Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
And despite the 91 indictments he faces, he wants to be “Dictator”. His word.
Right wingers say we have TDS. Cable news won’t cover the actual primary except the lowest rated one. NewsNation? Is that a competitor for News Max?
Not sure of the pedigree of the question.
To start, who is ignoring the Mr. Trump's lead in the polls? It is in the published polls. It is in the media. It is not like it is a great mystery or secret.
The odds are that lead will prevail because American politics has, as a whole, taken a populist turn. A turn not unlike that of the late 19th century or - more recently - the 1960s and 70s. The big difference this time being the nature of the technology.
The technology and media of earlier periods had a cohesive effect. Whatever one's views, they were all reading/listening/viewing the world through, more or less, the same prism.
The new technology, on the other hand, tends to foster a confirmation bias. Social media allowing the reader/listener/(mostly) viewer to see sources of information that affirm their pre-existing views. Thus the increasing intractability and vituperative tone to the current political debate.
In that connection, as far as Mr. Trump's remark about being a dictator. It was obviously intended for humorous effect. (Grant - and I am not a fan of Mr. Trump - his sense of humor is not exactly funny.) Leaving aside the fact that had that been his ambition, he had already served one term where he could have achieved that goal.
Indeed, in that connection, if American democracy is really THAT fragile, it is worth noting that the Biden Administration has been involved in censorship of various social media. This being certainly a violation of the spirit - if not the outright letter - of the First Amendment.
If one is going to make an argument about creeping dictatorship, then certainly the actions of the Biden administration deserve scrutiny. Yet there has been - comparatively speaking - little discussion of Mr. Biden's autocratic proclivities.
The bottom line is that the nation is in a populist phase - hence the bitter divisions within both parties - and, at the same time, wrestling with a technology the impacts of which it does not yet fully understand.
As regards Mr. Trump's lead in the polls, again it is not exactly a state secret. In any event, Mrs. Clinton held a lead over Mr. Trump for almost the whole of her campaign - and still lost to Mr. Trump.
There is nothing about opinion polls that has them written in stone and, indeed, a majority of Trump supporters have suggested, in polls, that they would vote against him were he to be convicted of some of the crimes with which he has been charged. It being interesting that there is some speculation that the recent indictment of Hunter Biden - facilitated under the bureaucracy of the Biden Justice Department - was designed by Democrats to push out the President to facilitate the nomination of a younger Democrat.
Presumably, if the premise of the question posted here is to be accepted at face value, should we ignore the intrigues in the Democratic party? This notwithstanding Mr. Biden's publicly stated determination to remain in office.
Sauce for the goose and all that?
Well, by that standard you are left judging one criminal against another. Fundamentally, the problem is that - as I mentioned - we are in a populist age. Populism is hostile to the establishment and "elites" and tends to justify itself not by the standards of society, but by what satisfies its' sense of envy and resentment.
The real problem here is a public that roars against the "elites" and the "establishment" and yet resents the implications of that, i. e. an elite spits in the face of law and custom. Suffice to say, voting for either man will not likely improve matters.
For all that, whatever my disagreements with Mr. Trump, his foreign policy was far more effective than Mr. Biden's has been. So I take the lesser of two evil outcomes.
Again, neither would be my choice, but in an imperfect world of imperfect beings we are left to make the best of what we have.
Yes Hillery led in all the polls but all you had to do was look at the Trump rallies and all the e1xcitement that he was causing and realize that most of the polls are taken by democrats and are skewed to make it look like Hillery ad it all wrapped up and Republicans should not even bother to vote.
What we are lookin at now is someting different. NBC. the NY Times and Emerson College are all polling that Trump will win and they purposely canvas more liberal districts.
As our standard of living continues to erode and there have been many states that have limited mail in ballots and all the new revelations into the Bioden family corruption the only hope the democrats have is to somehow make it legal for illegal aliens to vote.
@exitseven Having worked in politics for nearly three decades I can tell you that reading the polls - and drawing conclusions from them - is a bit more nuanced than you seem to suggest.
To be sure, Mr. Biden looks like Jimmy Carter Round 2. Indeed, I remain absolutely astonished at the parallels between our current era and that of the 1960s and 70s. The decades that would, in due course, give us the 1980s and Mr. Reagan and the 1990s and Mr. William "The era of big government is over" Clinton. Parallels not just economic but political and cultural.
