Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

272 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      110
    • Maybe
      73
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      110
    • Indifferent
      42


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

Is it possible to impeach Trump civilly, and then prosecute him criminally after he gets out?

I thought people can sue each other both criminally and civilly to get around double jeopardy.

You can't "sue someone criminally"

A lawsuit by definition is a civil action.
Going after someone criminally isn't a lawsuit. Its a prosecution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

 


I've been a very harsh critic of Pelosi's position against opening an impeachment inquiry and siding more with the AOC wing of the party pushing to get on with it, but I think I'm starting to see Pelosi's gameplan here. And it isn't a bad one.

...here's the scenario...

The House votes to impeach. It goes to the Senate. Trump is now essentially 'on trial' in the Senate; the impeachment process against a president ostensibly being the legal parallel to a criminal case against a private citizen. 

The subject matter of the trial in the Senate is Trump's knowledge of and involvement with the illegalities committed by his campaign during the 2016 election, and improper use of office to obstruct a federal investigation.

The Senate votes to acquit him on everything; its controlled by partisan Republicans who are going to do a party-line vote and no matter what comes before them will not cast a vote to convict their own president.

Trump's presidency then ends via the normal, non-impeachment process of his term expiring. 

Trump post-presidency is then arrested, indicted, and criminally prosecuted as a private citizen in the Southern District of New York.

The subject matter of the prosecution is Trump's knowledge of and involvement with the illegalities committed by his campaign during the 2016 election, and improper use of office to obstruct a federal investigation.

Trump's lawyer walks into Court and says: "Judge. The State can't bring this prosecution. Your Honor will recall that there was identical subject matter tried before the Senate. Trump has already been found not guilty on these exact same criminal allegations in a quasi-judicial hearing. Its double jeopardy."  

The Judge Says: "Yes. Thats right. Case dismissed."

And Trump walks. 
________


Thats the case against impeachment.

If you have one shot and only one shot to make the criminal case against Trump; you better hit him with your best shot.

The thinking now is that post-presidency indictment is the best shot, because a Judge is going to build a record and follow the evidence and apply the facts to the law. The Senate isn't. 

So the game plan has to be preserving the case to get it in front of a judge. 

I'm still leaning towards the idea that the integrity of Congress as an institution and the ability of lawmakers to preserve their role as a check on executive power at the very least requires an impeachment inquiry in The House.

The danger of course is that if Trump is operating the way he's operating and there is no impeachment inquiry, then Congress has set the precedent for future administrations that this is the level of criminality a White House can operate at without triggering impeachment. The behavior becomes normalized. ('norms' are just constraints on the aberrant that last until their disuse makes the aberrant the new normal) 

But I understand what Pelosi is playing at.  She's not entirely out on a ledge here. 
 

That actually makes sense but I'm not convinced that this is exactly how Pelosi sees it.You gotta remember that there's more criminal shit that Trump is involved in than just what's on the Mueller report which is what the Democrats are laser-focused on. I agree that because of the Senate makeup effectively makes the Senate trial beneficial for Trump but I think one way you can go about it is to have some articles of impeachment for SOME of his criminal acts and withhold charges on some of the others so that SDNY can use those later. Using at least some of the ammo to push forth the impeachment process would at least put Republicans in a position where some of them will have to flip and some will stay in support of Trump.

Those that stay in support of Trump will effectively lose people voters that aren't the most rabid among Trump's base and give a window of opportunity for flipping more Senate seats to non-Republican which is what is needed for 2020.

 

Reason why I don't think Pelosi sees it that way is because Trump's presidency has benefited both her and her donors. Secondly, she's one of those Democrats who believes that THEY have to reach out to Republicans to get things done like they're some god. I don't believe that crap, I believe in fighting back against the misinformation from fake news and false equivalencies being done by the mainstream media to stay neutral. The more you peel off the lies and truth of Trump's criminality, the more people will turn against the GOP politicians specifically and if it means getting so many of these dumb old fucks out office that it turns the GOP party into an endangered species then so fucking be it. These motherfuckers know they're the minority and instead of changing their platform to appeal to the people better, they just cheat to get their way and folks like Biden insisting that the GOP will be "normal" after Trump is gone and that we should do the same mistake Obama did with them is simply unacceptable.

