What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

Red said:
Seems more like the Democrats we’re thinking on their feet, in a one time unexpected event, and we’re overwhelmingly supported by the Democratic electorate…
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the 2020 election where they changed all the rules using the one time unexpected event of the COVID pandemic for justification? Or are you talking about the 2024 election where they changed all the rules using the one time unexpected event of Joe Biden being old for justification? I can't fault the Democrats for not thinking on their feet but there do seem to be a lot of one time unexpected events lately and the solution always seems to be emergency alterations to the procedures of voting in a way that gives the Democrats an advantage they didn't have before.

When it comes to protecting democracy, the democrats seem to have embraced the old adage "we had to destroy the village to save it".
 
str8line said:
I wasn't happy about it and figured there was enough time to get the public involved in the decision somehow, but I understood it. What would you have suggested?
Click to expand...
Nearly every nation on earth who democratically elects their nation's leader has an election season shorter than the one Kamala Harris is in. We, with our year's long campaigns, are the odd ones. There was plenty of time, and many such as Nancy Pelosi wanted an open process. A choice was made between honoring a democratic process and being assured of the result they wanted. The powers that be went with being assured of the result they wanted. It is what it is, but I think you forfeit the ability to do that and still claim the other side is the threat to democracy.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Nearly every nation on earth who democratically elects their nation's leader has an election season shorter than the one Kamala Harris is in. We, with our year's long campaigns, are the odd ones. There was plenty of time, and many such as Nancy Pelosi wanted an open process. A choice was made between honoring a democratic process and being assured of the result they wanted. The powers that be went with being assured of the result they wanted. It is what it is, but I think you forfeit the ability to do that and still claim the other side is the threat to democracy.
Click to expand...
So you think that because the democrats are a threat to democracy, that means trump can not be a threat to democracy? Strange logic there.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
str8line said:
That's comparing apples to oranges. Kamala and Joe are not a threat to democracy.
Click to expand...
Im talking about free speech. If you're okay with others being okay with saying Trump should have been shot, then you should be okay with Elon saying why are people not trying to shoot Kamala and Joe.

The reason you just stated is why government regulation is a terrible idea. I dont like Trump so I should be aloud to say what I want, but if you say something about Kamala, then that's a hate crime.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Nearly every nation on earth who democratically elects their nation's leader has an election season shorter than the one Kamala Harris is in. We, with our year's long campaigns, are the odd ones. There was plenty of time, and many such as Nancy Pelosi wanted an open process. A choice was made between honoring a democratic process and being assured of the result they wanted. The powers that be went with being assured of the result they wanted. It is what it is, but I think you forfeit the ability to do that and still claim the other side is the threat to democracy.
Click to expand...

I thought there was enough time too. But I think you can still claim the other side is a threat to democracy. If Republicans did the same thing in 2020 were Trump pushed out and Pence chosen I wouldn't feel democracy was being subverted. Trumptards are grasping at straws because they went from a slam dunk vs. Biden to probably losing vs. Harris.
 
Bucknutz said:
Im talking about free speech. If you're okay with others being okay with saying Trump should have been shot, then you should be okay with Elon saying why are people not trying to shoot Kamala and Joe.

The reason you just stated is why government regulation is a terrible idea. I dont like Trump so I should be aloud to say what I want, but if you say something about Kamala, then that's a hate crime.
Click to expand...

I think Elon's platform makes him indirectly advocating Kamala's assassination a little different than me here on JFC saying I would love to see The Rapist's head blown off. Trump already tried to actively subvert our election and got away with it without going to prison. He is stage 4 cancer and Kamala at worst is a relatively short cold. One you break out the strongest chemo, the other you rest and hydrate.
 
str8line said:

"When a madman hammered nearly to death the husband of then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump jeered and mocked. One of Trump’s sons and other close Trump supporters avidly promoted false claims that Paul Pelosi had somehow brought the onslaught upon himself through a sexual misadventure.



After authorities apprehended a right-wing-extremist plot to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump belittled the threat at a rally. He disparaged Whitmer as a political enemy. His supporters chanted “Lock her up.” Trump laughed and replied, “Lock them all up.”

Fascism feasts on violence. In the years since his own supporters attacked the Capitol to overturn the 2020 election—many of them threatening harm to Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence—Trump has championed the invaders, would-be kidnappers, and would-be murderers as martyrs and hostages. He has vowed to pardon them if returned to office. His own staffers have testified to the glee with which Trump watched the mayhem on television.

Now the bloodshed that Trump has done so much to incite against others has touched him as well. The attempted murder of Trump—and the killing of a person nearby—is a horror and an outrage. More will be learned about the man who committed this appalling act, and who was killed by the Secret Service. Whatever his mania or motive, the only important thing about him is the law-enforcement mistake that allowed him to bring a deadly weapon so close to a campaign event and gain a sight line of the presidential candidate. His name should otherwise be erased and forgotten.




