Biden's presidency

[pfife]

Not surprised,  she was the best part about that 'debate'

[Motor City Sonics]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

Exactly this, in the same way they don't want to actually fix the economy because they need to point to what they say is a poor economy so they can hammer Democrats on it to get votes. They need the price of eggs  and the price of gas to be over five bucks. And they need a Crisis on the Border™.

And besides, if they do try to fix any of the things they complain about, whether it's the economy, the border, or whatever else, they'll be the ones to get the blame when the solution goes upside down on them. So in the end, implementing solutions is actually a lose-lose proposition for the Republicans. There's literally nothing in it for them.

its why Bush didn't capture Bin Laden when he had the chance.  They needed their boogeyman.  When Obama got the chance, well, to quote Lance Reddick in Oz  "That mother------'s dead !"

Edited September 29, 2023 by Motor City Sonics

[ewsieg]

8 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

its why Bush didn't capture Bin Laden when he had the chance.  They needed their boogeyman.  When Obama got the chance, well, to quote Lance Reddick in Oz  "That mother------'s dead !"

You really believe Bush allowed Bin Laden to escape just so they could have a boogeyman?

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

You really believe Bush allowed Bin Laden to escape just so they could have a boogeyman?

It's that kind of crazy hatred of every Republican President which makes it hard for the left to be taken seriously when they say crazy (but true) stuff about Trump.  I disliked pretty much all of Bush's policies, but he was nothing at all like psychopath Trump.  

[pfife]

I can't say why they did it, but I do recall decisions that seemed counterproductive in getting Bin Laden.  They disbanded the task force to get him... and tora bora.   But it's entirely possible to me that it was a super complex situation and there are legit reasons for why those decisions were made.   Or we only know 4% of the facts, etc. 

[smr-nj]

2 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

its why Bush didn't capture Bin Laden when he had the chance.  They needed their boogeyman.  When Obama got the chance, well, to quote Lance Reddick in Oz  "That mother------'s dead !"

That’s just ridiculous 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

I can't say why they did it, but I do recall decisions that seemed counterproductive in getting Bin Laden.  They disbanded the task force to get him... and tora bora.   But it's entirely possible to me that it was a super complex situation and there are legit reasons for why those decisions were made.   Or we only know 4% of the facts, etc. 

Or it's just that the Bush administration was one of the most generally incompetent and incoherent in ante-Trump memory. Bush's legacy is the beneficiary of Trump having redefined incompetence to a level that has pushed the Bush admin back to a perception of normalcy.

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Or it's just that the Bush administration was one of the most generally incompetent and incoherent in ante-Trump memory. Bush's legacy is the beneficiary of Trump having redefined incompetence to a level that has pushed the Bush admin back to a perception of normalcy.

This is the correct answer.

[ewsieg]

https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2

Safe to assume we're all pro-wall now?

[pfife]

Not me

[MIguy]

Most issues are not black and white and building border walls certainly fits that definition.  There are border towns where you can literally walk across the street and be in another country, of course you need a wall or fence along those stretches.  You also need physical barriers near population centers and border crossings to keep people from flooding across unchecked.   Being in favor of strategically placed barriers doesn't mean you support a wall through thousands of miles of barren desert. 

[ewsieg]

7 minutes ago, MIguy said:

Most issues are not black and white and building border walls certainly fits that definition.  There are border towns where you can literally walk across the street and be in another country, of course you need a wall or fence along those stretches.  You also need physical barriers near population centers and border crossings to keep people from flooding across unchecked.   Being in favor of strategically placed barriers doesn't mean you support a wall through thousands of miles of barren desert. 

I've argued just this for some time.  For most, but not all posters, the response has generally been any Wall = Trump = bad/racist/stupid, with no room for a nuanced view.

[pfife]

Rad story

[MIguy]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I've argued just this for some time.  For most, but not all posters, the response has generally been any Wall = Trump = bad/racist/stupid, with no room for a nuanced view.

That's the problem with politics, especially in the modern age.  People think there are only 2 sides to every issue and if the other side is for something, you are required to be against it.  You only get two buckets, for and against. 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I've argued just this for some time.  For most, but not all posters, the response has generally been any Wall = Trump = bad/racist/stupid, with no room for a nuanced view.

The original critique was not that ICE shouldn't do or attempt border control, it was that Trump threw out ICE's plans for systems of integrated controls at the border that included fences, surveillance and technology in favor of a one-size fits all massive physical barrier which was going to cost much more and probably work less well in total. Like any and everything else in US politics, that has been sound-bited, twitted and shorthanded to Wall = Trump = bad/racist/stupid.

Edited October 5, 2023 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

Found this interesting, from the article:

Quote

“A border wall is a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem. It will not bolster border security in Starr County,” U.S. Representative Henry Cuellar said in a statement. “I continue to stand against the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars on an ineffective border wall.”

