Joe Manchin to skip White House event as he considers 2024 bid against Biden
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
When President Joe Biden marks the first anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act next week with a major celebration at the White House, one prominent invited guest is not expected to be in the crowd.
The decision by Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to skip the White House's campaign-style affair highlighting the climate and health spending law he helped write — and name — is just the latest sign of an increasingly fraught relationship between Manchin, a conservative Democrat, and the Biden administration.
Manchin is openly flirting with a third-party run for the presidency in 2024, a move that could upend Biden's prospects of winning re-election. Even if Manchin doesn't take that controversial step, he is already trying to demonstrate greater independence from the White House ahead of another possible Senate run in his deeply Republican state. And Thursday, he said he is "absolutely" considering changing his party affiliation from Democrat to independent.
"I've been thinking about that for quite some time," he told a West Virginia radio host.
How Manchin might create headaches for the president was a topic of discussion during a previously unreported dinner earlier this month between the senator and one of Biden's top aides, Steve Ricchetti. The two men dined after the Senate adjourned for its August break and discussed what the White House might expect from Manchin in the coming months once the Senate is back in session, two sources with knowledge of the relationship between them told NBC News.
Ricchetti remains the main conduit to Manchin as the West Wing nervously eyes the senator's every move. The goal of their dinner was similar to that of their other, fairly regular, discussions: to try to ensure the president is not caught off guard when Manchin publicly breaks with him, the sources added. They did not say if Manchin's consideration of a third-party presidential run or becoming an independent was discussed.
A senior White House official downplayed the significance of Manchin's absence at next week's Inflation Reduction Act event, noting it was taking place during a congressional recess. But his absence is a stark contrast to the White House bill signing ceremony last year, which also took place during a congressional recess. Manchin was featured prominently at that event, and in a gesture acknowledging how central he was to the legislation's passage, Biden gave him the pen he used to put his signature on it.
"We will keep finding ways to work together," the senior White House official said of Manchin. The official said the president's team still has a close working relationship with Manchin and noted the senator "helped us find a way to thread the needle and get things done."
Still, Manchin underscored the tension between his political ambitions and the president's in a statement about the Inflation Reduction Act's anniversary. He praised the law as "one of the most historic pieces of legislation passed in decades" and said it's having an impact in his state. But he also vowed to "continue to fight the Biden administration's unrelenting efforts to manipulate the law to push their radical climate agenda at the expense of both our energy and fiscal security."
President Joe Biden hands a pen to Sen. Joe Manchin at a signing ceremony for H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, in the State Dining Room of the White House on Aug. 16, 2022. Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images file
Biden on Tuesday kicked off a two-week, administrationwide effort to promote the Inflation Reduction Act with an event in Arizona that featured another senator with an independent streak who has at times complicated White House legislative efforts: Kyrsten Sinema. The former Democrat, who changed her party affiliation to independent in December, spoke ahead of Biden as he designated a new national monument near the Grand Canyon. Biden and Sinema later appeared to have a friendly conversation as he was waiting to be introduced for his remarks.
Sinema, like Manchin, won't attend the White House commemoration next week because of "scheduling conflicts," an aide said, despite having voted for the legislation. Sinema, who continues to organize with Democrats in the Senate, similarly has not said if she'll seek a second term next year.
But it's Manchin's seat that Republicans are really eyeing as a top pick-up opportunity next year in a bid to flip the Senate from blue to red.
Manchin is the only remaining Democrat elected statewide in a state that then-President Donald Trump won in 2020. Trump won West Virginia by almost 40 percentage points over Biden.
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, who previously praised Manchin for being a thorn in the side of Democrats, has since turned on him. McConnell's super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, has rallied behind Manchin's would-be opponent, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, a former Democrat who turned Republican.
"It wasn't smart to do what I did if I'm doing strictly about politics," Manchin admitted Thursday regarding his eleventh-hour deal last year to push Democrats' signature legislative priority over the finish line. He blamed Biden for "catering to one side" in billing the Inflation Reduction Act as all "green and clean," rather than emphasizing the bill's investments in energy security.
As Manchin's political dynamics at home have grown more precarious, he's tried to further distance himself from Biden. That has made his relationship with Ricchetti all the more critical for the White House amid the president's 2024 campaign. But it's also generated some more public clashes.
Perhaps most notably, Manchin has repeatedly torched how the Biden administration has implemented certain aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act, including several climate-related initiatives. He's vowed to block Biden nominees for Environmental Protection Agency posts. He's even threatened to support Republicans' push to repeal the legislation if the Biden administration doesn't prioritize its fossil fuel investments.
Another White House official said in a statement that "we are implementing the Inflation Reduction Act as written, which is achieving many goals we share with Senator Manchin."
The shift started just months after, in the summer of 2022, Ricchetti helped navigate the legislative ups and downs of the bill with Manchin. In the end, it was Manchin who revived Biden's dormant Build Back Better agenda by striking a quiet deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to pass a watered-down measure he could support. He so embraced the bill that he took credit for the new moniker.
"The name that I came up with was the Inflation Reduction Act," Manchin told reporters at the time.
During Thursday's radio interview, Manchin once again defended the law's title.
"I knew it would not enhance inflation; it would reduce inflation. ... The effect of the bill [on inflation], you can't disagree with that," Manchin said in an attempt to counter the host's criticism.
Later in the day, Biden appeared to burst Manchin's bubble.
"I wish I hadn't called it that," he said at a fundraiser in Utah, "because it has less to do with reducing inflation than it has to do with providing alternatives that generate economic growth."
Aug. 11, 2023, 9:00 AM UTCBy Mike Memoli and Julie Tsirkin
Tags
Who is online
404 visitors
If Joe Manchin were to ever win the DNC nomination, I could finally rest easy over the 2024 election.
It would put the D nomination back into the 'responsible' category. Hopefully that would also trigger the GOP to break free of Trump for the nomination but that is admittedly mere wishful thinking on my part.
Yes, it would. I'm sure the left wouldn't give up control of the party without a fight. Manchin could win that battle.
The Ds no doubt recognize that Biden is way past his prime and that he is far from the ideal candidate (even if he were younger). But, as with the Rs, political parties go with momentum rather than make sensible moves to deliver the best candidates and the best nominee. It takes a disruptive element to break free of that pattern.
The democrat party is a big party. Many might think Biden too old or Manchin more reasonable. There is that other wing to the party - the radical left and Joe Biden has fulfilled their every wish. I think you are underestimating their hold on the party.
I disagree with you completely, I'm tired of the disrespect and disregard of President Biden.
P.S. I don't recognize that at all, you seem pretty sure in your disregard for a good and decent man.
Don't read things into what I wrote. Where did I suggest Biden was not a decent man? Where do I disregard him?
I stated that Biden is too old and that he is not (and never was) an ideal candidate for the presidency.
You are leaning too far to the right. There is a reason Manchin has never been a presidential candidate within the Democratic Party. He's not really a Democrat.
You are so correct. He's not really a Democrat. Like Sinema - how come we never hear from that DINO anymore?
Not really a Democrat?? Lmao!
I do not care if Manchin is a D or an R, John.
So, [deleted] or they aren't democrats?
Got it.
Joe Manchin will never be the Democratic nominee. You implied you would like to see that happen. Its not gonna happen.
Yes, I would like to see Manchin rather than Biden. Yes, I doubt the Ds would rally around Manchin. That does not change my opinion.
And per your prior comment, I do not care if Manchin is considered a good Democrat.
I have to disagree here. He's corrupt. He's just slick about it.
Of course he is. He's just one of the sensible ones, so you don't want to acknowledge him.
He's a corrupt ass as far as I'm concerned and I would never vote for him.
Hmmmm. So if the choices are Manchin and Trump and you say you would never vote for Manchin.............
I never meant to imply that, about YOU saying he's not, you've never suggested that at all. When I say disregard, I mean, I guess, that you say he's not fit or whatever. I didn't mean for you to take it that way, I apologize.
That corrupt DINO doesn't stand a chance.
What did he do that is corrupt?
Excellent question.
he said something mean about little Joe?
The whole Manchin family was at the heart of the huge rise in the cost of Epipens, for starters, which led to financial and political benefits for all of them.