'
That all said, again, the new technologies are having some profound effects, not all of which we can predict. In addition, the one thing that the polls cannot do is predict turnout. So while the polls show Mr. Trump ahead - and barely outside the margin of error of most polls - he is generally not well liked and this may, and likely will, impact turnout.
As to the criminal aspect, several polls have shown that if Mr. Trump is actually convicted of any of the charges brought against him, he will lose. In that connection, it should be added that Mr. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
In that connection, and per your comment to @exitseven, Mr. Biden has been implicated - and has lied outright - regarding his involvement with his son's illegal activities. Again, innocent until proven guilty but it is worth noting that if the House impeachment inquiry passes, the House will bestow itself investigative powers that Mr. Biden will NOT be exempt from.
Suffice to say, that story has not been finished.
@nightdrot @exitseven I agree with both of you based on polls. And that’s my point. Carter had no interest in the peanut farm (we’ve come a long way to raping presidents) but there is not even that for Biden. Hunter has a gun charge and drug issues. Take him.
First day of congressional investigation into linking Biden to Hunter and…. (Crickets) nothing.
“ House Republicans have not presented any proof that Joe Biden ever profited off his son’s business deals or was influenced while in office by his son’s business dealings.”
www.nbcnews.com/.../giuliani-linked-to-accused-russian-agent-while-digging-for-dirt-on-hunter-biden-94165061847
Let's see. Mr. Biden denied that he had any contact with his son's business associates. Then it was revealed that he had contact with them. (First Mr. Biden said that he had not discussed his son's business dealing with his son. Then he said he did. Now he is saying, again, that he did not.) He has received payments from his son for no traceable reason. (No indication of the loans for which he is supposedly being repaid.) Then there is references to "the Big Guy" and all the rest.
Again, innocent until proven guilty, but there is certainly enough here to warrant investigation. However, given Mr. Biden's constitutional status - first as VP then as President - such investigation was not possible. It only becoming possible if the House authorizes an impeachment investigation.
Which brings us to where we are.
For what it is worth, I mentioned that I voted against Mr. Biden - not so much FOR Mr. Trump - the first time around because as a Hill staffer I knew of Mr. Biden's reputation on the Hill. Well, here it is.
He was not well regarded even by his fellow Democrats and among staff he had a reputation for being a sleaze. A small time politician elevated beyond where he was qualified to be and who got there by dubious means.
What we are seeing of late seems to confirm much of that reputation.
No sure of your point. There is sufficient question hanging over Mr. Biden to warrant investigation. The fact that he has not been had to do with his status under the Constitution. A status that - except for four years - was not available to Mr. Trump.
You seem to be acting under the assumption that I want either man in the White House. In an ideal world, I would reincarnate Mr. Reagan and put him back in the Oval Office. Alas, that option is not open.
My bottom line is that I have a choice of two lousy options of dubious standards. In terms of domestic policy, you could measure the differences between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden with a micrometer. Both pursued an agenda that was populist and destructive of established institutions.
In terms of foreign policy, however, Mr. Trump seems to have had at least an instinctive sense of the national interest. Certainly as compared to Mr. Biden.
Given that both men have serious legal and moral questions hanging over their heads, I'll take what I can get. In an imperfect world of imperfect beings, I'll take Mr. Trump. Albeit with no enthusiasm.
As to your last point, my point was not that Mr. Biden's "I didn't know/I did know" dichotomy - and actually it has been "I didn't know/I did know/I didn't know" - was illegal. Merely that it suggests grounds for further investigation. Such investigation being constitutionally impermissible absent an impeachment inquiry. Please note, an inquiry, and NOT an impeachment.
Certainly, if that investigation were to turn up what Mr. Biden's verbal gymnastics suggest, the implications would not just be illegal, but represent a potential threat to national security. It suggesting that Mr. Biden has been paid off by/with Chinese assets and that he is subject to potential extortion by China.
THAT is worth investigating.
Who said anything about Ukraine? The question is Mr. Biden's knowledge of, and involvement in, his son's corrupt business dealings. https://www. nationalreview. com/news/bank-records-show-direct-monthly-payment-from-hunter-bidens-corporation-to-joe-biden/
Again, the point is not that Mr. Biden is guilty, but rather that the evidence is sufficient to warrant investigation.