The 2024 election was already shaping up as a symbolic contest between an elderly and weakening liberalism too frail and uncertain to protect itself and an authoritarian, reactionary movement ready to burst every barrier and trash every institution. To date, Trump has led only a minority of U.S. voters, but that minority’s passion and audacity have offset what it lacks in numbers. After the shooting, Trump and his backers hope to use the iconography of a bloody ear and face, raised fist, and call to “Fight!” to summon waverers to their cause of installing Trump as an anti-constitutional ruler, exempted from ordinary law by his allies on the Supreme Court.

Other societies have backslid to authoritarianism because of some extraordinary crisis: economic depression, hyperinflation, military defeat, civil strife. In 2024, U.S. troops are nowhere at war. The American economy is booming, providing spectacular and widely shared prosperity. A brief spasm of mild post-pandemic inflation has been overcome. Indicators of social health have abruptly turned positive since Trump left office after years of deterioration during his term. Crime and fatal drug overdoses are declining in 2024; marriages and births are rising. Even the country’s problems indirectly confirm the country’s success: Migrants are crossing the border in the hundreds of thousands, because they know, even if Americans don’t, that the U.S. job market is among the hottest on Earth.



Yet despite all of this success, Americans are considering a form of self-harm that in other countries has typically followed the darkest national failures: letting the author of a failed coup d’état return to office to try again.

One reason this self-harm is nearing consummation is that American society is poorly prepared to understand and respond to radical challenges, once those challenges gain a certain mass. For nearly a century, “radical” in U.S. politics has usually meant “fringe”: Communists, Ku Kluxers, Black Panthers, Branch Davidians, Islamist jihadists. Radicals could be marginalized by the weight of the great American consensus that stretches from social democrats to business conservatives. Sometimes, a Joe McCarthy or a George Wallace would throw a scare into that mighty consensus, but in the past such challengers rarely formed stable coalitions with accepted stakeholders in society. Never gaining an enduring grip on the institutions of state, they flared up and burned out.

Trump is different. His abuses have been ratified by powerful constituencies. He has conquered and colonized one of the two major parties. He has defeated—or is on the way to defeating—every impeachment and prosecution to hold him to account for his frauds and crimes. He has assembled a mass following that is larger, more permanent, and more national in reach than any previous American demagogue. He has dominated the scene for nine years already, and he and his supporters hope they can use yesterday’s appalling event to extend the Trump era to the end of his life and beyond.

The American political and social system cannot treat such a person as an alien. It inevitably accommodates and naturalizes him. His counselors, even the thugs and felons, join the point-counterpoint dialogue at the summit of the American elite. President Joe Biden nearly wrecked his campaign because he felt obliged to meet Trump in debate. How could Biden have done otherwise? Trump is the three-time nominee of the Republican Party; it’s awkward and strange to treat him as an insurrectionist against the American state—though that’s what Trump was and is.

The despicable shooting at Trump, which also caused death and injury to others, now secures his undeserved position as a partner in the protective rituals of the democracy he despises. The appropriate expressions of dismay and condemnation from every prominent voice in American life have the additional effect of habituating Americans to Trump’s legitimacy. In the face of such an outrage, the familiar and proper practice is to stress unity, to proclaim that Americans have more things in common than that divide them. Those soothing words, true in the past, are less true now.

Nobody seems to have language to say: We abhor, reject, repudiate, and punish all political violence, even as we maintain that Trump remains himself a promoter of such violence, a subverter of American institutions, and the very opposite of everything decent and patriotic in American life.


The Republican National Convention, which opens this week, will welcome to its stage apologists for Vladimir Putin’s Russia and its aggression against U.S. allies. Trump’s own infatuation with Russia and other dictatorships has not dimmed even slightly with age or experience. Yet all of these urgent and necessary truths must now be subdued to the ritual invocation of “thoughts and prayers” for someone who never gave a thought or uttered a prayer for any of the victims of his own many incitements to bloodshed. The president who used his office to champion the rights of dangerous people to own military-type weapons says he was grazed by a bullet from one such assault rifle.

Conventional phrases and polite hypocrisy fill a useful function in social life. We say “Thank you for your service” both to the decorated hero and to the veteran who barely escaped dishonorable discharge. It’s easier than deciphering which was which. We wish “Happy New Year!” even when we dread the months ahead.


But conventional phrases don’t go unheard. They carry meanings, meanings no less powerful for being rote and reflexive. In rightly denouncing violence, we are extending an implicit pardon to the most violent person in contemporary U.S. politics. In asserting unity, we are absolving a man who seeks power through the humiliation and subordination of disdained others.

Those conventional phrases are inscribing Trump into a place in American life that he should have forfeited beyond redemption on January 6, 2021. All decent people welcome the sparing of his life. Trump’s reckoning should be with the orderly process of law, not with the bloodshed he rejoiced in when it befell others. He and his allies will exploit a gunman’s vicious criminality as their path to exonerate past crimes and empower new ones. Those who stand against Trump and his allies must find the will and the language to explain why these crimes, past and planned, are all wrong, all intolerable—and how the gunman and Trump, at their opposite ends of a bullet’s trajectory, are nonetheless joined together as common enemies of law and democracy.
Click to expand...
It's wrong when others do it to Pelosi but you openly support it and openly say you are ok with murdering political candidates with Trump. Can you actually use words and explain your hypocrisy? Use your words please. Copy and pasting is embarrassing.
 