And political pressure from him is the only reason his daughter got her MBA. Several people had to resign over that scandal.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170802084112/
So, Joe's daughter got her degree and a high-profile job with the maker of Epipens not because she actually did the coursework, but because of who her father was. Joe appointed his wife to a position that allowed her to make stocking Epipens mandatory for public schools, while contractually excluding the purchase of competitor's products, and possibly overbilling Medicaid for Epipens.
If nepotism is now corruption almost everyone in politics is screwed. Not that it would be a bad thing.
As opposed to Joe Biden and his degenerate son selling influence.
Based on policy alone I'll take Manchin.
That goes beyond nepotism.
According to whom, Vic? We keep hearing all of these allegations, and then the bombshell witnesses don't deliver the goods for prosecutors.
I'm sorry Sandy, nobody filmed themselves slipping a million in cash in Joe Biden's pocket.
What does common sense tell you about Hunter & Joe accumulating all these millions from foreign powers?
I am not so sure about that. Especially if Hunter/Joe/Burisma is just considered nepotism. I will gladly wait until the charges of corruption are filed and a trial is held. Was Manchin at least censured for what he did? Any repercussions at all? I am sure the drums of corruption will beat louder if it looks like he will be obstacle in Joes way to a second term. Nothing like a little character assassination to try and rid yourself of the competition.
Doubtful but he's on ignore, so I don't know what the question was, nor do I care.
You're basically admitting you don't have evidence, and are relying on emotion and your dislike of Biden.
Ah, so, in the Manchin case, there is evidence of wrongdoing (nepotism at least), but you wait for official censure. But in the Biden case, there is no evidence of wrongdoing on Joe Biden's part, but you're ready to convict. Pointing out facts about Manchin from his own words is "character assassination", somehow.
Why does this tactic seem familiar?
well gee isn't that evidence that the Biden Family is squeaky clean??
You're basically admitting that you don't care what the Bidens did.
I guess so. No security camera film = no evidence.
I'm not sure but that line is from the Hillary Clinton playbook on how to get away with just about anything.
Nope. You want to convict them without evidence. That's not how America works.
If JOE Biden, you know, the actual public official, is proven to have engaged in wrongdoing, then I want him convicted. HUNTER Biden is a big boy, and capable of operating on his own. He has been convicted of crimes, and should serve whatever penalty the courts hand down.
I have to wonder if you'll hold the same position regarding Trump's legal battles. I suspect not.
It is pathetic watching GOP partisans defend Trump by asking "where is the indictment?" and then when the indictments arrive they ask "where is the proof" and when the courts finally determine a verdict they will claim any verdict against Trump is a result of a rigged judicial system.
Yet when it comes to the Ds, they will take any whiff of wrongdoing and deem guilt.
This is the most obvious litmus test for partisanship today. Biden might have engaged in wrongdoing and if so, he should be held accountable. Trump absolutely did engage in wrongdoing and we even have specific charges in formal indictments. We do not know if he is legally guilty, but the evidence is overwhelming that he engaged in wrongdoing. Only the blind partisans cannot see this. GOP partisans typically have already deemed Biden guilty yet many still will not acknowledge any wrongdoing of Trump. And those who do acknowledge it, downplay it dramatically.
No, I want the clearly insidious issue INVESTIGATED. That is only being done, in reality, by the House Oversight Committee.
Why was the IRS stymied in their investigation of Hunter Biden?
What about all these FBI whistleblowers who say the bureau is protecting Joe Biden?
Why is Biden's AG handling investigations in all matters concerning Joe Biden and Joe's political opponent?
You don't seem to want it to even be looked at. No interest in why all those foreign governments gave MILLIONS to the Bidens?
The key word there is "obvious," And both of you like to ignore the obvious.
By calling it "insidious", you reveal that you have already come to a conclusion.
You missed the part where I said this:
That's rich, considering your continual defense of Trump.
You don't think taking millions from China & Ukraine is insidious?
What is it then?
I haven't put up any such defense. I have lauded his policies, but unlike you and your friend I haven't defended him here on anything he is being charged with.
The comments are there for all to see
Do you have proof that Joe Biden did any of that?
You defend his abysmal pandemic response right on this page, Vic. To the point of denying reality.
Just amazing ...
I never heard of requiring proof of an illegal act before one gets to investigate.
Doesn't the investigation come first?
You seem to be saying no proof / no questions.
If anything needed an investigation it is China paying millions to the drug addicted son of a president.
Again Sandy: THAT WAS A POLICY! NOT A LEGAL MATTER!
YOU ARE DEFENDING BIDEN ON POSSIBLE ILLEGALITIES!
First we would need sound evidence. Proof, of course, is a much stronger case.
With Trump there is overwhelming evidence. The determination of wrongdoing is blatantly obvious.
In Biden's case, (Joe Biden), the determination of wrongdoing is premature. He might have taken millions from China but rational folks need more than political hysteria and conspiracy theories before determining wrongdoing.
Some people deny reality day after day after day.
Well if you were to calmly read what Sandy wrote, she is not claiming that Biden is necessarily innocent and has noted that he should be held accountable for any illegal acts if these are ever determined.
Amazing watching you read what you want and ignore what you do not like. Blatant confirmation bias.
I did read it. She keeps using the talking points of the left: "where is the proof?"
We don't start with "the proof." We should be able to investigate first.
Are the Bidens off limits to investigation?
Read the rest of what she wrote, Vic. Her words show that she would hold Biden accountable for illegal acts. She did not argue that Biden was above the law or that legitimate charges should not be investigated. What more do you need?
Pay attention to the GOP ... there you will see the denial you are trying to read into Sandy's words.
Show me where she is open to an investigation of the Bidens?
Show me where she has stated otherwise.
Unlike you, I do not presume ... I follow the evidence. Until Sandy states that she is against an investigation of potential wrongdoing I will not presume she is against doing what is right.
You just went from read what she wrote to I have to show you.
I believe this is where the conversation comes to an end.
No. We've been waiting for five years now for this alleged proof.
Where did I say we shouldn't investigate? In your determination to tell me what my views are, you have invented a statement for me that I have never made.
New 5-Minute Video Summarizes Joe Manchin's 'Brazen' Corruption
Web Although right-wing Sen. Joe Manchin 's financial conflicts of interest have been well-documented, a new video released Monday details how the West Virginia Democrat's …
"A stunning portrait of political corruption": Exactly how Joe …
Web (Samuel Corum/Getty Images) Reddit Email save Senator Joe Manchin , the most prominent decision-maker on American energy and climate policy, has spent decades …
Reasons Why Joe Manchin is the Vilest US Senator - Medium
Web Manchin is so corrupt , greedy, and evil even the Republicans will not let him join. Manchin thinks Climate Change is a great idea. Manchin does not care about fossil fuels causing …
Stop calling Joe Manchin ‘moderate’ – he’s just a greedy reactionary
Web Stop calling Joe Manchin ‘moderate’ – he’s just a greedy reactionary | Arwa Mahdawi | The Guardian. Joe Manchin doesn’t want Americans to get spoiled by unhinged socialist …
Joe Manchin’s Dirty Empire - The Intercept
Web September 3 2021, 8:00 a.m. n the early hours of August 11, the Senate voted to approve a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that would mark the nation’s most significant investment in …
From everything I've seen, people are holding Joe Biden responsible for the actions of his son. It seems very clear to me that Hunter Biden is a deeply flawed man, for whatever reason, and may well have made use of the family name to enrich himself.
But that's Hunter.
Moreover, they know that. It's "the Biden family investigation". It's like they're the Mafia in the minds of their political opponents - if one is guilty, the whole family must be in on it.
How Joe Manchin Aided Coal, and Earned Millions
Web Mar 27, 2022 · The private company behind Mr. Manchin ’s millions. Mr. Manchin and his wife owned assets worth between $4.5 million to $12.8 million in 2020, according to Senate financial disclosure forms ...
Opinion | What Joe Manchin Cost Us - The New York Times
Web Jul 16, 2022 · A Times investigation found that he also personally profited from coal, making roughly $5 million from 2010 to 2020 — about three times his Senate salary. Coal has made Mr. Manchin a millionaire
I think there probably wasn't much attention paid to Manchin before the past few years. He's from a tiny state that doesn't make the news very often. But West Virginians know what kind of person he is, and what he's done. Unfortunately, WV is plagued by the same problem as the nation at large with it comes to political candidates - a severe lack of decent, qualified people to run for office. So the Manchins and the Moore-Capitos keep winning elections, because they're bad, but probably not as bad as the other guy. The devil you know.