In any event, none of this really impacts my own views of either Mr. Trump nor Mr. Biden. The American public has known about these things and has not really voted on that basis. See also that neither has faced a significant primary election challenge. They, in their infinite wisdom, have decided what my choices will be.
So then the question is between the two men. On domestic policy, I see very little difference between the two. On foreign policy, however, Mr. Biden has been horrific and it would not likely end well to retain him another four years.
Just to make sure, this is the link that I meant to send you: www.nationalreview.com/.../
Well, why - in your estimation - did President Biden first deny that he had any association with his son's dealings? Then say that he did and then change his mind again?
What is your best guess?
In any case, as I say, I find this all secondary. I would, if I could vote for neither of them but it does not look like that option will be open to me. Moreover, we can now compare the Biden and Trump records - each having served four years - and while neither deserves any awards. on the whole I would argue that Trump's tenure was modestly better.
Again, if an investigation of either man should find them guilty of a criminal offense, I will alter my views accordingly. For the moment though, they are both mediocre figures who are not the equal of their times. The sole and slight difference being that, on the whole, Mr. Trump's handling of foreign policy has been a bit more to my approval.
In terms of domestic policy, as I say, the differences between them are more rhetorical than real.
First, according to The New York Times, the judge in the case, Lewis A. Kaplan, said that "for the jury to establish that Trump raped Carroll, she had to prove that Trump engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and that he did it without her consent." He said that "sexual intercourse includes 'any penetration of the penis into the vaginal opening.'"
While a significant victory for Carroll, viral headlines or tweets in some cases misrepresented the verdict as one in which Trump was "found guilty of sexually assaulting Carroll," and that resulted in Trump becoming a "a convicted sexual abuser."
Terms like "found guilty" and "convicted" are reserved for criminal cases. This case, which centered around defamation, was a civil proceeding to decide the outcome of a lawsuit against Trump filed by Carroll. These cases do not determine guilt, but do determine "liability" for certain actions. Civil cases do not impose jail time or other criminal penalties, and as such require a different standard of proof:
Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof, such as "the preponderance of the evidence."
Second, no, I do not. Do you approve of nepotism? Oh, and by the way, in terms of Mr. Biden's lies, let us recall that he received money from his son's account - Chinese funds - and that there is nothing to suggest any services were rendered for these funds.
Bottom line, the security implications for the nation in the Biden case are far more serious than in Mr. Trump's. That being said, I wish I had better options but the American public, in their infinite wisdom, seems to date to have decided that these two are worthy of their votes. So it goes.
The problem, of course, is that it is an apples to oranges comparison. The reason why the House is holding an impeachment inquiry is that the President - and this was true as VP as well - is immune to legal investigations and prosecutions. Before that, Mr. Biden flew below the radar.
In any case, if Mr. Biden is guilty of profiting at the expense of his country, it is not much consolation that he has not been charged with sexual assault. Indeed, if we are to draw conclusions about parties on the basis on which you did, we have not only Mr. Biden but Mr. Clinton to lead us to those conclusions. The former not being exactly a paragon of sexual propriety, the latter, as noted, we are already sure has lied about his involvement in his son's highly illegal activities. (His son also not being a paragon of sexual propriety.)
Voting for someone means you make the best of the choices you have. It is a tidy abstraction to think that you are choosing between good and evil. However, human affairs are seldom so clear cut.
To quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."
Thus you are left with choices sometimes between good and good, sometimes good and evil, sometimes evil and evil. Such is life in grown-up land.
As Edmund Burke put it, "The rights of men in governments are their advantages; and these are often in balances between differences of good; in compromises sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes, between evil and evil. Political reason is a computing principle in adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing, morally and not metaphysically or mathematically, true moral denominations.
Well, you are going to vote for Mr. Biden and his record is hardly unblemished. The main reason he has not been indicted already relating to the Constitutional separation of powers. As Professor Jonathan Turley has said, any other man with this evidence against how would have long ago been indicted and been brought to trial.
As far as your original point, it does not stand. I have explained my thoughts and motivations and - as noted - am no fan of Mr. Trump. For you to assert otherwise is to call me a liar. Which seems at best unwarranted and needlessly uncivil. So far, at least, I have enjoyed our discussion and have no reason to question your motives. (Your wisdom being another matter and the subject, in effect, of this discussion.)
