I would agree with those percentages. My comment was directed more toward those Dems who don’t work directly for Biden. Dem members of Congress, journalist, DNC people, etc.
This is the Democratic Party.
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
Well, you’d think you could do that, but you’d be wrong. They changed their rules in 2022. As I briefly explained above, if he voluntarily withdraws, the delegates do not decide. It’s the unelected Democratic National Committee. A body of about 500 people. Most of whom are Obama and Clinton people, not Biden people. Or free agents. Just talking about him stepping back would leak and the flood gates would open. And they would have to get on MSNBC and explain that the party that will save democracy in the free world actually doesn’t care who you voted for, these 500 philosopher-kings have met in secret to decide who will be President because Trump isn’t fit for office. Not a good look.
Whether it's that committee or the delegates, they both are backing who they like, as unelected officials. Neither one would care who you voted for. So what's the difference between the delegates or the committee. Besides they are not going against the voters wishes if the voters voted for someone who is no longer in the race. They are likely deciding on a candidate that was not running in the election.
What’s frustrating to me, as a former prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer, is the inconsistency in the report and the press conference.
The report sets out the evidence for each crime, the corpus of some of them is even recorded on tape and in the possession of the FBI. Other crimes are observed by FBI agents first hand, classified documents in a garage where they were told them would be found by a supposedly forgetful man. The report does not clearly state but infers that the prosecutors are satisfied that some of the crimes can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but that a jury will nullify a conviction through sympathy. But any criminal lawyer will tell you that’s illegal and a judicial instruction at the beginning of the trial will cure that.
So they write in a report they aren’t going forward because a jury won’t convict him because he’s old and the President, then Biden comes out and says my memory is fine.
So which is it? Your memory is fine and you were feigning bad memory on the record with federal investigators which is a crime or you really do have a bad memory and are guilty because some of the crimes don’t require proof of specific intent or a finder of fact can infer that after a continuing violation of 7 years?
It also gives him what amounts to a “pocket self pardon” of any future criminal acts where he can just say he lacked the mental capacity or memory to form the intent to commit crimes while in office that happens from this point forward.
I asked about the above this morning a former federal prosecutor friend and he had an interesting take: they can’t try him for these crimes because any lawyer representing him would be forced to grapple with the lack of capacity to form the intent to commit the crimes as well as the lack of capacity to stand trial because he is unable to aid in his own defense due to poor memory. And he’s right, the case law on that with elderly defendants is well developed. Even if his lawyers didn’t raise the issue, a court may be forced to raise it on their own in the interest of procedural and substantive due process rights to a fair trial, given the evidence we are talking about being recorded.
But they can’t say that in a report that will be made public. It would force the Cabinet to deal with the 25th Amendment issue. So they change how they deal with it slightly.
You would have a situation where he would continue to serve out his term, possibly another 5 years, then a court would find after the fact that his present physical and mental condition made him incompetent, which meant the 25th Amendment should have been invoked but wasn’t.
What a mess. Pray for this country.
The report sets out the evidence for each crime, the corpus of some of them is even recorded on tape and in the possession of the FBI. Other crimes are observed by FBI agents first hand, classified documents in a garage where they were told them would be found by a supposedly forgetful man. The report does not clearly state but infers that the prosecutors are satisfied that some of the crimes can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but that a jury will nullify a conviction through sympathy. But any criminal lawyer will tell you that’s illegal and a judicial instruction at the beginning of the trial will cure that.
So they write in a report they aren’t going forward because a jury won’t convict him because he’s old and the President, then Biden comes out and says my memory is fine.
So which is it? Your memory is fine and you were feigning bad memory on the record with federal investigators which is a crime or you really do have a bad memory and are guilty because some of the crimes don’t require proof of specific intent or a finder of fact can infer that after a continuing violation of 7 years?
It also gives him what amounts to a “pocket self pardon” of any future criminal acts where he can just say he lacked the mental capacity or memory to form the intent to commit crimes while in office that happens from this point forward.
I asked about the above this morning a former federal prosecutor friend and he had an interesting take: they can’t try him for these crimes because any lawyer representing him would be forced to grapple with the lack of capacity to form the intent to commit the crimes as well as the lack of capacity to stand trial because he is unable to aid in his own defense due to poor memory. And he’s right, the case law on that with elderly defendants is well developed. Even if his lawyers didn’t raise the issue, a court may be forced to raise it on their own in the interest of procedural and substantive due process rights to a fair trial, given the evidence we are talking about being recorded.
But they can’t say that in a report that will be made public. It would force the Cabinet to deal with the 25th Amendment issue. So they change how they deal with it slightly.
You would have a situation where he would continue to serve out his term, possibly another 5 years, then a court would find after the fact that his present physical and mental condition made him incompetent, which meant the 25th Amendment should have been invoked but wasn’t.
What a mess. Pray for this country.