Bernie Sanders Is Mad as Hell at Joe Manchin ’s Corruption , And …
Web Jul 17, 2022 · Sen. Joe Manchin is “intentionally sabotaging the president's agenda, what the American people want, what a majority of us in the Democratic caucus want,” Sen. Bernie Sanders tells @MarthaRaddatz.
Joe Manchin ’s ‘blind trust’ is an utter farce | Will Bunch Newsletter
Web Oct 19, 2021 · The senator knows that coal dollars are floating his boat. Like much of what passes for ethics in Congress, the whole thing is a farce. As any hardened investigative reporter would tell you, the corruption of Joe Manchin is the worst kind — the legal kind. “It’s a misnomer — these are not ‘blind trusts’ whatsoever,” Craig Holman ...
Still think Democrats will support Joe Manchin for president ?
I feel fairly certain that Joe Manchin could never win the Democratic nomination. Of course if he runs on a No Labels ticket he doesnt have to win anything, he will simply be anointed as the nominee.
This is pathetic. You invent words for Sandy and then fail to even show the source of your fantasy.
I doubt that he could. He's been too willing to buck the party, and his ties to coal are too strong.
trying to be a 3rd party spoiler in 2024 is a predictable move for him, since he's probably finished as a wv senator. rwnj hopes that he could pull enough democrat or independent votes from biden to give trump back the white house is a stretch at this point in time.
If you mean the tactic about putting words into someones mouth (or telling them what they are ready to do) and then expect them to defend something that just isn't true happens all too often
The problem being that there is absolutely no evidence of that.
Rudy Giuliani started the lie then Comer and Jordan ran with it.
What a fucking prick.
Lol. If there was no evidence, a special prosecutor wouldn’t be have been appointed. Or do you think Biden/garland are in on the lie?
Ok, I'm responding to what I assume are your words, because you did not use the quote feature properly.
The fact that this is the first you're hearing of it is irrelevant. It happened. I provided links and quotes. Yes, Wikipedia, but Wiki provides sources. It was common knowledge in WV in 2007 when the story broke, but WV being WV, it would hardly be expected to have made national news. Manchin appointed his wife to an office that allowed her to exert influence that favored their daughter's employer, and that daughter didn't earn her degree. Several WVU officials lost their jobs over those lies. They were patsies for Manchin.
No, he was never censured. Censure is not the end-all and be-all regarding whether a politician is corrupt. Many politicians get away with wrongdoing without potential censure. But many here are ready to hang Joe Biden on no evidence, but support Manchin, who appointed his wife to an office that we all know allowed her to benefit her family financially. I also provided the investigation into his daughter's unearned MBA, and the investigating board found that she was treated differently from how other students would have been due to her father's position.
Ah, if only the same standard were being applied to Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma 8 years ago.
I don't know that he is. WV has a habit of continuing to vote in people they know are corrupt.
exactly.
like Robert byrd!
So he is Biden lite.
... so does texas.
Like NY?
They have four major elected statewide officeholders: governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and comptroller. Over the last 16 years, 11 of them bit the scandal dust.
Or Illinois?
Illinois governors are best at actually being convicted of crimes. Since 1961, and 12 governors, four have served prison time.
Chicago alderman, several top state legislators, and state House speaker Mike Madigan (D) resigned in a bribery scandal. If you want to go back further there was Dan Rostenkowski (D), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D) and Mel Reynolds (D).
That's really interesting. That would mean those foreign entities paid Hunter all that money for favors and got nothing in return.
One would think that anyone screwed that way would be calling the Oversite Committee the day they were called into session.
I would very much like to know what actually happened. It is logical to expect that Hunter was paid for influence. But Hunter might be a slimeball who merely sold a story of influence. Given he has no skills that would warrant the money he ostensibly received, one would expect that his service was providing a means for his employers to gain benefits from his father. So it is possible they got some benefits and it is possible that Hunter sold them a bill of goods.
Therefore the next step is to gain evidence that Joe Biden did provide benefits to Hunter's employers. This is where the investigation seems stuck.
This needs to be cleared up. If Joe Biden has done wrong then he needs to be held accountable. If not, it is unhealthy and damaging for the nation looming about such a serious matter.
What, exactly, is funny about my comment?
There is nothing funny about high level corruption.
Now you are worried about the effect it would have on the country. That is funny.
How is that funny?
Since he came down the escalator, this country has been ripped to pieces. Joe Biden must be the bottom line, huh?
What are you talking about? You now mention Trump and leap to Biden as the "bottom line".
State a clear point.
How much clearer can I make it. If it was alright to tear up the country with endless and ridiculous investigations of Donald Trump, which included two faux impeachments and a media gone wild, why is an investigation of Joe Biden the line that endangers national unity?
You are replying to me. Thus you are suggesting I am okay with pointless investigations. Typical crap from those who have no argument. Where have I supported the investigations into Trump that you reference? I did not weigh in on those until we had some real evidence (or lack thereof) to deal with. I do not recall ever weighing in on the Russian investigation. Similarly, I have not weighed in on the Hunter investigation pending evidence.
And my comment @1.2.63 follows that same theme. We have allegations against Biden that have been going on for years now. This might be the first time I have commented on it. My comment is that we need to clear this matter up. If Biden did wrong, hold him accountable. If not, then move on.
Same position I have with Trump. If Trump did wrong (which at this point he obviously did based on substantial evidence) then hold him accountable. If not, them move on.
You, et. al. operate on a partisan basis and often put your foot in your mouth due to reacting (partisan emotion) before sufficient evidence is available. And since you cannot find me doing that, you invent scenarios like this.
Your comment is pathetic, Vic. It is an invented, false scenario; intellectual dishonesty.
Maybe they did. Maybe they thought that money would buy access to his father, or favorable policies toward them. Maybe Hunter did everything he could to lead them to believe that. Maybe he's a lying asshole, and they have egg on their faces and lighter wallets.
Maybe Joe was in on it. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he knew about it, tried to tell his son to knock it off, and Hunter did whatever the hell he wanted, anyway.
There are any number of reasons why they might not. Saving face. Avoiding a political fallout. Perhaps getting on the wrong side of the law in their own countries.
The Biden(s) didn't do anything, it was Hunter.
So, you believe there is merit to these, IMO, bullshit claims against President Biden?
No, TiG did not say that. He said
see @1.2.75
So, pretty much like you said then.
I'm sorry tig, it's not intentional, I'm having a bad day I think and it's coming out wrong.
Again, I apologize
I do not know what Joe Biden did and it is certainly possible he has done nothing wrong.
I understand why GOP partisans are making hay out of this since the evidence illustrates Hunter has been playing some high stakes games and he is the son of Joe Biden. But being a father does not mean that Joe Biden corruptly abused his position.
The optics are bad for Joe Biden but there is no evidence that suggests he did anything wrong.
Thus, as I stated, I would like this matter to be cleared up. If Joe Biden did nothing wrong then let's get that clarified. If he is corrupt, then hold him accountable.
Same basic principle that one should apply to Trump.
Maybe but highly improbable.
The House Committee has been looking at it without much help for only a few months and seem to have accomplished more than the DOJ has in 5 years.
Well, TiG: Here is your chance to condemn it all starting with the illegitimate Trump investigations of a very corrupt FBI. We can both stand together against political prosecution!
I do not recall ever weighing in on the Russian investigation.
Neither do I, especially after it was exposed as a fraud.
That's the point.
Will you accept a not guilty verdict for Trump in both the J6 trial and the classified document case, or will you carry on like your fellow partisans did after the revelation that the russian hoax was just that...a hoax,and continue to repeat the lie.
With nothing to show for it, and still having to call it the Biden family investigation when they only seem to have found evidence of wrongdoing from one member of that family.
I have to wonder, why weren't they so worried about Jared and Ivanka's rapidly-increasing bank accounts when they were "senior advisors"?
[removed]
The former 'president' is guilty of everything he is being charged for and still there is Georgia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do not operate on command, Vic. I comment on matters when it suits me, and based on facts (and against matters based on speculation). The idea that you and I would see eye-to-eye on details is remote and I am not going to just categorically agree with you. I have stated in this forum that both the Ds and the Rs have abused the power of impeachment for partisan purposes. And clearly the Russian investigation on Trump was politically motivated.