This piece makes so damn mad that Biden is likely to be the nomination as this is the frontrunner that's being pushed on us much like how Hillary was in 2016 but the kicker is that Biden is probably worse than Hillary on this detail.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

You can't "sue someone criminally"

A lawsuit by definition is a civil action.
Going after someone criminally isn't a lawsuit. Its a prosecution. 

So, is it possible to divide his wrong doings in half and sue him for whatever that can sued, and then prosecute him after he gets out for other stuff that can be prosecuted?

I hope my question makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder. . .right now, the Senate is firmly entrenched in Republican.  And America's unhappy.

Now, let's say some Actual Bullshit occurs, and Trump winds up with a second term.  Meanwhile, there's 34 seats that are up for re-election next term with 22 of them being Republican.  Assuming some competence on Pelosi's part, my guess is that she'll wait for the results of the election first - if she can present a case in front of a majority Democratic Senate, it's more likely to stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, eclipse said:

I wonder. . .right now, the Senate is firmly entrenched in Republican.  And America's unhappy.

Now, let's say some Actual Bullshit occurs, and Trump winds up with a second term.  Meanwhile, there's 34 seats that are up for re-election next term with 22 of them being Republican.  Assuming some competence on Pelosi's part, my guess is that she'll wait for the results of the election first - if she can present a case in front of a majority Democratic Senate, it's more likely to stick.

Agreee that if Trump wins reelection and the Democrats pick up seats in the Senate, at that point I think we'd see Pelosi open the floodgate on impeachment.

On 6/12/2019 at 9:12 PM, XRay said:

So, is it possible to divide his wrong doings in half and sue him for whatever that can sued, and then prosecute him after he gets out for other stuff that can be prosecuted?

I hope my question makes sense.

So the precedent on this one is Clinton v. Jones 

(this arose from the matter of Paula Jones suing Bill Clinton for acts of sexual harassment alleged to have occurred back when Bill Clinton was a local political figure in Arkansas, before he rose to the national scene)

And the precedent is that a sitting president CAN be sued by private citizens for conduct the president committed as a private citizen, outside and unrelated to his term of office. 

Can you impeach on that??? No. Not really.

Now you can of course have a Stormy Daniels type scenario, where the subject matter of the civil suit leads to the discovery of new criminal activity. (i.e. Daniels initially just sued Trump to revoke her nondisclosure agreement. But then that led to the uncovering of the campaign finance violations and election fraud crimes in connection with her pay-off that Michael Cohen pled guilty to and went to jail for)

The civil side of the system presently provides an avenue for going after Trump on things like his fraudulent business practices. (breach of contract for example is a 6 year statute-of-limitations for civil action; a business organization that he defrauded by contracting with it in bad faith could today sue Donald Trump for conducting reaching back to the summer of 2013) 

But for the main thrust of taking him to task on election law violations and obstruction of a federal investigation--there's no way to do that civilly. That has to be a criminal prosecution.  


 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ShoblongooRoberts just gave Republicans a free pass to continue Gerrymandering.

400 members of law enforcement found to be part of extremist groups

EDIT: Just found some commentary on twitter that highlights how numb we are to the reality of Mitch McConnell.

Reminder that Kentucky is effectively the 2nd most subsidized state and this douchebag who keeps being elected by them will have the power to just block everything if the Senate is not taken. What kind of fucked up situation is this?