Last edited:
The difference is you suggesting that 500 self important people are going to announce they got it wrong by ignoring the obvious and nominating him in the first place out of blind self interest and in some cases, graft. Most of them have a sure thing going if they hold the White House. You gotta do a lot of favors that have to get repaid after you win a primary. It’s why they have an Executive Committee and unelected “Super Delegates” in the first place. You are describing a situation where the President doesn’t have a constituency to repay. They won’t stand for that. See generally, Reagan, Ronald (1976 Primary).
Last edited:
As a psychologist I am dubious of memory period, particularly as time separates one from the event in question. Elizabeth Loftus showed pretty clearly the inaccuracy of old "memories" in that the brain can reshape them over time. And age does, of course, further impact memory. That is not to be confused with dementia, where cognitive functioning begins to impair basic, daily life functions.
The way I look at the likely election is we can pick someone in cognitive decline but unlikely yet dementia who is generally trying to serve the country OR someone who is a few years behind on that slope and a malicious actor who is trying only to serve himself and adoring acolytes. That's not to canonize Biden by any means - we have seen plenty of character defects during his career.
Easy decision. Always vote against the malicious actor. Policy irrelevant in this situation.
And God help us if he brainwashed the population otherwise.
The way I look at the likely election is we can pick someone in cognitive decline but unlikely yet dementia who is generally trying to serve the country OR someone who is a few years behind on that slope and a malicious actor who is trying only to serve himself and adoring acolytes. That's not to canonize Biden by any means - we have seen plenty of character defects during his career.
Easy decision. Always vote against the malicious actor. Policy irrelevant in this situation.
And God help us if he brainwashed the population otherwise.
And that changes how, if it is like before when the delegates simply switch who they vote for, because Biden backs out? Don't quite see what you imply is some immense difference. Also, regardless of which one votes him or her into the nomination for the presidency, that constituency has to be heeded. They still have to heed them to be appreciative for the general support they need to win the general election, and also to continue their support to win their 2nd term in the next election. To ignore that constituency would be to ignore their power still existed in the present. That constituency holds power beyond just getting you nominated. They need to be relied upon through the whole process of getting elected and reelected. Also, that constituency has the power to make one's term in office a nightmare if they want to.
Besides that, what of Trump's constituency. Trump is trying to circumvent that constituency altogether in his attempt at a new kind of populism. He appeals to the most ignorant and gullible part of the party, and then brings the rest of the GOP along for the ride, with a wave that can't be stopped even if you wanted to. Not to mention that your constituency if it held any power, would consist of Roger Stone/Stephen Miller/Steve Bannon types. That's a constituency I wouldn't want to be beholden to, in my worst nightmares.
Last edited:
I haven't once heard mention on here about Hur being a former employee of Trump's administration. It makes Hur's editorializing about Biden a little suspect. If Biden hadn't had that gaffe about mexico and egypt, immediately following, this might not have been quite so much of a blow. Biden helped with that self inflicted coups de grace. That made it utterly worse.
If Jack Smith had made that report about Trump in one of the courts filings about his criminal case, and then Trump mixed up Pelosi and Haley in his response, I think it would have been a similar blow to his campaign. Hur because of his lack of exposure would have been more effective in delivering that message than Jack Smith. Hur has not been in the media enough to give him as strong a moniker of prejudice. Jack Smith wouldn't have been the reason. The response w/ gaffe would have been the reason Trump was hit so hard. It's the adding insult to injury thing.
If Jack Smith had made that report about Trump in one of the courts filings about his criminal case, and then Trump mixed up Pelosi and Haley in his response, I think it would have been a similar blow to his campaign. Hur because of his lack of exposure would have been more effective in delivering that message than Jack Smith. Hur has not been in the media enough to give him as strong a moniker of prejudice. Jack Smith wouldn't have been the reason. The response w/ gaffe would have been the reason Trump was hit so hard. It's the adding insult to injury thing.
Hur being a Trump appointee is the spin machine. You don’t become the U.S. Attorney for a district, regardless of who Trump wants, unless the Senators in that state approve you. It would be difficult to find two more liberal Senators than the two that signed off on Hur. Hur and his wife have a history of Democratic donations. Google back a month ago and The Atlantic and the Guardian were calling him a “well-informed, industrious, hard-working guy” that would temper political bias in the case. Regardless of what he used to do, he was hand picked by Garland, not exactly a Trump biased hack.
People who are complaining about him don’t understand how US Attorneys and special prosecutors are picked or lying to you. People who are complaining about what he said either don’t understand that what was written is what is discussed in prosecutors offices every day or lying to you. People complaining about why he said it don’t understand the law requires a written report of his decision or lying to you. And the decision to not revise the report and release it to the public was Garland’s not Hur’s decision. If this was a hit job, it’s Garland doing the hitting. There really is no such thing as an independent prosecutor under the current statute, other than for budgetary purposes and he still has to go to the Hill for that, controlled partially by the Democrats.
It’s a safe bet Garland is done in January, one way or the other.
