US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3857

On January 16 2023 06:33 BlackJack wrote:
These supposedly "forgotten about" documents were found in 3 different places in short time. Were they just doing spring cleaning in every location that Biden owns?

On January 16 2023 06:33 BlackJack wrote:
By the way does anyone else think this classified documents thing seems to be a very convenient way to solve the Biden 2024 problem? He ousted Trump, he held off the Red Wave, and how he is involved in a scandal not long after as we head toward 2024. Seems kind of coincidental. These supposedly "forgotten about" documents were found in 3 different places in short time. Were they just doing spring cleaning in every location that Biden owns?

On January 16 2023 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
As a bit of an aside, did you ever get clarity on the discrepancy around the classified documents found in an office he reportedly used as VP being the same office he used at a think tank that didn't begin until 2018? The best I could come up with was that maybe he had an office there after his term as VP when he became a "professor" at the university? That obviously still doesn't resolve the discrepancy, but it at least provides an explanation for why/how he would have an office at a think tank that didn't exist at the time.

It seems like it'd be more important than the reporting indicates if there's simply no reason to believe that Biden used this same office while he was VP, so I'm leaning toward there being a reasonable explanation, but it's also the US so it being an obvious fabrication the media is pushing is in the realm of possibilities.

On January 16 2023 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:


There are 3 main segments of the Democrat party. the Biden segment, the Clinton segment, and the Progressive segment (there is overlap).

I made the case for why/how progressives could seize on this and nominate someone at least marginally better than Joe Biden, but it doesn't seem like they even know of someone to try and fill that role, let alone someone who would actually succeed.

What you're describing would only appeal to (and be able to be made effectual by) the Clinton segment that wants to wrestle power back from the Biden segment. The timing for reporting/response to the first batch of classified files (while neglecting to mention they had already found more) months afterwards is inescapably suspicious :+ Show Spoiler +, but I don't think that it is indicative of a plot to oust Biden as the presumed nominee that was kept under wraps until after the midterms to mitigate any negative consequences for the party.

If what you're insinuating was happening we could expect to see former Clinton spokespeople and such doing the "It sucks, but we have to replace him for 2024" groundwork. One problem with that is these are the same people that downplayed Hillary's mishandling of classified documents (it is less bad in at least some ways) and they conditioned their supporters to reject the notion that mishandling classified documents is disqualifying. So that means they have to use it as one small piece of threading the "electability" needle argument. Their problem there being they don't have someone more "electable" either.

There are lots of Democrats (a majority actually) that would like to see Biden not be the nominee for 2024 but none of them have a viable alternative. The closest anyone has is Buttigieg, but he's from the Biden segment and is basically the only secretary getting headlines for how poorly the stuff under his purview (namely airlines) is going. So he doesn't appeal to the progressive or Clinton segments as a real alternative.

All that is to say that as sketchy as Biden's response to his mishandling of Top Secret documents clearly is, I don't think it's part of a plot to replace him as the 2024 nominee. On the off chance it was, its hopes for success are bleak at best.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

As a bit of an aside, did you ever get clarity on the discrepancy around the classified documents found in an office he reportedly used as VP being the same office he used at a think tank that didn't begin until 2018? The best I could come up with was that maybe he had an office there after his term as VP when he became a "professor" at the university? That obviously still doesn't resolve the discrepancy, but it at least provides an explanation for why/how he would have an office at a think tank that didn't exist at the time.

It seems like it'd be more important than the reporting indicates if there's simply no reason to believe that Biden used this same office while he was VP, so I'm leaning toward there being a reasonable explanation, but it's also the US so it being an obvious fabrication the media is pushing is in the realm of possibilities.

Mr. Biden used the office space from mid-2017 until the spring of 2019, when he declared his candidacy for the presidency.

On January 16 2023 08:51 Dan HH wrote:

I haven't followed this story but I don't understand what the discrepancy is supposed to be. If you start crocheting socks in your free time and selling them online as an LLC from your home it wouldn't be a discrepancy that you've been there before you created the company. Why would there be any need for the think tank to chronologically precede his usage of that space?

On January 16 2023 05:35 JimmiC wrote:

I would hope so since you invented a position for me I do not have so you can argue it, but who knows.

I think the democratic voters should hold their politicians accountable regardless of whether the Republicans do. The reps should as well but instead they make up conspiracies to wash every bad deed away. I do not think it should be a race to the bottom. And I find it strange you disagree.

For some Jewish Americans, remarks and posts by Ye, Cannon and Kyrie Irving come together in a concept that one could, very tendentiously, label “Black antisemitism”. But we must be vigilant to the fact that what could be mislabeled as such is instead antisemitism of other varieties. If Ye describes Jewish financial domination, or control of the media, it is not “Black antisemitism”. It is garden-variety American antisemitism. Christian nationalism is the view that the US was founded as a Christian nation, and its exceptional nature is a testament to the abiding Christian character of its founding laws and culture. Christian nationalism is also a traditional source of antisemitism, the blame for which can hardly be placed on Black Americans.

Even when we look at antisemitic comments made by Black Hebrew Israelites, or some of the leaders of the Nation of Islam, we need to ask whether the antisemitism has anything to do with being Black American, or rather some other source (eg certain forms of Christianity or Islam). There are a variety of sources of antisemitism. None of them are specifically Black.

On January 23 2023 05:47 Acrofales wrote:
How is it "Fusion politics" if he aligns almost 100% with the most progressive side of the Democrats? I haven't read anything beyond the post with the quotes, but all those "same people" are Republicans and sometimes the moderate Democrats... it's some interesting branding, but doesn't really sound any different from the things AOC says, does it?

On January 21 2023 17:18 Acrofales wrote:
Not too long ago there was a discussion about whether Kanye West could be racist and/or anti-semitic. Today, I read a column about "black anti-semitism" and how silly the whole concept is. I thought it might be interesting to some here:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/jan/20/antisemitism-race-black-americans-jews-kanye-west

On January 23 2023 21:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
People generally say that 'people of all races can be racist, but it's more troublesome when it's backed up by institutions or other structures of power'. I think that's a reasonable take. I have no real need to defend (or even address, tbh) some dumb twitter-take.