Didn't read one single post in this thread. Calling Biden a joke is like saying the sky is up or grass is green. It's a given.
He’s seemed pretty damn healthy his first half year imo and that’s really the primary factor. The whole Dementia Joe thing was pure disinformation and without fact since Biden Gaffs have nothing to do with his age and never has. The real question though that all of Biden’s staff are well aware of is the threat of a primary from the left from maybe AOC. I think she’s maybe the only one positioned currently to do so but right now there’s no way she would do that given what that means in the fact that it could lead to putting Trump back in office. I think she’s only do so if Biden abandoned the left or has a massive corruption scandal that is on par with everyday Republican corruption. One person I think has really impressed me is Rev Warnock as a potential successor if Biden doesn’t run again if heaven forbid he has a health scare. Warnock really threads a lot of the same needles for a seem less hand off. Stacy Abrams as well would be a good successor. Kamala… probably not. She’s been too much in the background as VP and I think there’s little trust on the left. We’ll see but right now Joe looks strong to get re-elected in 24.
"Biden's bad run: Is he doing worse in the courts than Trump?" https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...un-is-he-doing-worse-in-the-courts-than-trump
You and your legal cleric Turley are missing the point where Americans care about the intent of an executive order, what is right and wrong, vs points scored in the courts on legal jargon like a baseball game. Trump was a terrible president because of the intent and purpose of his executive orders. Many of which were based on cruelty as a point. I would rather have a president who loses 99% of his case in court that are arguing for positions that help people vs a president who wins 99% of his court cases which argue for cruelty and bigotry. But thank you unbiased legal scholar Jonathan Turley for pointing out that the Biden legal department needs to review legal merits to better craft their executive orders so orders stop getting hung up in courts unnecessarily. Also executive orders going through a rigorous process in the courts is a good thing about our Democracy’s checks and balances.
I find this to be more interesting... Trump discussed sending infected Americans to Guantanamo Bay: book Former President Trump reportedly suggested sending Americans infected with COVID-19 to Guantanamo Bay in an effort to stem the rapidly growing number of cases on U.S. soil in the early days of the pandemic, according to a new book. Trump, during a February 2020 meeting in the Situation Room as administration officials were discussing whether to bring infected Americans home for care, reportedly asked the attendees “Don’t we have an island that we own?” and “What about Guantánamo?” “We import goods,” Trump reportedly said to his staff, adding, “We are not going to import a virus.” The new details come from “Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration’s Response to the Pandemic That Changed History,” authored by Washington Post journalists Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta. The authors interviewed more than 180 people, including a number of White House senior staff members and government health leaders. The book is set to be published June 29. Aides, according to the Post, were reportedly stunned by Trump’s suggestion to quarantine American tourists on the same base where the U.S. detains terrorism suspects. They quickly sunk the idea when the president mentioned it a second time. The book also reveals Trump's reaction to the testing crisis that bogged the country’s initial response to the virus. “Testing is killing me!” Trump reportedly told then-Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar during a phone call on March 18. Trump was yelling so loud that aides were said to have overheard every word of the conversation. “I’m going to lose the election because of testing! What idiot had the federal government do testing?” Trump exclaimed. “Uh, do you mean Jared?” Azar responded, according to the Post, referring to the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who five days earlier said he would spearhead the country’s testing strategy by enlisting the help of the private sector. https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ing-infected-americans-to-guantanamo-bay-book
The guy is your leading candidate for 2024, and is currently pressuring the House Minority leader to be voted in as House Speaker and 2nd in line to the presidency if the Repugs win back the House via gerrymandering next November. If we didn't compare Biden to the alternative who is openly trying to oust him, I think we would be doing a disservice to any conversation about Biden's presidency when someone from your camp is wanting to stir up unfavorable opinions. People like you don't just get to come in and throw darts at Biden without owning Trump in the same vein. He's your baggage in any argument you or your legal cleric Jonathan Turley try to make. You own him.
Right... you and Jonathan Turley. Totally just unbiased legal scholars calling balls and strikes. Forgot to ask what you and Tinman's postcount is on the "should gay people be able to model underwear" thread? I'm sure you've got some riveting discussion over there from everyone else EXCEPT the two of you.
"A family affair: Children and other relatives of Biden aides get administration jobs": https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...504a22-cea4-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html excerpt: Barely a week into office, President Biden made a promise that signaled a sharp break from his predecessor: No member of his family would be involved in government. But that vow did not extend to his senior staff and their relatives. In the first few months of Biden’s presidency, at least five children of his top aides have secured coveted jobs in the new administration. They include two sons and a daughter of the White House counselor, the daughter of a deputy White House chief of staff and the daughter of the director of presidential personnel. The pattern — which continued this week with the Treasury Department’s announcement that it was hiring J.J. Ricchetti, son of Biden counselor Steve Ricchetti — has drawn concerns from ethics experts, diversity advocates and others. They say it is disappointing that Biden didn’t shift even further from the practices of Donald Trump’s presidency, which they thought reeked of nepotism and cronyism. “While it may not be as bad as appointing your son or daughter to a top government post as Trump did with Jared and Ivanka, it is still bad,” said Walter Shaub, who served as director of the Office of Government Ethics from 2013 to 2017. “ ‘Not as bad as Trump’ cannot be the new standard.” Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, worked in the White House as unpaid senior advisers, moves that outraged ethics experts, even as a Justice Department opinion found that the president has special hiring authorities. Some relatives of top Trump officials and aides also were hired into the administration. Beyond children, other relatives of top Biden aides also have secured high-level administration jobs or nominations. They include the wife of White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain and the sister of White House press secretary Jen Psaki. more at the link
Warnock is to inexperienced to be considered for President IMO, there needs to be candidates that know how things work in DC and will have real plans to implement their goals. I am not sure I want Biden to run again I would like some new blood, I don't think being "Uncle Joe" will go over as well in 2024.
Barrack Obama says hello. Donald Trump, and AOC (ran as outsiders) also say hello. Pete Buttiegieg won Iowa too as little more than a Mayor of a mid sized town. But if you take out those factors which you and I would maybe disagree on obviously, who he represents threads the needle for so many elements of the Democratic base that delivered Biden, and of course the Senate (winning in Georgia is a microcosm of winning the general in many ways). That's why I brought his name up. I think if we look at things more big picture though, what a Biden non-re-election (health not considered) mean is that the general electorate views Biden's agenda as a failure. Meaning... Biden didn't get much done because he believes in bi-partisanship, and good ole fashion legislation working. If Biden is viewed as a failure in that respect, all bets are out the window, and you are looking at the next candidates being as far from "BiPartisanship can work" as possible. In that case it HAS TO BE an "outsider" candidate or someone from the left like AOC who is very very direct about Progressives governing alone, and screw bipartisanship. What that also means is that Trump is going to be very at least somewhat competitive as the propaganda machines on the right promote autocracy in 2024. For the sake of Democracy I sure hope Joe Biden is running again because that means he is widely viewed as successful in proving our government can get things done. If he's a failure boy... I'm really concerned about 2024. Nobody was really gung ho for Biden as a personality in 2020 either. He won my vote on super Tuesday, and the following November because from an governing perspective, he represented the right elements to build a coalition big enough to beat the autocratic movement which is HIGHLY consolidated, motivated, and funded on the right.
