Joe Biden ruled as too incompetent to face charges

[WyattEarp]

I think he is the better of the 2 choices. We live in the real world.

That's different than downplaying the job description of President and saying that it's not an incredible challenge for an elderly President.

I simply don't agree with the description of the job given here. It was almost made to sound like a Council President. We have a really great HR team here at the White House that spearheads recruiting the best people for the President. Lol.

I don't know what the age cut-off should be but I think Biden is passed that and likely Trump as well. Let's just say for argument's sake you can't run for President if you will be 80 before your last year in office.

 

[kherg007]

It's quite a bit more than that especially when it comes to foreign policy and crises abroad.

There are always a lot of forces within an Administration. There is far too much money and power pushing in all directions.

No offense, the job you described sounds more like the Prime Minister of Canada.

My problem is too many are basing it solely on the theater.

 

[WyattEarp]

My problem is too many are basing it solely on the theater.

What is theater?
Is a Presidential debate theater?
Is have a town hall meeting and answering audience questions theater?
Is having press conferences where questions aren't selected in advance theater?

I would tend to agree that extensive campaign stops and rallies is a lot of theater. However, it is generally an important aspect of a Presidential campaign. Limiting speeches, campaign stops and rallies is obviously his campaign's prerogative.

 

[kherg007]

I'm referring to doing the job, rather than looking like you're doing the job. People voting based upon demeanor, not results.
I know, I'm being idealistic, but i come off the raw prawn when it seems like demeanor is the only thing people vote on.

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1761225577787195805

 

[WyattEarp]

I'm referring to doing the job, rather than looking like you're doing the job. People voting based upon demeanor, not results.
I know, I'm being idealistic, but i come off the raw prawn when it seems like demeanor is the only thing people vote on.

A Chief Executive needs to exude confidence to be effective in their job. Political leaders more so. I would categorize this as demeanor. If you see that confidence with Biden, great.

 

[Valcazar]

I laid out why I don't think there is useful and compelling purpose for the DOJ to be pursuing these cases against a former POTUS and Presidential candidate during an election year. Of course, that's not saying he didn't violate the law and seek confrontation with the DOJ. I'm just looking at the realistic outcomes along with the money and effort that will be expended to reach those outcomes.

Everyone knows Trump will take on the FBI, the DOJ, etc. for no other reason than politics. The prosecutor inadvertently plays into that drama.

It's just an opinion.

Fair enough.

I don't think you can take the politics out of this case during a Presidential election year.

Of course you can't.
Especially when one of the people involved is hyper-fixated on politicizing everything.

Trump seems to want this battle with the DOJ. Is the DOJ looking for a way to stay out of court? Again, it's just my opinion they should. Hell, Trump might still say see you in court.

The DOJ appears to want to have the case resolved, which could mean not going to court if Trump copped a plea or otherwise cut a deal.
Trump wanting to go to court seems unlikely.
Dragging it out while it NOT being in court seems to be something he thinks helps him, though.

 

[Valcazar]

No, but I think there are practical limits to pursuing political candidates especially a former President. If the documents case isn't really moving public opinion, you might say it doesn't matter what public opinion is he broke the law. On the other hand, one can say public opinion is the biggest jury in the world.

Not really going to support "If it doesn't move public opinion, the person should be able to commit crimes".

I thought Hillary should have been hit with a fine, but Comey did a little dance in 2016 that didn't make either side happy. I would have to say that Biden should have been hit with a fine. Remember they were in junior roles to the President of the United States. They had less authority over how they handled classified documents.

What fine?
Under what theory of the case?
Or is it just you want to move from "If we have no evidence you did this deliberately and you cooperate and give things back we don't prosecute" to "we give you a nominal fine" as the basic standard?

Eh.
I wouldn't fight that as the new standard (as long as it isn't too much since lots of people who get caught in this sort thing aren't very rich).

I know people like yourself have continued to look for the "big crime". I'm sorry I don't see it in the documents case. I'm not sure others are going to be persuaded to see it. If Trump wasn't running for office, I wouldn't care what the DOJ did with this case.

That's where we differ.
If he wasn't running for office, the case would proceed much the same way and the DOJ should still prosecute.
You thinking he shouldn't be prosecuted because he is running for office just isn't something I can agree to.

This isn't "the big crime" by the way.
It's a crime, sure, and one he could have avoided more easily than almost any of his other cases, but in terms of "the big crime" it isn't top of my list.

 

[Valcazar]

A 3rd party is long overdue.

One that supports what, exactly?
(There are, as you know, two fairly major third parties in the US, and the theoretical third third party of "No Labels".)

As I've discussed many times here, if a third party actually becomes competitive in the US, it will either collapse or one of the current two will and we will be back to two parties within the decade.
You aren't going to see a change until the entire system is overhauled.

 

[toguy5252]

sleepy joe is finished

of course that was not the basis of the decision at all but don’t let inconvenient facts get in your way.

 

[Valcazar]

If the Democratic centrists were running things, Trump would not be pulling so strong.