So you can have my agreement that partisan politics produces abuses of government powers and that such abuses do not serve the interests of the American people. Beyond that, we need a clear context and clear questions on the table.
I did not jump on the bandwagon while the Russian investigation was ensuing and did not make comments when it was shown to be groundless. So what? It never got legs and then died out. I do not comment on everything that takes place. I have not commented on the Hunter Biden nonsense either until recently. I comment on that which piques my interest.
You need to stop extrapolating ... it causes you to get many things wrong.
Have you ever seen me make any positive claim regarding the Russian investigation? No? Then you are just emitting bullshit.
Of course I will accept a not guilty verdict barring some outrageous travesty (which would trigger an appeal). If the prosecutor fails to convince the jury on any of the following then I will accept a not guilty determination on the specific items:
I. Tried to steal a presidential election for the first time in USA history by:
II. Obstructed the lawful securing of classified documents by knowingly and willingly :
See, bugsy, our legal system determines legal guilt. There is no point not accepting that. But being found not guilty of acts does not falsify facts of reality. There is no denying that Trump engaged in wrongdoing (see above). Some of the above line items might be shown to be false (e.g. the claim that Trump corruptly persuaded another person to withhold or hide classified documents) but most of the above is already well-evidenced even if it does not translate into legal guilt of a crime.
You have claimed that Trump has indeed engaged in wrongdoing. Given you asked your question of me, do you still hold that Trump was wrong to do the above or have you changed your mind?
[deleted]
To the contrary: They exposed the money trail, showed where the DOJ limited an IRS investigation, showed that Antony Blinken got the 51 "former intel officials to sign the bull shit letter saying the Hunter Laptop story had all the hallmarks of "Russian disinformation," and showed how Weiss allowed the statute of limitations to run out on serious crimes committed by Hunter Biden back when Joe was vice president.
In the meantime, the msm has finally been forced to cover the Biden story.
Yes and you are quite fussy for someone who calls others "partisan."
Some comments are very revealing. The other day we were discussing Joe Biden's policies and I asked you if you thought the southern border was open. You responded that you thought Biden failed to secure the border.
Considering his actions, how many people believe his policy was to secure the border?
Then I'm sure you're confident there will be court convictions, which is the standard you hold for Trump, yes? I know you wouldn't want to be accused of harboring double standards.
No, I think that all we get now is a report from Special Council Weiss after the election saying that Hunter Biden acted alone, and that the statute of limitation has expired on any serious crimes. In the case of Trump, I believe he will be convicted in certain jurisdictions and those verdicts will eventually be overturned on appeal. You asked for my opinion/predictions of the future, right? All I have is the past performance of our modern justice system.
You are a partisan, Vic. There is no denying it. You predictably take the GOP position on every issue. And it appears the 'GOP position' for you is that which is expressed via conservative media.
I, in contrast, hold our (current) political parties in contempt. I hold to neither party and make my decisions based on facts (and good evidence). My political views are socially liberal and fiscally conservative so I will sometimes agree with the Ds (e.g. renewable energy, abortion) and sometimes with the Rs (e.g. illegal immigration, smaller, more efficient government). ( By the way, contemporary GOP is no longer even attempting to be fiscally responsible so I am referring to the GOP of old. )
Nowadays since the GOP has lost its collective mind (Trump and MAGA), I find the Ds to be more rational. That is a function of the GOP failing to be what it used to be.
How is that revealing; revealing of what? Has Biden secured the border or not? I say he has failed to do so. In what way do you disagree?
Ah, TiG, in a fair world I'd get to call you names, but I can't. Now do you see why people sympathize with Trump?
Nowadays since the GOP has lost its collective mind
Because it supports Trump? Losing their collective mind would apply to the party that allowed the radical left to take control of it.
How is that revealing?
You have to be kidding! Are we going to pretend that you don't know the difference between a failed attempt at trying to secure the border and successfully doing everything possible to open it up? There are honest lefties on here who admit that they want foreign migrants to be able to walk right in. They are the people that Joe Biden has served since he was sworn in.
I'm sure that's what you believe.
And you believe that the convictions will stick? Which ones?
I'll wait to see whether he's convicted, and not jump to conclusions about the outcome.
You asked for my opinion, but you don't want to give your's.
Next
I'm allowing you to illustrate the different standards you have for Democrats versus Republicans.
Here are your words:
Then I'm sure you're confident there will be court convictions, which is the standard you hold for Trump, yes?
You asked for my opinion and I gave it. I asked for yours and you declined.
Names? Partisan describes a political situation. You deny that you are a partisan?
No, Vic, explain to me (to all of us) why people sympathize with Trump. Explain how Trump is mistreated.
Yes!
And here you go illustrating how you imagine positions for others. I stated that Biden failed to secure the border which means that I disapprove of illegal immigration and that Biden has not addressed the problem. You translate that into me arguing that Biden attempted to secure the border but somehow did not succeed. I made no such argument. I stated the factual reality and did not focus on partisan reasons.
Biden failed to secure the border. That means he should have (IMO) improved the situation but did not. That is a failure.
Why is every response a lecture from you?
No one ever asks for it.
[removed]
You need to follow your own advice [removed]
tig is not guilty of that
Most extreme partisans just don't see how they are defending one and constantly demeaning another, all because of some wrongdoing (not proven illegal) but ignoring obvious corruption and quid pro quo bribes.
Exactly, you only see Rupub partisanship here, never find Democrat partisanship on these pages.
So you agree Biden himself as president is a failure.
Most Americans do.
Yup, a name useful to the intellectually lazy
No, Vic, explain to me (to all of us) why people sympathize with Trump.
How does one explain the obvious. You have a president who we now know told his DOJ to prosecute his chief political opponent during an election. How many times have democrats used the power of government to go after Donald Trump. How many TiG? You talk about partisanship. I leave that one for our readers.
And here you go illustrating how you imagine positions for others. I stated that Biden failed to secure the border which means that I disapprove of illegal immigration and that Biden has not addressed the problem. You translate that into me arguing that Biden attempted to secure the border but somehow did not succeed. I made no such argument. I stated the factual reality and did not focus on partisan reasons.
Biden failed to secure the border. That means he should have (IMO) improved the situation but did not. That is a failure.
The only "failure" there is you trying to talk your way out of that one. Biden wanted an open border...He was very successful!
Imagine not noticing anything wrong with the current FBI?
I'm aware of what my words were. I'm not the one assuming Biden is guilty, but also assuming that Trump is not. Your words indicate that you are.
My words indicate my opinion. Why are you afraid to give one?
You are whining that I gave you a thoughtful, factual answer.
Having a hard time generating sympathy for the horrible mistreatment you must endure.
Ok, and?
My words were calculated to allow you to reveal your hyperpartisanship. My objective has been accomplished.
[removed]
Your words clearly asked my opinion. I gave you facts on the case earlier, to which you did not respond. Are you really going to play the game that leads to every leftist saying where's the proof?
My objective has been accomplished.
Your scam backfired....Again!
Are you a GOP partisan, Vic? Would you ever even consider voting for a D? What policies of the Ds do you support?
As I have noted, Trump was the target of unfair partisan initiatives. That is pretty much how our irresponsible political parties operate.
But you seem to be trying to argue that ALL of the investigations/indictments on Trump are purely politically motivated. My position is that while Trump has had unfair treatment that the vast majority of negative treatment today is justified by his actions.
What he has done greatly overshadows the partisan moves against him.
This is what causes me to give you et.al. little benefit of the doubt nowadays. Here you are working your ass off trying to tag me with a position that I did not take and will not take. You routinely fail in your arguments and resort to dishonesty. The worst thing you can do with me.
.. with every keystroke.
It is truly pathetic watching people like you being forced to cherrypick and exaggerate because you (seemingly) cannot put forth a cogent honest argument.
I don't get to make that call, just like you don't get to proclaim yourself as "non-partisan."
Would you even even consider voting for a D?
Let me think...Yes! I'd consider voting for Joe Manchin vs John Kasich!
What policies of the Ds do you support?
Some of the now deceased policies of the mainstream democrat party, like when Bill Clinton reformed welfare and his wife Hillary was tough on crime and America's adversaries.
Now it's my turn to cross examine you:
When have you ever voted for a Republican?
What is your opinion of the Hillary Clinton e-mail server investigation?
What is your opinion of the Trump/Russia investigation
What is your opinion of the 2020 riots?
