Jump to content

Joe Biden 2024 thread - Dark Brandon Strikes Again


StassneyHorn

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, grazinhorn said:

While I understand the question and look at history, why would you ever give up the "incumbency" advantage even if the opponent has effectively the same thing?  I wouldn't care to give up an advantage that puts me notably ahead, but it is pretty silly to give it up if it just brings me even.  Why start from (near) zero?

Pretty great question, and all I can say is that you'd give it up if the alternative gave you a better chance of winning.  I've always been relatively upbeat about all the other alternatives.  But I'm a bit of an optimist on that front. I think the Dems picked their course and have to stick with it. Again, I wish that perhaps they had fine tuned an alternate strategy a couple of years ago.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

I just wish Dems didn't attack their candidate.  He's not broken.  Everything is working and people in place to run things are competent.  We can do this all day long.  The idea that Trump even comes up with his own attacks is hilarious.  He still doesn't know how government operates, and when he does talk on his own, it's painfully obvious. I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager with near certainty he doesn't know what NATO stands for.  

This quote from yesterday kills me.  Trump almost NEVER pays his bills, and yet it matters not one whit to his base:

Quote

Trump said “one of the presidents of a big country” at one point asked him whether the US would still defend the country if they were invaded by Russia even if they “don’t pay.”

“No, I would not protect you,” Trump recalled telling that president. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

I just wish Dems didn't attack their candidate.  He's not broken.  Everything is working and people in place to run things are competent.  We can do this all day long.  The idea that Trump even comes up with his own attacks is hilarious.  He still doesn't know how government operates, and when he does talk on his own, it's painfully obvious. I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager with near certainty he doesn't know what NATO stands for.  

I still try to read, on the regular, WaPo and Mother Jones and the Atlantic and similar pieces.  But I just am not as deep into the left-wing media as most of you.  So I am genuinely asking---I get that most administrations in the modern era of both parties don't run on, as a key point, "I'm the Chief Executive...so that means I delegate to smart, capable people."  Because maybe it's not inspiring or drives people the polls.  Same reason, I guess we don't run out to buy shit from Kohl's because their board elected a really great new COO or General Counsel.  But this is certainly one of the things I admire most about Biden is he's totally content to let smart, capable, ethical people run serious, serious shit.  To sane people with morals like some of us, that's a massive fucking positive.  Especially when you contrast it with the revolving door that was the Trump White House and everybody either quit, got fired, got arrested, or thrown under the bus by him.  

I get that it's a point of vulnerability for Biden to say, "Yeah, maybe I am getting up there in age but I have brilliant, energetic people all around me who are executing on making America better every single minute of every single day."  There's obviously a reason why that hasn't been messaged since the Truman administration.  I'm not saying make it the main campaign slogan, but it is such a missed opportunity IMO for the Biden campaign, mainly for reminding Democrats and Independents of his great team.  Yeah, it's not gonna play well to GOP voters, but guess what?  Spoiler alert, they already think he's too old and/or a fake President delegating to the Deep State.  What the fuck is there to lose in making this at least a bullet point feature of his campaign down the list?  Yeah, I see his surrogates out there touting achievements and that's all well and good.  But that's because we're political nerds who seek that shit out.  It's worth a fucking shot to lock up some "meh, he's better than Trump...but I just feel like sitting this cycle out." kinda folks.  I mean from House All-Stars, to most of the Cabinet, to the Joint Chiefs, to Diplomats, they're covering a lot of bases right now and if marketed correctly, it can be a real net positive to any incumbent be there 81 or 41.  /rant

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If you pay more than three bucks for a dozen eggs, that's on you.

You don’t have many options in NYC to pay less. The grocery stores geared toward Hispanics gouge the most here charging right now 5 or 6 dollars for a dozen. They do it because they know their customers do not have the means to travel somewhere cheaper or to a place where the employees also speak the language. It’s infuriating how these people are kept poor on purpose.

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

You don’t have many options in NYC to pay less. The grocery stores geared toward Hispanics gouge the most here charging right now 5 or 6 dollars for a dozen. They do it because they know their customers do not have the means to travel somewhere cheaper or to a place where the employees also speak the language. It’s infuriating how these people are kept poor on purpose.