If Democrats don't take the Senate (they're on their way to fucking that up) and Kentucky reelects this asshole in 2020, he'll block everything. What then? Democrats will have to campaign to get him to allow a fucking vote much like Jon Stewart had to for the 9/11 first-responders. Either that or kill him. What if it gets to that point, do the other states just then consider removing KY from the union? The people would get fucked if that were the case.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I want to hear what the other side has to say before making a final judgement, but if the shooter did indeed use unreasonable force, then that whole situation is pretty fucked up.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Haven't read the opinion and I may be wrong, but if the rule is that partisan gerrymandering isn't subject to judicial review (bad rule bad that isn't new--that's always been the rule), they aren't saying  racial gerrymandering isn't subject to judicial review.

There's still a Constitutional Claim for disparate treatment on the basis of race, and Courts can still review + invalidate gerrymandered redistricting plans on grounds that they're intended to disenfranchise minority voters.

Am I getting that wrong? I Hope I'm not getting that wrong.
_______________

We gotta talk about the debates though. Because there was a clear winner and a clear loser. 

Related image


Who saw it???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Haven't read the opinion and I may be wrong, but if the rule is that partisan gerrymandering isn't subject to judicial review (bad rule bad that isn't new--that's always been the rule), they aren't saying  racial gerrymandering isn't subject to judicial review.

There's still a Constitutional Claim for disparate treatment on the basis of race, and Courts can still review + invalidate gerrymandered redistricting plans on grounds that they're intended to disenfranchise minority voters.

Am I getting that wrong? I Hope I'm not getting that wrong.

Partisan gerrymandering is effectively also racial gerrymandering, as Hofeller's files have shown. So as long as you keep up the pretense it's partisan gerrymandering you'll get away with it. Hell, considering Lukumi vs City of Hialeah, they'd have to literally, publically state "well we want to marginalize all the blacks and hispanics and all the other racial undesirables in our politics as much as we can".

And considering how the muslim ban went down, I'm not sure even that would be enough.

Edited by Excellen Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I was about to say that it seems like a distinction without difference given how Republican's Gerrymandering and voter suppression typically target anyone that's not white. Let's remember the wise words of former governor LePage: If we decided to go with the popular vote, white people won't have a say.

Oh and I saw the second half of the debate. It seems like I missed the more interesting hour.

EDIT: Of course this was going to be signed. Goddamnit Florida.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuned into both debates while going to/in Santa Cruz but I didn't really watch them in their entirety (we're talking like 30-45 minutes for each)

First debate was boring and all those guys will drop out of the primary some time or another LOL

Second debate I didn't really pay attention to, all I remember is Joe looking tired and Bernie yelling and Kamala apparently being the winner

Post-debate analysis says Kamala definitely was the star but I wonder if this newfound momentum will keep up with her??? I wonder if Harris could dent Biden's popularity, or if Biden can do better in the next coming debates . There's no doubt in my mind Joe Biden will win the Southern states in terms of primaries, granted he doesn't drop out by then... I wonder what the primary will look like in terms of the northeastern states?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I know how chatty you guys can get when you're interested in something

I find the lack of interest in those concentration camps at the southern border--disturbing  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

You know I know how chatty you guys can get when you're interested in something

I find the lack of interest in those concentration camps at the southern border--disturbing  

They're not news though, that situation has been going on for a while, a federal judge ordered that shit to stop and the kids to be returned, it has resumed and the Trump administration is facing no consequences.

All of that has already been talked about, it is only "news" lately cause the right-wingers are flipping out over AOC calling them for what they are and the images showcasing the dead which they'll turn around and call "FAKE NEWS".

Pompeo and Bolton pushing for a war with Iran is apparently not a crime and they won't face consequences for pushing us to said war.

Sarah Sanders' lying isn't a crime and she won't face punishment for it. She got paid instead.

Kellyanne Conway and Lynne Patton won't face any significant consequence for their hatch act violations

Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz's attempts at derailing recent hearings should be obstruction of justice that they should face consequences for but they won't (well the Jury's still out on Matt Gaetz for Witness Tampering)

There will be Trump voters that will continue to defend Trump even if he loses the election and in the event that he does lose and decides that he won't give up power, you may even have some of those voters protect him like it happened with the Oregon Republicans who fled the state to avoid a vote they knew they were going to lose. After all that, these motherfuckers will expect to keep their voice in the country's politics and play the victim card of "CONSERVATIVE VOICES AND VALUES BEING SILENCED" whenever they're challenged with evidence such as the failed Trump administration and Kansas Tax cuts.