We need to get you on record.
That's the leader alright
[deleted]
Nah. You defended Trump, even if he is convicted, while having already found Biden guilty.
Hyperpartisanship on display.
comment removed for context [ph]
Amazing that you actually think this is a gotcha question. Do you actually believe I am a D?? You cannot even conceive of a political independent!
I voted most recently for Romney and Kasich. Prior to the GOP losing its way, I leaned R.
I have already weighed in on Hillary and the Russian investigation. Both were wrong.
Be more specific about the 2020 riots. Ask a pointed question.
Yes, 100 percent.
Doesn't matter where you leaned before.
Yeah, you cannot even imagine someone who is not bound to a political party. To you one is either R or D. I am not surprised that a blind partisan thinks as you do.
My comment remains the same....and truthful...
100 percent D
You are the one ignoring obvious corruption, the complete corruption, of the former 'president' who is a walking talking crime spree.
[deleted]
This, of course, would be disastrous as it is a path where Trump could actually be elected PotUS.
I think Gen Custer was once asked where the 7th Cavalry was heading. He answered to hell or to Glory, you see, it depends upon one's point of view.
I am not going to give a full response to your comment since that would derail your article, but the essence of what I would write is that voting for Trump is irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
I suspect millions of Americans would view the reelection of Biden as irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
How in the world can you overlook and ignore the damage and disgrace that Biden's actions, corruption, and incompetence has brought to our country?
Yet the steaming pile of shit got 80 million votes.
Have we figured that out yet?
No, the former 'president' the steaming pile of shit did not.
I'm saying that having Joe Manchin as the democrat nominee would relieve us all of that burden.
What do you mean by burden? The burden of voting for Trump? Are you implying that if Manchin vs. Trump that you would vote for Manchin?
Nope. I don't expect Trump to beat Manchin. Manchin should get the vast majority of independent votes. That election might just find me sitting at home.
First of all, your view of Biden is extreme. He is not, IMO, a good president but you paint him with language that is more appropriate for Trump and you do so in a defense of Trump.
Second, I am not overlooking anything. What I do is weigh all the factors without emotion. Rational analysis is different from what you just presented.
I vehemently disagree.
We have a lack of public safety that is unprecedented, a needless energy problem and a very wide-open border. If that isn't extreme, I don't know what is.
What a surprise.
You take Biden's failures/faults to the extreme and downplay those of Trump.
Show me where?
You exaggerate the flaws of Biden and downplay those of Trump. Typical partisan crap. Partisanship disrupts objectivity.
The problem with that is that you cannot see it. All one need do is read your posts. I would suggest you try to read your own posts objectively.
The problem is that you may not want to go down that path.
Let us start the journey:
Is the southern border open??
I explained the problem to you. Your view of reality is tainted by extreme partisanship. IMO, of course.
Yes. As I have noted many times now, this is one of Biden's clear failures of policy. Now, my turn.
Did Trump violate his oath of office by attempting, for the first time in USA history, to steal a presidential election by discrediting the electoral system in order to rally his supporters against the system, attempting to coerce officials into unconstitutional and likely illegal acts and attempt to violate the orderly transfer of power through a scheme of Pence tabling certified votes coupled with false electors from seven states?
Failure? He obviously wanted it open!
Did Trump violate his oath of office by attempting, for the first time in USA history, to steal a presidential election by discrediting the electoral system in order to rally his supporters against the system, attempting to coerce officials into unconstitutional and likely illegal acts and attempt to violate the orderly transfer of power through a scheme of Pence tabling certified votes coupled with false electors from seven states?
I answered that months ago. Trump was wrong to do that, which btw has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICY!
Next question:
Did Joe Biden discourage American energy production?
This is bizarre. I just deemed Biden's open border policy a failure and you take objection to that. Do you consider his policy a failure or a success? What on Earth is your problem?
Yes he was. So we compare Biden's failure to properly address illegal immigration to Trump's attempt to steal a USA election. No contest.
Biden discouraged American fossil fuel energy production and encouraged American renewable energy production. You should know this already.
Now, my question:
Did Trump willingly and knowingly hold, attempt to hide, disclose to unauthorized individuals (in at least one case) and attempt to impede the return of classified documents?
My prediction is that Manchin running against both Biden and Trump would have a decent shot at winning. Those otherwise voting for Trump or Biden with their noses plugged would have a more palatable option. I wouldn’t be excited about it but depending on how his debates went I could see myself voting for Manchin if it became clear that he was sweeping away significant Biden and Trump votes. Then I’d be the one plugging my nose.
That is pure craziness. If one could be sure a third party candidate would win, or harm only Trump's chances, then one could make a semi reasonable case for voting third party. But neither of those are likelihoods. No third party candidate since the early days of the country has been a serious contender to win in a presidential election . Teddy Roosevelt got 27% of the popular vote in 1912 as a third party candidate and was still swamped in the electoral vote. And that is the high point for third party candidates.
A third party candidate will most likely help Trump , and there are any number of political analyst articles that explain this. Even if there is only a 50% chance a third party will help Trump (and I think the chance is quite a bit higher) it is far too much risk to take .
You’re always referencing the history of third party results and consequences. This is obviously like no time in history.
A third party candidate will most likely help Trump , and there are any number of political analyst articles that explain this.
Any number of political articles could also have explained how Trump couldn’t possibly win his first primary. I saw through that wishful thinking and stated right here on NT that I had a shocking and uneasy feeling that Trump could win that primary, and at that time you said I was nuts. It obviously only got worse from there. Trump’s baggage is so extreme right now that many of his initial supporters still prefer him but are ready to consider a different option. The only reason I would vote for Manchin would be to ensure Trump wouldn’t win because Biden has risks from an idiot son problem, old age, and a ubiquitous severe distaste for Kamala Harris. I would hope you would jump on that bandwagon if the writing gets written on the wall.
Possibly. A moderate would hurt the most extreme candidate.
Yup.
I have to agree with you here - voting for corrupt manchin makes no fucking sense to me.
Yet you would vote for Manchin.
WTF is going on today Tessylo?
I never stated that I would vote for Manchin if he ran third party. In fact, I have stated in this forum that the NoLabels party with Manchin would harm Biden and favor Trump.
Then I read it wrong then I guess.
[Deleted]
Do you think it would be just as disastrous if the same path leads to a Biden re election?
Do you ever pay attention to what I write? All I see from you lately is bullshit.
As I have stated numerous times in this forum, I do not want to see Biden as PotUS. Reason 1 is that he is too old. We need new, younger blood in the range (roughly) of 45-65 years of age.
But there is no comparing Biden, with all his negatives, to Trump. Trump has demonstrated that he is willing to compromise anyone and anything (including our nation) to get what he wants. He has the distinction of being the only PotUS (hell, only candidate) in US history who has conspired to steal a US election. He has no integrity and is basically a con-man. Anyone who can think clearly would not want a malignant narcissist, pathological liar con-man sitting in the most powerful office on the planet. That is irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
To wit:
Now bookmark this reply if you think you cannot remember it.
Why do you constantly defend Biden?
You only classified Biden as very undesirable, however, you classify Trump as unacceptable.
Do you not think Biden has compromised the US by "allegedly" accepting bribes from various unscrupulous countries that would like to see us buried?
To wit: Trump= he says mean things and he has done wrongdoing
Biden= He's old but it doesn't matter that there is obvious evidence of his corruption that could have put this country's security at risk. He is just better than Trump.
Stop being so naive.
You don't have to bookmark anything because you will constantly hound me about obtuse things, anyway.
why so you constantly defend the indefensible AKA the former 'president'?
Here you go again with pure bullshit. Funny how the Ds here object when I criticize Biden yet you somehow are blissfully ignorant of my criticisms. More bullshit from you.
Well, good, you picked up on that. Yes, that is exactly correct.
You can show that Biden actually did this? If so, educate us all. In the meantime, I will state my position again since you obviously are confused:
IF Biden accepted foreign money for services delivered via his position then he should be held accountable.
Now, read the above carefully and maybe bookmark the comment so that you can remind yourself.
Trump is a traitor. He abused the power of his position in an attempt to steal a US election. Among other things (read my list).
It is pathetic that you downplay the significance of what Trump has done into merely "say mean things" and "done wrongdoing" as if Trump is being unfairly criticized. Back to defending Trump, bugsy?