Yeah, I should have said in Texas.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

You don’t have many options in NYC to pay less. The grocery stores geared toward Hispanics gouge the most here charging right now 5 or 6 dollars for a dozen. They do it because they know their customers do not have the means to travel somewhere cheaper or to a place where the employees also speak the language. It’s infuriating how these people are kept poor on purpose.

The Hispanic grocers get their produce after everybody else here, and/or don't have as much bargaining power as larger retailers. I think a big part is just Capitalism--can't blame a shortage, transportation issues/costs or mass bird flu chicken slaughter. Covid showed what people are willing to pay. The DC metro region is seeing the rising costs as well.  But that's not going to change with a new president, and certainly not with more tax cuts for the rich.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2024 at 3:52 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Bill Barr redacted and negligently front-ran a similar report.

Garland could have easily told Hur to take out the inconsistent pot shots, or he could have done it himself.  Y'all are nuts if you think Garland had no say in the way this report was written.

First, I am unaware of any really improper redactions.  A few were "un-redacted" after litigation.  And I think Mueller's team mostly was responsible for the redactions, along with interested parties.

What Barr did was very deliberate, not negligent, and probably improper as an advocate of Trump, rather than the nation as a whole.

The critical question becomes, should Garland have betrayed his ideals in order to be a partisan hack like Barr? 

Biden specifically appointed him to bring regularity and normalcy to the office.  Recognizing what's at stake, I think not, but I abhor that kind of politics anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

First, I am unaware of any really improper redactions.  A few were "un-redacted" after litigation.  And I think Mueller's team mostly was responsible for the redactions, along with interested parties.

What Barr did was very deliberate, not negligent, and probably improper as an advocate of Trump, rather than the nation as a whole.

The critical question becomes, should Garland have betrayed his ideals in order to be a partisan hack like Barr? 

Biden specifically appointed him to bring regularity and normalcy to the office.  Recognizing what's at stake, I think not, but I abhor that kind of politics anyway.

Holy shit, man.  It's no wonder people think your perspective is "if a lawyer did it, it was fine".

That report was not fine, and Garland could have had Hur clean it up.  Full stop.  There was no need to eliminate or even minimize any findings.  All that needed to be done was to strike the clearly political red meat that was designed by Hur to do exactly what it did.

For fuck's sake, grow a soul.  You know right from wrong yet you spend an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to prove otherwise.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Holy shit, man.  It's no wonder people think your perspective is "if a lawyer did it, it was fine".

That report was not fine, and Garland could have had Hur clean it up.  Full stop.  There was no need to eliminate or even minimize any findings.  All that needed to be done was to strike the clearly political red meat that was designed by Hur to do exactly what it did.

For fuck's sake, grow a soul.  You know right from wrong yet you spend an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to prove otherwise.

Garland asked him to do it, it's reproduced above.

The idea of a Special Counsel is that they're independent of the Attorney General and the administration.  Garland probably could have ordered him to do it, but that's not his inclination and undermines or completely destroys the independence of the Special Counsel.

And then he would have had to deal with the fallout of being political and supporting his boss, and violating the spirit if not the letter of the Special Counsel rules.  Again, not his inclination.  He appointed the sonofabitch, so he has to deal with what the sonofabitch did.  Even Barr didn't order Mueller to change his report.

Thumb on the scale like Barr?  Thumb off the scale?  The latter is, independent of circumstances, clearly the proper path.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Rare neg. But well earned. 

LOL.  Neg away.

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Garland asked him to do it, it's reproduced above.

Garland asked Hur to judge Biden's memory miscues differently than he did other witnesses?  Really?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish Dems didn't attack their candidate.  He's not broken.  Everything is working and people in place to run things are competent.  We can do this all day long.  The idea that Trump even comes up with his own attacks is hilarious.  He still doesn't know how government operates, and when he does talk on his own, it's painfully obvious. I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager with near certainty he doesn't know what NATO stands for.  

Naggers Are Taking Ours
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LOL.  Neg away.

Garland asked Hur to judge Biden's memory miscues differently than he did other witnesses?  Really?

