American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[GGG]

Originally Posted by dino7c

bbbbuuutt Biden

No,

No one disagrees with you that Trump sucked and if he got elected again would continue to suck.

That has zero relavence on how Biden should be evaluated. Using Trump as a barometer also sets the bar far too low for all future candidates.

The Bar for the behaviour and actions of a president is the best president not the worst president.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by GGG

No,

No one disagrees with you that Trump sucked and if he got elected again would continue to suck.

That has zero relavence on how Biden should be evaluated. Using Trump as a barometer also sets the bar far too low for all future candidates.

The Bar for the behaviour and actions of a president is the best president not the worst president.

[activeStick]

I don't even care much about comparing any president to other presidents. I'm judging the dumba55 statements that imply that America doesn't interfere with the elections of other countries. If America wants to be tough on countries that do that, fine, go at it, but they don't need to lie and pretend they don't do the same thing.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Mull

They're rubbing elbows with each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._United_States

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by dino7c

bbbbuuutt Biden

You realize this is the political equivalent of Liberal supporters deflecting criticism of Trudeau with "yeah, but Harper," right? It's partisan hackery at its finest.

[ResAlien]

Is dino the blue dog dem from Virginia that was so vehemently opposed to stimulus cheques or am I mixing them up with someone else? I’m a bit confused as to why they’re attempting to divert valid questions about the current administration with trump crap.

[rubecube]

I do love how the narrative went from "Don't criticize Biden before the election or Trump will win," to "Well you have to give him time before you criticize him," to "Don't criticize him because Trump might run in 2024."

I mean I kind of predicted as much, but I thought we'd at least get the midterms as an excuse not to criticize him before we recycled Trump again.

[Looch City]

Wrong again, the timeline is now "wait until August until we FOR SURE know that Trump won't be back!"

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Criticize away, I suppose, but I think the reaction is more of, "kinda dumb but it doesn't really change my opinion much" rather than, "don't you dare criticize our dear leader".

Is that not a fair reaction to the reaction?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I do love how the narrative went from "Don't criticize Biden before the election or Trump will win," to "Well you have to give him time before you criticize him," to "Don't criticize him because Trump might run in 2024."

He looks like sh-t lately, I don't think he's going to be in any condition to run in 2024.

2:00 minutes in if you want to see/hear the mess.

Spoiler!

[Senator Clay Davis]

I mean he basically just needs to be alive to be in condition to be the GOP nominee. If he says he's running I expect he runs unopposed or maybe some Never Trumper will take a shot and get humiliated. I think there's definitely reason to believe he won't be alive by 2024, but if he wants to run he's basically locked in as the nominee.

[troutman]

Despite Grand Jury Threat, Trump Can Still Aim For Presidency

https://www.barrons.com/news/despite...cy-01622065215

Would Donald Trump run for president under indictment? No charges have been filed, but a grand jury may bring findings this year that put the ex-president in legal jeopardy and pose grave risks to his 2024 ambitions.

Indictments, a conviction or even prison time would not bar any American from seeking the highest office, as there is nothing unconstitutional about a convicted criminal winning the White House, a number of experts told AFP.

[direwolf]

Oh he's definitely running in 2024. The GOP has no one else, so they're gonna cling to him as long as he gives them a realistic shot at re-taking the presidency. Trump's dead bloated corpse would probably still get the nomination at this point.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Oh he's definitely running in 2024. The GOP has no one else, so they're gonna cling to him as long as he gives them a realistic shot at re-taking the presidency. Trump's dead bloated corpse would probably still get the nomination at this point.

Old but relevant:

[rubecube]

Lol, remember when I got dumped on for calling out Biden's troubling rhetoric regarding anarchists last summer?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1405943810648117255

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Lol, remember when I got dumped on for calling out Biden's troubling rhetoric regarding anarchists last summer?

'Dumped on'. Yeaaaah, I just re-read that part of the thread. People engaged and responded to you.

You don't get to make fun of right-wingers for their victim complex anymore.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Lol, remember when I got dumped on for calling out Biden's troubling rhetoric regarding anarchists last summer?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1405943810648117255

If you oppose all forms of governing institutions and are threatening or acting in way in violation of the law or endangering human life it seems reasonable to tag you as an extremist

They even in part 5 add a free speech exemption.

What in particular do you disagree with?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

He looks like sh-t lately, I don't think he's going to be in any condition to run in 2024.

2:00 minutes in if you want to see/hear the mess.

Spoiler!

yeah he is gone this time for sure lol

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you oppose all forms of governing institutions and are threatening or acting in way in violation of the law or endangering human life it seems reasonable to tag you as an extremist

They even in part 5 add a free speech exemption.

What in particular do you disagree with?

I don't understand the need to add ideological agendas at all. It's a political move to classify these movements as inherently violent and terrorist in nature. The acts in and of themselves should be enough to constitute a domestic terrorist label, should they not?

That doesn't even just apply to the anarchists. It applies to the entire ideological spectrum they're identifying here. It's good for society to understand the ideologies behind terrorist attacks, but it shouldn't on its own be the difference between designating an act as terrorist or not.

Whether someone kidnaps their Governor is black or because their kid's school didn't get enough funding is really irrelevant. The act itself is terrorism.

I also wonder if adding these specific ideologies limits the scope of the designation to acts committed in the name of those ideologies, but I'll leave that for the lawyers to argue.

[rubecube]

Well at least they gave black people a national holiday instead of, you know, actually doing something substantive like protecting their voting rights.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/voting-...buster-sinema/

Washington — Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona on Monday defended the filibuster as the Senate prepares to take a procedural vote on a sweeping voting rights bill, saying the rule "compels moderation" and helps shield the country from policy swings or reversals driven by changing party control.

"Instability, partisanship and tribalism continue to infect our politics," Sinema wrote in an op-ed published by the Washington Post. "The solution, however, is not to continue weakening our democracy's guardrails. If we eliminate the Senate's 60-vote threshold, we will lose much more than we gain.