That is not my position. More bullshit from you. The evidence against Trump is overwhelming. In addition, there are formal indictments issued. The Biden case is currently nothing more than allegations with the only evidence of wrongdoing being the fact that Hunter is Joe's son. But you leap to guilt. What a surprise.
There is no comparison in terms of evidence between the allegations against Trump and those against Biden. Take off your partisan blinders.
And now you whine. Ironically so, given the post you just wrote.
When you make stupid/dishonest posts, expect to be challenged. If that is a problem for you, don't make stupid/dishonest posts.
What obvious evidence of corruption? You've never provided proof of that or anything else for that matter.
Have you read the Horowitz Report?
see 2.5.2
Biden has pretty much betrayed Manchin, who I think will at least become an independent by years end.
No, Manchin, the corrupt DINO, betrayed President Biden.
Who hasn't Biden betrayed?
A lot of people?
I think Manchin may have finally figured out that he has a better chance at becoming president as the DNC nominee rather than as an independent.
I wouldn't mind if Manchin challenged Biden.
I can just see Manchin wiping the floor with Biden.
IF Biden's handlers allow him to debate. Bet the rules would HAVE to include Biden getting all the questions beforehand so his handlers can tell him what to say.
Biden would NEVER debate him. The way it is set up for Biden is perfect right now:
The media spends all its time on the Trump indictments, the DOJ covers up the Biden family corruption and Joe Biden spends his time sitting at a beach in Delaware.
A simple plan for a simple man.
It would take a lot of planning. Remember when he debated Trump? They had to get 50 former intelligence officials to ultimately ruin their reputations by signing onto that Russian disinformation letter regarding the Hunter Biden laptop. Just on the predictable possibility that Trump would bring up the laptop story being suppressed. It worked like a charm, remember?
I would post the debate where Biden was waiting for Trump to bring it up just so he could say it was "Russian disinformation," but guess what? That scene is not to be found any longer on the internet.
You think, and have said, that the only reason people would vote against Trump is because of his personality or his mean tweets. That claim is laughable.
[deleted]
That should be obvious; an independent winning the presidency today is a major long shot.
Just about anyone who is not a leftist ideologue would have to agree that the country was FAR BETTER under Trump than Biden.
Anyone who is insane.
None whatsoever.
The problem is that you give Trump all the credit for the circumstances during his first years (ignoring his last year) and thus presume that reelecting Trump will be good for the nation. That is naïve.
That is correct. I think the best thing for the country right now is for Manchin to enter the DNC primary.
Are you blaming him for the pandemic? He was golden from beginning to end.
Sure as hell wouldn't be his policies unless Obama's terms indeed made the country into a bunch of candy assed pussies.
I remember when Trump and Biden debated. Trump acted like a lunatic, interrupting Biden dozens of times, and at one point telling the Proud Boys to "stand by".
Trump's performance in that debate is considered to be the absolute low point in presidential debate history.
There's a lot to cover of the former 'president's' corruption and with still another looming indictment from Georgia.
There is no corruption regarding President Biden to cover up.
You remember?
All I want to know is if you remember when Joe Biden said intel officials have called the Hunter laptop story "Russian disinformation?"
Do you?
No, Vic, I blame him for his handling of the pandemic.
Good grief, Vic. Ignoring doctors, calling the pandemic a Democratic conspiracy, having the federal government get into a bidding war with state governments for PPE, vacillating on recommending the "Trump vaccine" after having received it himself - how in the world is that "golden"? To say that requires one be partisan in the extreme, to the point of denying reality.
It is clear that GOP partisans downplay the faults of Trump and exaggerate those of Biden. IMO, this failure of critical analysis is the root of most controversy and in today's politics the GOP partisans are far more adversely affected than the D partisans.
Please be specific. We had Dr Fauci making shit up as he went along, but Trump followed his recommendations.
having the federal government get into a bidding war with state governments for PPE, vacillating on recommending the "Trump vaccine" after having received it himself
Don't you mean putting the development of a vaccine on the fast track and getting it within 10 months, when Dr Fauci said it wasn't possible? And at the same time candidate Biden and his running mate were discouraging people to trust the new vaccine.
Crystal.
Trump did not follow his recommendations. Trump kept having campaign rallies when large gatherings were exactly NOT what Fauci recommended.
Your comments do not reflect reality.
Harris said she wouldn't take the vaccine on Trump's word of its safety. She said she'd trust medical experts. You know, the ones not considering injecting people with disinfectants.
For emphasis!
Throughout the last year, many people have looked to Anthony Fauci , MD, for perspective and guidance on the pandemic . As a result, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has been responsible for a handful of tough decisions over the past seven months. Recently, Fauci said that the most challenging decision he had to make during the pandemic was to advise Donald Trump to implement a nationwide shutdown.
"It was a decision to make a recommendation to the president," Fauci answered. "It wasn't my decision that I could implement." That recommendation was to shut down the U.S. to drastically slow the spread of coronavirus.
Dr. Fauci Says He Recommended a Nationwide Shutdown to Trump Early On (yahoo.com)
Fauci recommended it and Trump suffered the consequences. Neither Dr Fauci, nor any other leading health official knew much about that virus.
Harris said she wouldn't take the vaccine on Trump's word of its safety.
That was her save line after sowing doubt in case the vaccine was distributed before the election. There was no danger of that. Big Pharma waited until about a week after the election to say "we got it!" And Joe & Kamala were among the first to use the Trump vaccine.
How's this for reality?
Trump did not follow Fauci's recommendations, and opposed them fairly early on.
You conveniently left out the part where she'd trust people who weren't considering injecting disinfectant.
Good grief Vic, you just will never get it.
Yes, Harris said that she would take the vaccine if medically recommended but that she would not take it on Trump's word alone.
What is the problem with that? I would not take the vaccine on Trump's word alone either. Trump demonstrated that he did not know what he was talking about and clearly he has no expertise in biology.
I dont agree with your premise, but even if I did Trump will be unfit for all eternity.
People don't want a TRAITOR as their president.
Joe is the traitor [deleted]
Sandy, I know all about the push to pretend that Trump didn't follow Fauci's recommendations. The truth is that he did. We all lived through it despite Politico and mother Jones trying to rewrite history, A robust economy weas shut down because Dr Fauci recommended it.
No, you don't.
Harris and Biden don't get to pull their punches. The vaccine was not to be trusted if it became available when it should have but was suddenly as good as gold under Biden. The people are not as feeble minded as our illustrious college students tend to be. We got it!
[deleted]
vic, why dont you join heated debate and we can discuss who is or isnt a traitor or an extremist. I am not allowed to discuss that with you here.
Believe t or not John, the idea of you and I calling each other names doesn't appeal to me.
Where is Bruce these days?
I dont know where Bruce is, but I know he would run rings around you when it came to "debating".
I get that impression too.
Sorry I missed him. I must have arrived shortly after he left.
Good fucking grief, Vic.
Trump compared to Biden in terms of being a traitor and you deny Trump as a traitor and just declare that the true traitor is Biden.
You continue to ignore that Harris said she would not take the vaccine on Trump's recommendation but rather on the recommendations of qualified professionals.
Why do you continue to blot this fact out of your mind? To what end?
Not handling it all essentially but leaving it up to the states except for favoring red states wherever possible.
We lived through a half-assed shutdown.
Trump's position on lockdowns (and masks, and vaccination...) tend to vary with the political winds. He tells people what they want to hear. When he thinks people want him to be tough on the virus to protect the public health, he acts tough. When he thinks they're getting sick of staying home and might want to come donate money to a billionaire at a political rally, he holds a rally during a pandemic.
Naive is not the word for it.
TDS is an incurable disease.
Yes and you all have it bad.
If Manchin could derail Biden that would be great for America. It might help Dems discover he is not a viable candidate and back someone else, be it Manchin or some other centrist Dem.
Now if someone would step up on the other side of the aisle we might not get an election of the lesser of two evils.
Manchin will never be the Democratic nominee for president. Most Democrats consider him to be a turncoat.
No doubt.
You don't mind if I copy that for future use?
You are probably right but I would not totally count him out. It seems more and more people are getting sick of choosing between a narcissistic ass hole and a dementia ridden incompetent asshole. A darkhorse may be exactly what this country needs.
There is no evidence Biden is incompetent. He fumbles with words sometimes and turns the wrong way on a stage. Big deal when you consider the alternative.