Don't be obtuse.

Garland asked him to amend the report, pointing out the inconsistency in treatment.  He didn't order him to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

You're describing Calvinball. 

Garland understands the purpose of a Special Counsel, even if the current rules don't completely enable independence.  The idea is that the AG doesn't tell an SC what to do, whether there's any real independence or not.  He's not going to tell Hur what to do.

Even Barr didn't try to tell Mueller what to do with his report.

At some point, maybe every point, the Attorney General of the United States should not succumb to political expediency, despite what his predecessors and opponents have done, and despite what his partisan supporters would have him do.

Most importantly, ordering Hur to change the report prior to its release would have been discovered and publicized and would have been a bigger shitstorm than this is already.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Don't be obtuse.

Garland asked him to amend the report, pointing out the inconsistency in treatment.  He didn't order him to do so. 

That is on Garland.  I don't see how you fail to recognize this.  Just treat all witnesses equally and don't release a report that doesn't do so.  Jesus Christ.  Obtuse much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That is on Garland.  I don't see how you fail to recognize this.  Just treat all witnesses equally and don't release a report that doesn't do so.  Jesus Christ.  Obtuse much?

It was Garland's choice, maybe, but I don't think Garland saw it as a choice.  He was not going to order a Special Counsel to change his report.  He publicly requested that he do so, pointing out the problem, but is not going to order him to do anything with respect to the report.

I don't fail to recognize anything.  You don't seem to understand and never have that a Special Counsel is intended to be independent of the Attorney General.  Therefore, an Attorney General that respects the intent of the Special Counsel rules is not going to ORDER him to change his report, or unilaterally change the report before its release.

For the 100th time since the Mueller investigation commenced, the ONLY reason for existence and appointment of a Special Counsel is an apparent conflict of interest between the administration, of whom the AG is a cabinet official, and an investigation target. Therefore, they are intended to operate outside the chain of command of the DOJ and free of the direction of the Attorney General.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

It was Garland's choice, maybe, but I don't think Garland saw it as a choice.  He was not going to order a Special Counsel to change his report.  He publicly requested that he do so, pointing out the problem, but is not going to order him to do anything with respect to the report.

 

THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT.  Hur could have written "Communist Agent Joe Biden lied to investigators" and you would be fine with it and feel Garland had no need to intervene.

 

Quote

I don't fail to recognize anything.  You don't seem to understand and never have that a Special Counsel is intended to be independent of the Attorney General.\

Fuck you.  I recognize that, within reason.  It was a political hit job and that goes outside the bounds of proper investigation

You are a startling example of someone who is incapable of sussing out shades of gray.  Fuck it, I'm out, I'm tired of this bullshit argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • immamac changed the title to Joe Biden 2024 thread - Dark Brandon Strikes Again
Quote

During his press conference, Barr claimed that “the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.”

That’s contradicted in the report. Mueller notes that after Trump learned that his own conduct regarding obstruction was being investigated after appointment of the special counsel, “the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DixonHur said:

I do because I feel bad for the sweatshop chickens.

I like my eggs to come from pasture raised hens.  

We get hippy eggs. It costs extra for all the Grateful Dead the chickens listen to.

The mark-up could just be to pay the kid who takes regular factory eggs and dyes them shades of brown.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

We get hippy eggs. It costs extra for all the Grateful Dead the chickens listen to.

The mark-up could just be to pay the kid who takes regular factory eggs and dyes them shades of brown.

Hmm, THC infused eggs...now that's something I could get behind 

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

I notice this A LOT, but again I spend an inordinate amount of time looking at prices and portion sizes in grocery stores so I instantly recognize when companies do this. I am glad the President is filling in the gap here to do something to stop this farce. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

I notice this A LOT, but again I spend an inordinate amount of time looking at prices and portion sizes in grocery stores so I instantly recognize when companies do this. I am glad the President is filling in the gap here to do something to stop this farce. 