SteakNEggs said:
It's wrong when others do it to Pelosi but you openly support it and openly say you are ok with murdering political candidates with Trump. Can you actually use words and explain your hypocrisy? Use your words please. Copy and pasting is embarrassing.
Click to expand...
1726506350515.png

1726506293400.png
1726506269288.png
 
str8line said:
View attachment 17221

View attachment 17220
View attachment 17219
Click to expand...
Remember you literally laughed at this... Supported it... Mocked Trump for it. It was funny when yall did it.

Trump briefly taken to underground bunker during Friday’s White House protests​


CNN —
As protesters gathered outside the White House Friday night in Washington, DC, President Donald Trump was briefly taken to the underground bunker for a period of time, according to a White House official and a law enforcement source.

The President was there for a little under an hour before being brought upstairs.

A law enforcement source and another source familiar with the matter tell CNN that first lady Melania Trump and their son, Barron, were also taken to the bunker.


The law enforcement source familiar with protocol said that if authorities moved Trump, they would move all protectees, meaning Melania and Barron.

The second source told CNN that “if the condition at the White House is elevated to RED and the President is moved” to the Emergency Operations Center “Melania Trump, Barron Trump and any other first family members would be moved as well.”

Late Sunday night, the White House cautioned staffers who must go to work on Monday to hide their passes until they reach a Secret Service entry point and to hide them as they leave, according to an email which was viewed by CNN.

The email repeated mandates for maximum telework status and said there is still an “elevated security posture” due to the protests.
 
Bucknutz said:
Tariffs explained well by a Trump team member.


View: https://x.com/howardlutnick/status/1835722526594330644?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


This can be done by either administration and will help the American people.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I'm going trust professional non partisan economists over the co chair of the trump/Vance team lol

www.newsweek.com

Kamala Harris gets good news from economists: New survey

A majority of economists in a new survey think the vice president's policies would be better for the economy instead of former President Donald Trump's.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

So, which presidential nominee has the better economic agenda to get Americans back on track? According to nearly 40 economists from America's top schools surveyed by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business' Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets, it's Harris instead of former President Donald Trump, the GOP presidential nominee.

When asked which nominees' economic policies would be more inflationary—in other words, which would be more likely to cause inflation—70 percent of the economists said Trump's while only 3 percent said Harris'. Meanwhile, 27 percent said there is no material difference in each economic platform's inflationary consequences.

A total of 70 percent also thought Trump's economic platform would produce larger federal budget deficits, while only 11 percent said Harris' platform would and 19 percent said there would be no material difference.

Harris wants to expand tax deductions for small businesses, restore and increase the child tax credit and lower housing costs by giving first-time homeowners down payment assistance. The vice president plans to pay for these social benefits by raising taxes on the wealthy and big corporations. She also wants to crack down on price-gouging to help with Americans' grocery bills.

Trump, meanwhile, plans to continue the tax cuts he passed in 2017, which largely benefited the rich and big businesses. He also proposed 10 to 20 percent tariffs on all imports and a 60 percent tariff on imports from China. The former president has also promoted deregulation.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Bucknutz said:
Tariffs explained well by a Trump team member.


View: https://x.com/howardlutnick/status/1835722526594330644?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


This can be done by either administration and will help the American people.
Click to expand...

lol-jordan.gif
 
fishonjazz said:
Sorry but I'm going trust professional non partisan economists over the co chair of the trump/Vance team lol

www.newsweek.com

Kamala Harris gets good news from economists: New survey

A majority of economists in a new survey think the vice president's policies would be better for the economy instead of former President Donald Trump's.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

So, which presidential nominee has the better economic agenda to get Americans back on track? According to nearly 40 economists from America's top schools surveyed by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business' Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets, it's Harris instead of former President Donald Trump, the GOP presidential nominee.

When asked which nominees' economic policies would be more inflationary—in other words, which would be more likely to cause inflation—70 percent of the economists said Trump's while only 3 percent said Harris'. Meanwhile, 27 percent said there is no material difference in each economic platform's inflationary consequences.

A total of 70 percent also thought Trump's economic platform would produce larger federal budget deficits, while only 11 percent said Harris' platform would and 19 percent said there would be no material difference.

Harris wants to expand tax deductions for small businesses, restore and increase the child tax credit and lower housing costs by giving first-time homeowners down payment assistance. The vice president plans to pay for these social benefits by raising taxes on the wealthy and big corporations. She also wants to crack down on price-gouging to help with Americans' grocery bills.

Trump, meanwhile, plans to continue the tax cuts he passed in 2017, which largely benefited the rich and big businesses. He also proposed 10 to 20 percent tariffs on all imports and a 60 percent tariff on imports from China. The former president has also promoted deregulation.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This post has nothing to do with the video I posted.
 
I see the ideological left tribe here on JF can’t even process that people on the right have positive ideas that can improve peoples lives.

Even Kamala is coping Trumps/Vances ideas for the good. Why is it so hard for people just to recognize good policies? I mean even Newsome recognized that giving illegal immigrants money for homes was a terrible idea and he shut it down.

It’s okay to recognize these things…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top