he’s in this for the good of the country, I don’t know what to tell you.
Chris,
As always, a thoughtful post. I agree with your suggestions regarding the motivation of government staffers and politicians with a minor opinion difference involving Trump. In his first presidential run, initially, I didn’t believe he was in it to win it. He was in it for attention and to make a statement regarding his displeasure with the country’s direction. When it became possible that he might win, I believe his ego took off, but I also think he felt he was uniquely qualified to save the country he loves.
Unfortunately, his presidency became a Greek Tragedy. Trump’s tragic flaws contributed to this but so did his deficient leadership skills and the relentless scurrilous persecution of him by the dishonest media and the Washington cabal of politicians and bureaucrats from both parties.
My concern with him now is I feel he is no longer pursuing a noble cause. I fear his motivation this time is vindication and retribution. Unfortunately, regardless of the election outcome, we the people will be ill-served and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it. The constant warring by both candidates’ supporters will serve no purpose except to further divide our fractured country. Regrettably, our folly will be rewarded with what we deserve.
Last evening a friend asked if I watched the debate. I replied not really. I explained that we live in New York State and NYC will decide who the state supports. As such, my opinion is irrelevant so why get excited about the election? He agreed and we had a pleasant evening without discussing politics. I urge others to do their part to stop adding to the chaos.