Yes, if some consumers are just now noticing this, then they've haven't been taught by family or teachers because this is nothing new. When I was learning how to cook/bake, my mama had a lot of old recipes that had to be adapted because the ones that had instructions like use one box yellow cake mix would turn out awful if one didn't account for the shrinkage (i.e. volume matters). The Betty Crocker company, along with Pillsbury, etc have been doing this for years, and I rarely buy mixes unless a recipe specifically calls for it and then just do the math but it's a pain. Across the board, it's those little amounts every aisle, every product and nationwide adds up. IIRC, weights and measures are regulated by state not federal although there is a federal office (Office of Weights and Measures underneath the aegis of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Dept of Commerce). Not sure if I have that correct, but a friend back in college was a food science major that was really interested in candy bar weights and how much $$ profit was in getting that bar perfectly weighed. Now, it's Snickers bars in various sizes from King sized to bite sized so that consumers don't even think about what they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Yes, if some consumers are just now noticing this, then they've haven't been taught by family or teachers because this is nothing new. When I was learning how to cook/bake, my mama had a lot of old recipes that had to be adapted because the ones that had instructions like use one box yellow cake mix would turn out awful if one didn't account for the shrinkage (i.e. volume matters). The Betty Crocker company, along with Pillsbury, etc have been doing this for years, and I rarely buy mixes unless a recipe specifically calls for it and then just do the math but it's a pain. Across the board, it's those little amounts every aisle, every product and nationwide adds up. IIRC, weights and measures are regulated by state not federal although there is a federal office (Office of Weights and Measures underneath the aegis of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Dept of Commerce). Not sure if I have that correct, but a friend back in college was a food science major that was really interested in candy bar weights and how much $$ profit was in getting that bar perfectly weighed. Now, it's Snickers bars in various sizes from King sized to bite sized so that consumers don't even think about what they're doing.

 

Oh, we're aware. We are all very well aware.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It was Garland's choice, maybe, but I don't think Garland saw it as a choice.  He was not going to order a Special Counsel to change his report.  He publicly requested that he do so, pointing out the problem, but is not going to order him to do anything with respect to the report.

I don't fail to recognize anything.  You don't seem to understand and never have that a Special Counsel is intended to be independent of the Attorney General.  Therefore, an Attorney General that respects the intent of the Special Counsel rules is not going to ORDER him to change his report, or unilaterally change the report before its release.

For the 100th time since the Mueller investigation commenced, the ONLY reason for existence and appointment of a Special Counsel is an apparent conflict of interest between the administration, of whom the AG is a cabinet official, and an investigation target. Therefore, they are intended to operate outside the chain of command of the DOJ and free of the direction of the Attorney General.

Garland's mistake wasn't not forcing Hur to alter the report, it was in picking Hur in the first place.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden needs to thread the needle by reminding the investor class, including 401k holders, that their investing health has NEVER been as good as they are today, Feb 12th. Make Wall Street Great Again. But without shoving it in the face of the non-investor class who are struggling with paying rent and grocery bills.

Of course with today's world of targeted advertising, emails, etc, this isn't an impossible task. 

Now many people with investments are going to vote for Trump no matter how you target them but you want their enthusiasm for Trump to be brought down a level or two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Biden needs to thread the needle by reminding the investor class, including 401k holders, that their investing health has NEVER been as good as they are today, Feb 12th. Make Wall Street Great Again. But without shoving it in the face of the non-investor class who are struggling with paying rent and grocery bills.

Of course with today's world of targeted advertising, emails, etc, this isn't an impossible task. 

Now many people with investments are going to vote for Trump no matter how you target them but you want their enthusiasm for Trump to be brought down a level or two. 

nyt had a good article the other day about how partisan perceptions of the economy are now.  d's think it is good, r's think it is bad, no matter what.  just more of the politics-before-everything that exists now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

nyt had a good article the other day about how partisan perceptions of the economy are now.  d's think it is good, r's think it is bad, no matter what.  just more of the politics-before-everything that exists now.

Hence why some Rs and Independents need a message that has Biden + stock market = your high net worth. And the goal isn't to flip 100% of them because that ain't happening. Convincing a few to vote for Biden, or a few to not vote at all, or to not give Trump/GOP a donation matters. A few thousand votes in the right state may decide this race.

As the true incumbent, Biden has to run on his record. And the truth is that some people have never been as well off as today. Biden has to exploit that fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...