 

Let's face it: It is now the norm for Republicans to be the scumbags we know them to be and apparently we're supposed to accept it. Remember during the first Democrat debate that one of the questions was "what are you going to do about Mitch McConnell?", as if to say "We know he's a piece of shit who has declared that he's going block any legislation that's actually popular, but instead of actually doing our job and holding him accountable to such behavior by putting him in the negative spotlight he should be in, we'll defer to you: What will you do about it?".

The only hope I see is that in 2020, the American voters turn the GOP in DC into an endangered species. HOPE, not expectation. The only way that could become an expectation is if the expected recession comes dropping down hard next year before the election.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

They're not news though, that situation has been going on for a while, a federal judge ordered that shit to stop and the kids to be returned, it has resumed and the Trump administration is facing no consequences.

All of that has already been talked about, it is only "news" lately cause the right-wingers are flipping out over AOC calling them for what they are and the images showcasing the dead which they'll turn around and call "FAKE NEWS".

Pompeo and Bolton pushing for a war with Iran is apparently not a crime and they won't face consequences for pushing us to said war.

Sarah Sanders' lying isn't a crime and she won't face punishment for it. She got paid instead.

Kellyanne Conway and Lynne Patton won't face any significant consequence for their hatch act violations

Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz's attempts at derailing recent hearings should be obstruction of justice that they should face consequences for but they won't (well the Jury's still out on Matt Gaetz for Witness Tampering)

There will be Trump voters that will continue to defend Trump even if he loses the election and in the event that he does lose and decides that he won't give up power, you may even have some of those voters protect him like it happened with the Oregon Republicans who fled the state to avoid a vote they knew they were going to lose. After all that, these motherfuckers will expect to keep their voice in the country's politics and play the victim card of "CONSERVATIVE VOICES AND VALUES BEING SILENCED" whenever they're challenged with evidence such as the failed Trump administration and Kansas Tax cuts.

 

Let's face it: It is now the norm for Republicans to be the scumbags we know them to be and apparently we're supposed to accept it. Remember during the first Democrat debate that one of the questions was "what are you going to do about Mitch McConnell?", as if to say "We know he's a piece of shit who has declared that he's going block any legislation that's actually popular, but instead of actually doing our job and holding him accountable to such behavior by putting him in the negative spotlight he should be in, we'll defer to you: What will you do about it?".

The only hope I see is that in 2020, the American voters turn the GOP in DC into an endangered species. HOPE, not expectation. The only way that could become an expectation is if the expected recession comes dropping down hard next year before the election.

A United States Congresswoman calling our border policy "concentration camps" is discussionworthy in its own right.

I've been saying it for a while--but--hey--I'm not a lawmaker. My words means nothing.

Aside from that there's been a few new developments since AOC reignited focus on conditions in the camps.

1)   Trump Administration Lawyers have argued in open Court that they do not believe they have any duty under law directing them to detain children in 'humane and sanitary' conditions to provide detained children with soap or toothbrushes (TRANSLATION: They're admitting that conditions in the camps are what pretty much any reasonable person not splitting hairs on legalisms would colloquially describe as unsanitary)

2)   They've been Ordered by the Court--after again fighting the Order + arguing that they have no such duty under the law--to allow doctors into the camps to examine the children + assess their medical needs and provide medical treatment. (TRANSLATION: They're admitting that they're holding children in aforementioned conditions without access to healthcare professionals, medical examination, or treatment)

...So we still have a complete media blackout on these camps + no reporting on or images of whats going on in them...

But we're beginning to get a more vivid picture of whats going on in there from the court arguments.

And the picture thats emerging is--horrifying.