I have also witnessed countless times when Biden rattles off historically accurate and detailed information for minutes on end without a teleprompter. Compared to Trump he’s a fucking genius. Unfortunately, like every human on earth he is a mortal man, and he’s clearly in his twilight. Like it or not, Harris is an anchor in this respect.
Harris would be 100 x more of an appropriate president for America than Donald Trump.
I cant believe people are even posing this as an issue.
Of course she would, so would Nicki Minaj for that matter. But if Manchin were to run as a third party candidate it becomes a very different game.
Why? Manchin is a calm presence I will grant you, but he is a tool of the fossil fuel industry and has become rich as a corrupt politician. I'd rather have Biden give it a go for four more years.
Now if Dan Goldman wants to run in 2024 that would be a different story for me.
Every D in the country would rather have Biden for another four years, but the chances of old age interrupting that isn’t small. I’m no Manchin fan, but I haven’t heard of anyone else taking advantage of this unique reality yet. If any third party candidate can diplomatically clean up on the debate stage and handle Trump like the little bitch he is, then I could possibly be persuaded.
I dont think there is a chance in the world that Joe Manchin would attack Trump in the way you would like.
Let's ask our readers:
Biden or Manchin?
"Give us Manchin."
Ok
I don’t think there’s a chance he’s going to stand there and let Trump be Trump on him either.
I believe you all know how I feel about him.
LOL1
Here is the issue as I see it.
Assume we are stuck with Biden vs. Trump. I would have much less concern voting for Biden if his V.P. were a solid person who could properly assume the presidency. The idea of a president Harris bothers me greatly.
Of course I would pick Harris over Trump (almost anyone over Trump) but Harris as president sickens me.
Or Tim Walz.
Doesnt bother me at all. What is she going to do, blow up the world?
Kamala Harris was the attorney general of the largest state in the Union, with a population larger than the majority of the world's countries. She was elected U.S. senator from the same state. She's no more unqualified than many vice presidents have been in the past. That is right wing propaganda.
I do not listen to right wing propaganda. I go by what I have observed. She is, IMO, incompetent for the office of PotUS. In addition, she is not serious and is far too liberal for me.
So her as the V.P. for an 82-86 year old PotUS is not comforting to me.
Based on what ?
My observations. She does not show talent for diplomacy, charisma, leadership and, importantly, getting things done.
Just contrast her with the example I gave: Tim Walz.
Kamala Harris is an idiot and that 6ou can't see it is perplexing to say the least.
I dont have any trouble identifying idiots. [Deleted]
She is not an idiot. Stop with the ridiculous hyperbole and make a comment grounded in reality.
go right ahead but that has nothing to do with Kamala being one but nice deflection
[deleted]
While the smart people know and acknowledge she is one.
His policies suck. So either he is incompetent or just a terrible president. My vote is for both.
I think she is.
Probably because I watch the news and stuff.
Which word salad would you like served to you. There are literally dozens to choose from.
“Which word salad would you like served to you.”
Which stale crouton would you like to add?
Which stale crouton would you like to add?
Thanks to bidenomics I can't afford croutons, not even stale ones.
Her word salads illustrate, to me, that she lacks the skills to be a competent leader. Not that she is literally stupid (aka an idiot).
She is not stupid. Surely you know that intelligent people can be poor leaders, lack the drive/ability to secure solid accomplishments, etc. You and Texan are (big surprise) leaping to extremes.
Yeah, probably so ... nothing like watching modern 'news and stuff' to get fed with partisan nonsense.
Really? The current economy has hit you that hard? Your financial planning is so abysmal that you cannot afford basic items when:
.
This is not a bad economy.
That's a tough decision. There are so many. Maybe a motiviational poster will help.
Partisan nonsense?
not hardly.
just accurate depictions of her word salads.
Obviously. Harris is an unappealing candidate for PotUS but she is clearly NOT an idiot.
But you would know that from watching your "news and stuff" (@4.1.27).
This is not a bad economy
Now if you can only convince the American public joe would be a shoe in. I also noticed you didn't have the graph that is the most important to Americans.
I told you it is my opinion.
kind of idiotic to try and argue what I believe to be true.
maybe you could watch the news and stuff too.
She can't communicate simple ideas. She can't differentiate fact from fiction when she says stuff like there are polls that think she is well liked and doing a good job. She breaks out in laughter for no reason. If it walks and talks like an idiot......Of course partisans will make excuses for her.
Yea, she is not an idiot.
I told you it is my opinion.
But did you get your opinion approved?
What else would it be other than your opinion?
This is amazing. The whole concept of discussion / debate is about arguing what another believes is true.
please go troll someone else
A perfect example of your intellectual dishonesty. I have been critical of Harris (right here in this article). But because I object to the hyperbole of deeming her an idiot (when she clearly is not) you pretend (your implication is obvious) that I am engaging in a partisan defense of her. (By the way, I am not and have never been a D. You have no clue what you are talking about.)
I include a set of graphs and links supporting my position and you complain (vaguely) that this is not enough. What a surprise.
Looks like you forget to include your argument.
Hell I have seen her communicate complicated ideas such as AI. She did a decent job of providing a high-level view of the subject matter. Yet a few Rs here deemed her discussion a word salad (probably because they do not understand the subject matter even at her level).
Harris does ramble on, no doubt, but just because one does not understand certain words and/or concepts does not mean the speaker is necessarily engaging in a word salad.
AI
well its kind of a fancy term....brilliant!
What point are you trying to make here?
I really dont know whether Kamala Harris would make a good president or not. Is the "qualified" by historic standards ? Yes.
Her talk went downhill from there.
well watch her video "explaining" AI and maybe you will see.
Nice graphs and links. But my original comment had to do with not being able to afford croutons. It should not be too much to understand I was talking about inflation yet your comment and graphs were not about that making your comment nothing more than a diversion and trolling. Please go troll someone else.
I just referred you to that very video. You did not understand that?
Yes, she is qualified to be PotUS. That is not in question. And I am not claiming she would be the worst PotUS by historical standards.
[Deleted]
Say, you DID watch it, right ?
Are you freaking serious??
Yes it did. You claimed that you could not afford even stale croutons due to the state of the economy. I addressed that factually.
Your replies have been superficial nonsense and you have the temerity to label my comments 'trolling'.
And I included a chart on the inflation rate. Hello?
Inflation cannot be taken in isolation either. As prices rise you need to consider the means by which people make money too (wages and investments). By any measure, out current economy is NOT a 'bad economy' and you should not be in the financial dire straits you indicate.
AI is a subject matter of which I am well informed (even at the software level ... developing AI). As I stated, I listened to her video when you and other GOP partisans were deeming it a word salad. I expected to hear a word salad (especially given the topic) but to my surprise she actually delivered an accurate overview of the subject matter. I am sure she was repeating what she was told in a briefing, but her overview was reasonable and was absolutely not a word salad.
You did not understand what she said so you deemed it a word salad. The problem lies with you in this case, not her.
[deleted]
ok here we go again.
the usual antics, telling me what I do or don't understand.
have a nice debate with yourself, you damn sure don't need my participation.
Many Americans disagree, her current approval rating is 39.8% and disapproval is 52.1%.
The AI description by Harris was not a word salad; it was an okay overview that was technically accurate. You did not understand her words because you do not understand the subject matter. In this case, the failure is yours.
well that proves that around 60% aren't liberal lemmings.
4.1.61.
The question is what are the 39.3 percent thinking. Or drinking. Or smoking.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
My wife of over 38 years doesn't presume to know me that well. Well, usually not.
Your wife sounds like a sane, intelligent woman.
“I think the first part of this issue that should be articulated is AI is kind of a fancy thing. “First of all, it’s two letters. It means artificial intelligence”
She got that last part right. I’m not sure if fancy is better than exquisite, though.
What is your point?
That she was right, AI is two letters that stand for Artificial Intelligence. Not sure about the fancy part thing. Do you think it’s a fancy thing?
She said quite a bit more than that in her overview.
fancy ≡ "elaborate in structure or decoration."
I think it is fair to say that modern AI is elaborate in structure. The number of AI methods available today is substantial and they enable the development of many varied models for all sorts of applications. The underlying technologies are elegant but not simple. In terms of decoration, if we view elements such as oral and written natural language interfaces as decoration (we typically call these presentation) then yes these are elaborate too.