Cuellar is often seen as a fairly conservative Democrat and has, at times, had his words propped up by conservatives on border security related matters.

He's right, of course, the border wall is a poor use of money to solve the problem. But to MIGuy's point, it's maybe a good example of how grey border issues can be and it can be hard to fit people's views into one neat little box. This is particularly true of people who live on the border in Texas as well.... and in their case, it isn't just liberals who miss the nuance, it's conservatives too.

Edited October 5, 2023 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The original critique was not that ICE shouldn't do or attempt border control, it was that Trump threw out ICE's plans for systems of integrated controls at the border that included fences, surveillance and technology in favor of a one-size fits all massive physical barrier which was going to cost much more and probably work less well in total. Like any and everything else in US politics, that has been sound-bited, twitted and shorthanded to Wall = Trump = bad/racist/stupid.

But I think  is also a really good example of how Donald Trump is a really terrible advocate for any political cause he associates himself with.

Americans, largely, have fallen more in the right-spectrum on border related issues, both during his Presidency and since. But during his time in office at least, he made choices on how to pursue those issues and, by extension, that hindered his ability to get anything done.

Put another way, at some level, he has to be held responsible for how he framed/frames his rhetoric on border issues.... sure, the sound-biting is what it is and lacks nuance, but given how incendiary his rhetoric often was/is, he often reinforces the sound-bites as well.

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Put another way, at some level, he has to be held responsible for how he framed/frames his rhetoric on border issues.... sure, the sound-biting is what it is and lacks nuance, but given how incendiary his rhetoric often was/is, he often reinforces the sound-bites as well.

I would only add to this - especially in light of what happened to Kevin McCarthy and how it has been covered, today's GOP politicians (including Donald Trump) are so often covered as if they don't have agency or can't help some of the choices that they make. Or that those choices may have practical consequences.

Trump on immigration is (yet) another example of this IMO

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

He's right, of course, the border wall is a poor use of money to solve the problem. 

The "problem" itself can be a gray too.  Many MAGA types think it'll solve immigration.  My brothers friend lives near Brownsville, TX and isn't too far from the wall.  It's a 1/2 mile from the border where she's at and in some places even further away from the border.  Once Illegals get to it, they just follow a path built right next to it towards lights for a port of entry. It does nothing to prevent illegals from entering the US as they are already on US ground by the time they reach it.  For those areas it gives home owners a little reprieve knowing that strangers won't be walking through their property and gives border patrol a little more time to try and catch smugglers that want to go over it to avoid the ports.  It does absolutely nothing to prevent illegal immigration.

[mtutiger]

21 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Put another way, at some level, he has to be held responsible for how he framed/frames his rhetoric on border issues.... sure, the sound-biting is what it is and lacks nuance, but given how incendiary his rhetoric often was/is, he often reinforces the sound-bites as well.

Case in point...

It's not great that everything in today's day and age is often reduced to sound bites... but that doesn't mean the sound bites don't contain some kernels of truth to them

[Tiger337]

On 10/5/2023 at 9:48 AM, ewsieg said:

https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2

Safe to assume we're all pro-wall now?

No.  

[Tiger337]

23 hours ago, MIguy said:

That's the problem with politics, especially in the modern age.  People think there are only 2 sides to every issue and if the other side is for something, you are required to be against it.  You only get two buckets, for and against. 

My view on politicians is we don't agree with THEM.  They pretend to agree with US, so they can get votes.  That is true of both Republicans and Democrats.  

[CMRivdogs]

Now that we're potentially looking at the clowns impeaching Biden (for Hunter's crimes)

Recent impeachment history

Nixon: Directed staff to break into the offices of political rivals...(actually it was more of the attempt to cover up the breaking and entering of the DNC)

Clinton: Perjury

Trump: Threatened to withhold military funds unless a foreign leader fabricated lies about a political opponent

Trump again: Summoned and directed a mob to attack the Capitol in an effort to overturn an election

Biden (potentially) Being the father of an admitted coke addict who may or may not have profited because of his father's former position (???)

From Threads re Aaron Rupar
 

NEGUSE: What is the specific constitutional crime that you are investigating? 

RESCHENTHALER: High crimes, misdemeanors, and bribery

NEGUSE: What high crime and misdemeanor are you investigating?

RESCHENTHALER: Look, once I get time, I will explain what we're looking at

 

Steve Doocy this morning: "I would say that the three people on Capitol Hill who know the most about this deal are James Comer, Jim Jordan, and Chuck Grassley. Grassley said yesterday he has seen no evidence Joe Biden was involved with Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings."

 

 

[pfife]

How long before they argue the constitution doesn't state that the president was the one that had to commit the high crimes or misdemeanors in order for the president to be impeached?

[chasfh]

It’s about time they started focusing on asking what the exact crime Biden was supposed to have committed. Not that it matters, though, since this entire operation runs along that exact same lines as, “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen”.