Also:

3) Hundreds of #NeverAgain Jewish Activists (i.e. guys who actually take the whole do everything in your power to resist when your government is running concentration camps thing pretty seriously) were just arrested here in New Jersey, because they marched on an ICE facility and attempted to shut it down with sit-ins and mass civil disobedience (i.e. physically occupying the facility and stopping ICE agents from doing their jobs, until police showed up to order them away + arrest them for 'obstruction')

Image result for 36 jews arrested ICE

^^^thats some 1960s civil rights movement level dedication right there^^^

And

https://twitter.com/AOC

4)   AOC just put out a statement today that when she toured one of these detention facilities, she observed women being kept in cells with no water drinking out of toilets + the guards laughing about it and making sexually degrading comments 

...That was them on their best behavior, in front of a Congressional delegation conducting House Oversight...
________

This all might seem rather pointless right now  while Republicans are in power + sweeping under the rug. 

But eventually they won't be. 

There will be daylight from Journalists and Watchdogs  on whats being done in the shadows right now.

There will be people in positions of power to take the responsible parties to task.

And there will be absolute hell to pay. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

TRANSLATION: They're admitting that conditions in the camps are what pretty much any reasonable person not splitting hairs on legalisms would colloquially describe as unsanitary

 

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

TRANSLATION: They're admitting that they're holding children in aforementioned conditions without access to healthcare professionals, medical examination, or treatment

They have. Not out of guilt but because they know there hasn't been any real accountability and it will probably be swept under the sea of Trump scandals.

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

And there will be absolute hell to pay. 

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I know that what's coming in the future is just a sea of blocked bills by Mitch McConnell and a Republican party in dire need of extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's nothing to say about it; it's time for action. trump should be impeached, these children should be returned to their families and given money for physical and psychological trauma.

what the republican party has become is...scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Anyway since that's the subject at hand, here's a recent post on the matter that you'll "enjoy".

 plot twist no one saw coming: some of the guys running the migrant concentration camps are racist thugs /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit apprehensive on this whole Democratic pre election circus. I'm sure they are all deathly afraid of repeating the mistake of last election where it seemed the winner was already crowned in advance but there is such a thing as an over-correction. 26 candidates!? Come on. 

And I'm wondering if the Democratic party can afford this fight to get particularly bitter. At the end of the day there is still an openly corrupt and incredibly inept man in the White House and its in the world's best interest if he's replaced sooner than later. I think the moderate and left leaning wing of the Democrats tearing into each other could rather hinder this if things get too heated. The moderate voter might find someone like Cortez too extreme and be driven to the Republicans in the weird belief that all those ''sensible republicans'' might keep the clown president in line and if some pro corporate centrist win the left wing might stay at home rather than vote Trump out of office or even vote for Trump because they rather have a populist than a technocrat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

And I'm wondering if the Democratic party can afford this fight to get particularly bitter.

It is due. Getting rid of the orange turd is insufficient to fix the problems with our politics. The Democratic candidates represent a large spectrum of people who do not align with Republicans, who are the growing minority in US politics. As a result of the debates, Biden's poll numbers are dropping as they should because all voters, regardless of party alignment are sick of the legalized bribery that occurs with our lawmakers. The people either get the candidate who wants to change that or the DNC can pull the same bullshit they did in 2016 and create more and more incentive to fight against this.

Regardless, it's nowhere near as disgusting as the Republican primary was with Trump involved in 2016 and we can either have a president that looks for civil solutions to the country's problems or the Republicans can continue to try to hold on to power and lead further down the path of bloodshed. For example, in Oregon, there was recently a vote for a Climate Change related bill under a state Senate that's 18-12 (Democrats to Republicans) that requires at least 20 lawmakers present for the vote procedure. The Republican solution? Leave the state to obstruct the vote so the Democrat pushing for the votes sends state troopers to go those Republicans. Here's details on how one of the Republicans responded. This isn't normal and the Republicans are pushing to have their tantrums answered in blood.