That seems dubious.
It may depend on what you mean by "centrist".
Can you give me an example of who you're including in that?

I'm wondering if its going to be 1968 all over again.

The pundits sure hope so.
Great ratings.
They're bored and want something exciting.

 

[WyattEarp]

One that supports what, exactly?
(There are, as you know, two fairly major third parties in the US, and the theoretical third third party of "No Labels".)

As I've discussed many times here, if a third party actually becomes competitive in the US, it will either collapse or one of the current two will and we will be back to two parties within the decade.
You aren't going to see a change until the entire system is overhauled.

Isn't it likely that the popular aspects of a third party's platform just gets absorbed into one of the major parties or both? We've had two parties dominating for 160 plus years so there hasn't been a major party collapse for a long, long time.

The post-revolution period and antebellum years were so unique in that regional sectionalism was sharply defined and at the forefront of U.S. politics.

 

[Valcazar]

If I had to choose between a MAGA Congressmen who supports limiting government and a Leftist Congressmen who see no limits to the expansion of government, I know what my choice will be. If one peers through all the hyperbole from both sides, this is the crux of the political choice.

Are there MAGA Congressmen who support limiting government?
They seem pretty big on government power.

 

[nottyboi]

One that supports what, exactly?
(There are, as you know, two fairly major third parties in the US, and the theoretical third third party of "No Labels".)

As I've discussed many times here, if a third party actually becomes competitive in the US, it will either collapse or one of the current two will and we will be back to two parties within the decade.
You aren't going to see a change until the entire system is overhauled.

A moderate right.

 

[Valcazar]

It was mixed bag. I generally like to see compromise on Capitol Hill. However peculiarly, the Biden Administration was dragged to the table by holding a gun to their head. The Biden Administration should have been trying to compromise two years ago.

Elaborate?
The proposed compromise had been for years that the paths to citizenship, some amnesty, and other immigration issues would be the compromise for what the GOP wanted.
The GOP, having Ukraine to leverage, instead got most of what they wanted without having to give any of that up.
Then they killed the deal they asked for.

Squeezer, I want to point out to you what left and center in this matter are because you seem to be a little shaky on your definitions. The Obama Administration took a centrist approach to handling the border. The Biden Administration has been taking a leftist approach to the border for three years. See there are clear differences and they are not really that subtle.

Cool!
We have a point of reference, excellent.

So what differences between Obama and Biden do you see that made Obama centrist and Biden leftist.
You say they are clear and not really subtle, but I don't know which you consider which, so please explain.

When it comes to the recent NY special election, I'm not sure taking cues from certain media is a great idea. The special election involved a virtual incumbent. Incumbents always benefit from low turnouts which was magnified by a snowstorm on election day.

How was there a virtual incumbent?
It was Santos's seat.

That said, I don't think a lot can be read into the special election.
Santos was a uniquely pathetic figure that people were glad to distance themselves from.
(The snowstorm issue also probably played a role since the GOP has embraced rejecting early voting.)

 

[Valcazar]

My problem is too many are basing it solely on the theater.

That's been an increasing problem since probably the 60s.

 

[Valcazar]

Isn't it likely that the popular aspects of a third party's platform just gets absorbed into one of the major parties or both? We've had two parties dominating for 160 plus years so there hasn't been a major party collapse for a long, long time.

The post-revolution period and antebellum years were so unique in that regional sectionalism was sharply defined and at the forefront of U.S. politics.

Yes, exactly.

There is a reason people refer to this as the Sixth Party System - because every so often there is enough of a shakeup that what the parties stand for and where they are strong changes radically.

But as you say, the structural forces push things toward the party having these coalition fights internally in the primaries and so on rather than afterwards. When an issue the general public is interested in isn't being addressed, it can bubble up into a third party that is briefly mildly competitive and then those policies get absorbed into the major parties (either one or both). Slavery was sufficiently huge as such an issue that it took down the Whigs and the Republicans took their place. (After a period of chaos.)

That's the thing about the call for a third party, people have to make a case for where it is going to get its votes and from who. And if there is a good case, it just means the most likely result is one of the other two parties just adopting those positions after the vote split costs them an election.

It's also true that the regional aspects have been blunted even more since the parties got more ideologically consistent, so you don't even have that option to grow some third party strength.

The fact that it is a presidential system not a parliamentary one doesn't help. In Canada, we have parties that exist purely because of regional strength, but that's not really supported well in the US system.
We haven't even seen a third party try to organize a purely congress-level push in my lifetime. They just come out for the Presidential elections, where they have the least chance of accomplishing anything long term.

 

[Valcazar]

A moderate right.

Which would mean what?
Do you just mean the old GOP sort of pro-business wing?
They got eaten by MAGA. It seems they didn't have much support.

What would "moderate right" be?

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1761557915180097604

 

[nottyboi]

Which would mean what?
Do you just mean the old GOP sort of pro-business wing?
They got eaten by MAGA. It seems they didn't have much support.

What would "moderate right" be?

A GOP that was refocused on lower govt spending, less foreign intervention and less interference in peoples lives.