The only legit complaint I’ve heard about the guy is that supposedly he only has 14 trials as a first chair. 14. That’s a years worth of work for a line prosecutor, maybe 6 months in some circuits. He has so little trial experience that you question whether he was avoiding going to trial here. Or that he was picked to the exclusion of others because he might get sick at sea and that’s what the Biden people were looking for. Somebody with a veneer of independence that would approach a case looking for reasons not to go forward.
People who are complaining about him don’t understand how US Attorneys and special prosecutors are picked or lying to you. People who are complaining about what he said either don’t understand that what was written is what is discussed in prosecutors offices every day or lying to you. People complaining about why he said it don’t understand the law requires a written report of his decision or lying to you. And the decision to not revise the report and release it to the public was Garland’s not Hur’s decision. If this was a hit job, it’s Garland doing the hitting. There really is no such thing as an independent prosecutor under the current statute, other than for budgetary purposes and he still has to go to the Hill for that, controlled partially by the Democrats.
It’s a safe bet Garland is done in January, one way or the other.
The only legit complaint I’ve heard about the guy is that supposedly he only has 14 trials as a first chair. 14. That’s a years worth of work for a line prosecutor, maybe 6 months in some circuits. He has so little trial experience that you question whether he was avoiding going to trial here. Or that he was picked to the exclusion of others because he might get sick at sea and that’s what the Biden people were looking for. Somebody with a veneer of independence that would approach a case looking for reasons not to go forward.
Last edited:
At this point, I would vote for my 6 year old nephew over trump if he were on the ballot. Even an incompetent does less damage to the country than someone who's actively out to detriment the country.
Trump truly makes any 'lesser of two evils' decision very easy.
I will vote for a third party. No chance I’m voting for an incompetent person to lead this country.
I might not make the same decision but respect this point of view. If there is a legit third option with a genuine chance to win, I would do the same over Biden.
dem-Biden, too much big gov
rep-trump, too much noise
none of the above - truly Independent.
Why is noise the thing you most attribute as a negative to Trump? Heck, I would put having a president who doesn't know when to stop with the spray tan over "noise"
You are commenting on an aside that I mentioned at the beginning of that post, not the point of the post. Yeah I know that report being released as is, was with implicit agreement from Garland. I'm not disputing your point, but it doesn't address the gist of the post.
The overnights are brutal. Less than 20% of Americans think Joe Biden has the mental acuity to be President. Slightly less than half of that 20% plan on voting for him. Roughly 70% say both are too old. Not that national polls mean a thing.
A lot can change over the summer, but this race could get really wild.
A lot can change over the summer, but this race could get really wild.
At least I'm not outnumbered on falling in that 70%.
Both of their mental acuities will be way less in years 3 & 4 of this next term. (And they are already starting behind the 8 ball today.) That is if Biden lives that long. His dad died at 86.
I wish I could hope for Trumps death, but his dad living to 93 doesn't give me much hope. Hopefully all of those McDonald's orders are an omen for him under-living his father by 12 or 14 years, despite him not drinking.
If we are going to go off national polls, I'm betting that at least 70% of democrats would hope he dies soon if asked. Many of them have voiced this opinion to me unprompted, several times. I would be curious to see what percentage of Republican congressmen wished that, if polled anonymously. I wouldn't be surprised if that poll hit close to 30%.
Last edited:
I forgot to mention, Trump Sr. had dementia. Don't know if it was known if Trump's mother, or either parent of Biden was known to have dementia.
Trump Sr was diagnosed with mild senile dementia in '91, but had clear signs of sundowning before that. So at about 85ish give or take, he started showing signs. In '93 he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. He died in '98.
Trump is beginning to show signs at 77. Don't know if that signifies he is going to have severe problems with it earlier than his dad, but I'm guessing so. I don't think Trump is going to be the same at '82 1/2 as his father was at the same age.(the end of the next term)
Of course Trump lied about his father until '19, because he stood to gain from a late will change by his father. He said he was sharp as a tack, until he admitted it in '19. He also lied about his father and mothers age as well. Said his mother died at 90, when she died at 88. Also, he said his father died at 94, when he died at 93. He wouldn't know the truth if he was staring at him in the mirror.
Republicans have certainly done a good job pointing out Bidens slowed mental faculties while obscuring / ignoring Trump’s. I will give them that.
there was a time when you had to have skills and training to make $20/hr. Now you you get that for breathing.
true.
not even wast it was 4 years ago.
not every job is worth minimum wage
not every employee is worth minimum wage
There was a time when a loaf of bread cost a nickel grandpa.
People’s time and labor have inherent value, and that value is typically equivalent to the cost of keeping them alive to be able to provide labor in the future. Any additional value they have is supplementary to their employer.
Last edited:
$20 and hour for an intelligent, self motivated and willing to work employee is a bargain. They are difficult to find.
The federal government is not making the minimum wage $20 an hour.
No government here requires $20 hr. So why are you mixing up those two arguments. If anybody is paying $20 hr that is their choice. The highest state minimum wages are in 7 states from $15-17 hr. Those are states with a much higher COL. So it is valid in those states.
If anybody is making $20 hr it is because the industry is demanding it, not the government.
Similar threads