This is why I keep saying the GOP in DC needs to become an endangered species: They're constantly showing how they have no interest in Democracy and just want to have their way regardless of whether or not it's what the people want them to prioritize. Politics like this will eventually lead to blood.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

You know I know how chatty you guys can get when you're interested in something

I find the lack of interest in those concentration camps at the southern border--disturbing  

I'm still interested in them, and the situation in them doesn't seem to be getting better. Hell, the living conditions as they're described are very reminiscent of what happened in the Balkans during the refugee wave/crisis a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

 plot twist no one saw coming: some of the guys running the migrant concentration camps are racist thugs /s

Does it count as "some" when it's 100%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

It is due. Getting rid of the orange turd is insufficient to fix the problems with our politics.

That can't be the last step, but it has to be the first one.

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

 The Democratic candidates represent a large spectrum of people who do not align with Republicans, who are the growing minority in US politics. As a result of the debates, Biden's poll numbers are dropping as they should because all voters, regardless of party alignment are sick of the legalized bribery that occurs with our lawmakers. 

I do not doubt Biden's decency, ethics, or good character. He's not one of the corrupt politicians. He's an empathetic figure and he actually wants to help people with his career public service; that's more then can be said for a lot of these miscreants.

The problem I have with Biden after that debate performance is exactly that--his performance.

I'm looking for a high-performer to 1 v. 1 Trump. Warren performed. Buttigeig performed. Kamala performed. 

Biden was just--there.

...And in the one moment when he needed to perform...

 instead of counterpunching at Kamala's record as a prosecutor or touting the civil rights record of the Obama Justice Department or saying literally anything that would have been better than what he actually said: he on a 2019 Democratic Debate Stage made a 'state's rights' argument in defense of opposing federal efforts to enforce desegregation--of seemed genuinely unaware that opposing federal enforcement of civil rights against state and local governments that don't want to enforce them vs. opposing the civil right itself is for persons living in the affected states a distinction-without-a-difference.

My issue is that if he's performing that poorly and making those kinds of fundamental mistakes this early and can't effectively defend against attacks at a level that should be as incontrovertible as segregation was bad:  how in the hell is he going to perform when the pressure is on to beat Trump, and he has the entire GOP attack machine in full swing against him?

One of the functions of primary season is that its a test of the skills a candidate will need to succeed in the general. Through the grind of the primary process, the weak candidates really themselves.

Biden just failed his first major skill check and failed hard. That's what really has me questioning his viability and looking at other candidates right now. 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I do not doubt Biden's decency, ethics, or good character. He's not one of the corrupt politicians. He's an empathetic figure and he actually wants to help people with his career public service; that's more then can be said for a lot of these miscreants.

Biden... not corrupt? Empathetic? That certainly doesn't seem right, the man's had no issue taking donations from the rich and pandering to them. As for empathetic, he literally said he has no empathy for younger folks of this current generation. Sure, you can argue he's right relatively speaking when comparing with his youth on civil rights matters but it doesn't detract from this being damaging to his campaign as well as demonstrating negligence to the income inequality that's prevalent today.

Here's the thing about Biden: The dude was polling as the front-runner before he even entered the race. Did the man earn those poll numbers? Absolutely not, he was quiet and just flirting with the possibility of running, the man was effectively ENTITLED to being the most favored Democrat to be president before going literally as a result of people realizing what a fucked up outcome Trump ended up being and seeking solace in the fact that Obama's VP will probably run. But that's just it, Biden being OBAMA'S VP was the real front-runner in those polls, nothing to do with stance on any of the issues. Biden's now speaking up and we're listening in and as a result, he's dropping in the polls because in truth, Biden's nothing other than a safety net for voters succumbing to the fear of losing to Trump if a "lefty" gets the nomination. Obama's platform was "Change", Biden's is effectively "Beat Trump, keep things as they are!".

The man is 2016 Hillary 2.0 and if there's one matter where he is most naive and stupid on, it's trying to work with Republicans. Say what you will about Hillary, but she's in the right when it comes to today's Republican party.

This is all before the debates happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...