As far Mr. Trump's conviction, it is an established fact and he has presumably paid whatever penalties are appropriate under law. For the rest, Mr. Trump is, like Mr. Biden, innocent until proven guilty.
Leaving that as a given, we are then left to compare and contrast the Trump and Biden presidencies. Neither was as impressive as they would have you believe but it is my judgement that, on the whole, Mr. Trump's conduct of foreign policy at least was reasonable effective. Thus I give a reluctant nod to him.
If you choose to call that being okay with his behavior, I would argue that you are drawing conclusions more suited to your own biases than any analysis of my argument. So it goes.
No, I am not de-prioritizing it. I have a choice between two deeply flawed men. That is the only choice that appears to be open to me.
Mr. Biden's actions resulted in the deaths of how many soldiers during the Afghan withdrawal? Then we have Mr. Trump's conviction on a sexual assault on a civil charge. Neither is terribly pleasant, and as regards the other charges, they are that charges. I am not qualified to judge the final legal status of the case against either man.
Trump will go to trial this early Spring. The impeachment inquiry - in effect an investigation - will take place also this winter. If either comes to a definitive conclusion I will revisit the matter. As it is, I am left to judge their performance in office and while I am NOT impressed by either man, I would argue that Mr. Trump tenure in foreign policy was more effective.
To wit, if left to the choice of those two men, I will go unenthusiastically for Mr. Trump. In my ideal world I would go to for Nikki Haley. Where I used to live, I had a write-in option. I do not have that option in this state and so will be left the Biden-Trump choice or not to vote at all.
As far as "right wing nut cases," see the aforementioned Professor Turley. Hardly a right wing nut case. In any event, slander and name calling is not a substitute for dispassionate analysis.
Bottom line, this is the world as it is, not as I would like it to be. I would appear that Mr. Biden's policies are to your liking. So vote accordingly. I, for my part, having lived through the Carter years - high inflation, a foreign policy in chaos, etc. - see no reason to go through them in the 21st century. So I am left to choose between "differences of good; in compromises sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes, between evil and evil." In this case, the latter.
P. S. By the way, if it makes you happier, even though it is too early to call this a prediction - I would call it more an educated guess - my hunch is that in a Biden/Trump contest, Mr. Biden will prevail. The polls don't show it at the moment, but the coalitions that make up the two parties are in flux and my hunch is that this will - given the populist tone of the times - conduce to Mr. Biden's advantage.
To be sure, Mr. Trump plays more effectively to the feelings of envy and resentment that permeate the culture. However, in the long run, my hunch - for reasons too lengthy to go into now - is that Mr. Biden's policies, however flawed, will cater to the culture of self-pity sufficiently to assure him a narrow win come next November.
First, the withdrawal started under Trump. And pretty sure a president doesn’t deal with military details. Try blaming the generals.
And I’m sorry your side will probably nominate a 91 indicted sex assaulter. But if my side did that, I definitely wouldn’t vote for him. I’d even vote Repub over a sex assaulter.
You however de-prioritize that issue.
Two things.
On Afghanistan, the President ordered the final withdrawal against the advice of the Joint Chiefs. They were not opposed to withdrawing per se. Rather, they thought the withdraw as designed was hasty and required more time and organization.
The President, of course, wanted the headline. Suffice to say, he got it.
As far as Mr. Trump losing, I was referring to the final contest, not the nominating process. All I can offer you is that, in the primary, I will vote for Nikki Haley. In any case, neither party is making a wise choice. Neither Mr. Biden nor Mr. Trump should be re-nominated.
However, in a populist age suffused in self-pity, resentment, envy and conspiracy theories, a large segment of the population views their man as more important than any principles. To wit, why you could measure the policy differences between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden with a micrometer.
To be sure, there are differences. See also immigration and - again - foreign policy. However, those are mostly differences of degree, not of kind.
Finally, by the way, I am sure that you saw that Senator Manchin - a Democrat - has now come out in favor of the impeachment inquiry. He arguing that there is sufficient evidence to merit further investigation of President Biden's actions in relation to his son.
1) Tell that to Senator Manchin.
2) There was nothing stopping the President from changing that on the advice of the military staff. They were opposed. Oh, and by the way, on this one I have personal familiarity as I worked for the Chair of the Armed Services Committee.