'Fancy' works. Not a word I would use, but it is accurate.
What is your complaint?
My argument is that her presentation was NOT a word salad in that it was technically accurate albeit at a very high level.
I also stated that I presume she was simply repeating what she was told in a briefing.
You either are not paying attention to what I write or are moving the goal post (what a surprise).
I didn’t loge a complaint but I can.
Some what a distinction withoutdifference.
I guess that she is repeating the old adage: Garbage in, Garbage Out.
I think that the day before the informative AI roundtable, she attended a transport meeting: "This issue of transportation is fundamentally about just making sure that people have the ability to get where they need to go!"
Again, she nailed it.
No. Contemporary AI is centered around machine learning. But there is much more to AI (e.g. natural language, robotics, vision, cognition, etc.) than simply machine learning; practical machine learning is a relatively new (< 20 years) discovery in a field that dates back to the 1950s. Given the predominance of machine learning today, her simple summary is accurate.
Correct. If you pick a training corpus that encapsulates a bunch of misinformation, the AI will be trained to be wrong.
That is not an accurate comparison. You offered: the issue of {x} is simply {definition of x}. Stating that (modern) AI is ultimately about machine learning is identifying a subset of the field of AI as the dominant subset today. Very different.
You seem to be trying to find a word salad. Thus far, I hope you realize why you are failing to do so.
Well then she widely missed the mark.
No, I’m trying to find her point, what message did she want to convey.
No, did you not read what I wrote? Contemporary AI is predominantly machine learning (not exclusively machine learning).
That contemporary AI is predominantly machine learning and that machine learning is only as good (in the sense of quality and responsible functionality) as the models and training. Thus it is important that we have sensible safeguards on the use of AI (and, implicitly, similar technologies).
So contemporary the distinction is without much difference.
of course, no one wants nonsensical safeguards. I didn’t see where she alluded to the Orr the process to develop them.
You seem determined to find a way to interpret her comments so that they make no sense. I am done giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, you are just trolling.
You’re probably right, she had a succinct, yet comprehensive message clearly delivered. I’m sure that she went a long way on assuaging those community leaders who have AI concerns that the WH has it under control and on the right path.
I made no claim that her presentation accomplished anything. I claimed that her overview was technically accurate and was not a 'word salad'.
Maybe she was just killing time.
If only that was the total job description for a VP, she would be doing great.
An ironically witless retort.
Don't put words in my mouth. I made no claim either way about what her presentation accomplished. I have not researched this so I do not know.
Back up your position. It gets old watching you post witless, vacuous one-liners and contribute absolutely nothing to this forum in terms of underlying evidence and logic. Especially when you direct your pointless utterings to me.
So what, specifically, do you know about the effect her presentation had on her audience and why you 'know' it accomplished nothing?
Tell that to the millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.
That is an emotional comment devoid of facts. Show me facts that indicate we have a bad economy. I delivered economic facts and based on how we measure economies, we are currently NOT in a bad economy.
That is exactly what the administration and people buying their bullshit are trying to do. Convince people that they are just not smart enough to understand why things are wonderful in Bidenville. They are hoping people are dumber than is seems they actually are since the message seems to be rejected by the majority of people.
This is what I don't get - what bothers you so greatly about the possibility that Kamala Harris would have to step in as President? What bothers anyone so much about that?
This is what I don't get either - I don't know enough about her to comment negatively or positively but I absolutely don't get the beef against Kamala Harris possibly having to assume the role of President. I DO NOT GET THAT AT ALL.
Harris, the former Attorney General of the State of California, former United States Senator from California and currently The Vice President the United States of America, is credited by Biden with giving him his winning edge among women and minorities. One must be about "Half-a-MAGA" to still underestimate Harris!
I wonder why Biden thinks that Trump would have gotten a lot more women and minorities if Harris didn't run with him? What kind of deplorable woman or minority switched their vote because of Harris?
As usual you take a comment and exaggerate it into a falsehood.
My comment was that the economy is not bad in terms of how we measure economies. I made no indication that "everything is wonderful". You continue to invent strawmen in lieu of an actual argument. The practice is intellectually dishonest and rather pathetic.
Do you see any difference in composure, competence, experience between governor Tim Walz and V.P. Harris?
If not, then there is no way for me to explain my position to you. If so, then you have the essence of my concern.
Don't insult me JBB.
As I said above I have no comment positive or negative about VP Harris as I know nothing about any of the points you have raised and have no knowledge whatsoever about gov. Walz. All I can say is that I will check him out.
You don't need to explain your position to me though I appreciate that you take the time to do so. I'm just curious when I ask why you feel so strongly against her.
I have to admit I still honestly don't get why those things make such a big difference, but that's your feelings and I am not faulting you for them.
Tim Walz is my exemplar D candidate for PotUS.
Chris Sununu is my exemplar R candidate for PotUS.
Both are experienced political executives, have mature presence and perspectives, are in the 45-65 year range, take practical positions, are practiced leaders, are cogent communicators and strike me as statesmen who seriously want to do what is best for the nation.
That is what I am looking for. The further one fails in those dimensions the less likely I will be pleased to see them as PotUS.
Also, it is simply coincidence that both are male. A younger Condoleeza Rice is also one I would put as an R exemplar.
Yeah, I say so. All one need do is read what I wrote and compare it to the bullshit you wrote in response to see that I am correct.
Uh huh, sure.
As you know, a devoted partisan is blind to any alternative information.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Of course you run away when asked a direct question.
You have no argument; nothing but mindless talking points and easy-to-parrot one-liners.
Likewise???
Opinions will vary.
see comment 4.1.109
That makes no sense - tig doesn't make ironically witless, one line comments, everyone knows what you meant.
It makes no sense.
I guess that's an ironically senseless comment then.
Based on the panicked comments and deflections here, Manchin is a true threat to the liberal agenda.
Painfully obvious isn't it?
Very painful.
I think that is a fair assessment. Manchin is clearly not a liberal.
Why is it remarkable to you that liberals would not find him as a desirable nominee?
Exactly, neither today’s liberals or “conservatives” want a moderate.
Look at who liberals supported in the 2020 election. A pair of blundering idiots. It's almost like liberals ordered the POTUS and VP from Wish.
Biden and Harris are far from a dream team, no doubt. But you have no room to talk since you would have Trump as PotUS. You would put into office a traitor who is willing to compromise anyone and anything (including our nation) to get what he wants. Trump has the distinction of being the only PotUS (hell, only candidate) in US history who has conspired to steal a US election. He has no integrity and is basically a con-man. Anyone who can think clearly would not want a malignant narcissist, pathological liar con-man sitting in the most powerful office on the planet. That is irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
That's the understatement of the day.
Only if you ignore the Democrats Big Lie from 2016. But, hey, I know you have to keep in good standings with the hive. You have fun with that now.
Nowhere in history has a PotUS conspired to produce fake electors, table certified state votes, coerce officials and legislators to submit false documentation, etc. in order to steal a US presidential election.
You are confused.
And you have no room to talk given you would vote to put someone who tried to steal a US election into the presidency.
[deleted]
Manchin will either switch parties (as he has indicated) to an independent or run for President. If he remains a dem in WV he will lose. He is simply protecting his ass.
He is 75 years old, just what is needed more oldies in the race.
Looks like he has no path to the presidency as a D or via 3rd party.
I think that he will run in WV as an Independent for the senate.
Oh shit, I did not realize he is that old. Where are the 45-65 year olds?
The boomers of both stripes are ready to let go.
Yup, he is that old and needs to stay in office to pay for the 3/4 million dollar yacht of his.
The field get thinner every election cycle, TG.
Is that high for Senator housing in DC. I read that he got it for $250,000.
So he is very close to President Biden in age. Does that make him less desirable?
Ageism is another prejudice to be overcome. Oddly, the old folks round here who think they know everything and express their opinions on all things are the first to denigrate Biden for his age!
Exactly, ageism is the only explanation for people that think that maybe these folks are to old to continue serving:
Yes!!!
I think a PotUS should be (roughly) 45-65 years old. That range enables wisdom but leaves the person still in their prime.
The job of PotUS is stressful and demanding and not suitable for people well past the normal age of retirement. Certainly not those in their late 70s and beyond.
Biden is too old, by far, to be PotUS.
Are you applying your comment to me?