3) You keep skirting your tacit support for a man who denied the existence of his own grandchild. Eh.
Well, the death of a number of American servicemen on he orders of a President who graves good publicity does not rank very high in my moral esteem.
No matter, you seem to be tendentiously missing the point. I have a choice between two gravely imperfect beings, neither of whom would be my first choice. Mr. Trump was convicted and presumably has paid whatever penalties the law deems appropriate. He is under an additional 91 indictments and if found guilty of them, will pay the price.
Mr. Biden is now - the constitutional restrictions being lifted by the passage of the impeachment investigation - similarly under investigation. If he is found guilty, he will pay the price - though ironically a lesser price due to his constitutional status.
So, with both men being hardly moral paragons, and both being under investigation, I will judge them on the basis of their policies. On that, I give a marginal edge to Mr. Trump.
As far as Mr. Trump's conviction, he is in the grand tradition of Mr. Clinton, Ted Kennedy and others in the other party. Suffice to say, we have been here before.
P. S. Oh, and by the way, as to saying that Mr. Trump was "found guilty," as the article I sent you noted, "Terms like "found guilty" and "convicted" are reserved for criminal cases. This case, which centered around defamation, was a civil proceeding to decide the outcome of a lawsuit against Trump filed by Carroll. These cases do not determine guilt, but do determine "liability" for certain actions. Civil cases do not impose jail time or other criminal penalties..."
So, whatever I may think of Mr. Trump as a man - which as I have said repeatedly is not much - he was penalized according to his infractions as determined by law. Unless it is your argument that men and women should be penalized based on what we feel rather than according to the rule of law, there is no basis for excluding him from the election.
Too bad, but there it is.
lol both being under investigation. You’re a former staffer. You know your own side admitted they got nuthin.
Afghan was botched, you guys should be investigating that. But instead your party is run by the dumbest common voters they must appeal to.
And I just find sexual assault revolting. And Biden not being evidenced of guilty by anything but oldness.
Well, as far as your last point, take this trip down memory lane:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52462113
As to Afghanistan being botched- the long term strategy was flawed, as I have discussed elsewhere. However, I was referring to the specific withdrawal action - which to repeat, he Joint Chiefs and the ground commanders both argued should be delayed. Mr. Biden - as was his prerogative as Commander-in-Chief - decided to go ahead with it. As C-in-C, the ultimate responsibility rests with him.
As for "having nothin," to repeat, that is what the impeachment inquiry will determined. However, there is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to merit an investigation. Certainly, the Biden Administration's refusal to voluntarily cooperate means that - as a constitutional matter - the impeachment inquiry is the only viable option left. (Besides, as I have twice noted, Senator Manchin - a Democrat - seems to have concluded that an investigation is warranted.)
I don’t know what Biden or the Joint Chiefs discussed. There’s only the clips floating around right wing websites.
But the Aug date was set a long time back. And if my generals were asking me to postpone I’d be thinking of By of Pigs bullshit.
Serisouly, Biden had zero influence on the ground. You guys are trying to blame him for every soldiers death whilst your probable candidate killed a million Americans by ignoring or lying about Covid.
Sorry, no, he gave he order. He had absolute command and overruled his ground commanders.
Here ya go:
www.cnn.com/.../index.html
Cope.
Opinion
4Opinion
it's time to get out of the two party system. it's corrupt and it hurts the people of america. i wouldn't vote in a jew, but there are a list of other candidates that don't have super pacs knocking at their door supporting their campaigns and basically getting them elected. buying and stealing elections should not be a thing. it's not the democratic way. and i don't think the people have ever had a choice in this say, especially with the electoral college that many of us didn't vote for. it's a corrupt system that needs to be overturned. it's not broken but most, if not all, must be replaced. the representation of the people is not there anymore.
how do i feel about trump not being president in 2020? do voters votes even count? can i trust a government official to uphold my interests? NO! so, that leaves us where? a very dangerous place
Well, the only reason why he's winning is look who he's running against. Let's face it, people picking the slim. So slim that they rather vote for this idiot. What can I say that's the world we live in.
Nobody is ignoring him The only way to stop him is with a bullet
It's going on but hey I think the Dems will whack Trump and Biden in quick succession
He's outlived his usefulness, they can put a younger candidate forward
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions