Will Joe Biden be the next president?

[Isaac]

To my thinking, a vote for liberals, during this specific time, is to make things like this more common across the country:

California prosecutor says looters 'needs' should be considered when charged

A California district attorney is requiring her prosecutors to consider looters’ “needs” when weighing criminal charges against them.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Steve R.]

To my thinking, a vote for liberals, during this specific time, is to make things like this more common across the country:

California prosecutor says looters 'needs' should be considered when charged

A California district attorney is requiring her prosecutors to consider looters’ “needs” when weighing criminal charges against them.

www.foxnews.com

There is troubling article by Politico embedded in the article you cited, Embedded article: ‘Prosecutors Are Not Exempt from Criticism’. The title is very misleading since it is a "call" for using so-called "social justice" as a basis for making (race based) prosecutorial decisions. The descent of our legal system into a third world style justice system continues.

PS: One of the contributors to this article was Kim Foxx who apparently dropped the charges against Jussie Smollett who had himself filed a false hate crime charge.

 

[Isaac]

The title is very misleading since it is a "call" for using so-called "social justice" as a basis for making (race based) prosecutorial decisions

In recent times I've noticed something coming out of the woodwork, not that it wasn't already in existence, but there are those who are saying it more boldly and no longer hiding (what used to be considered patently wrong, at least more often than it probably is now, I think).
That is, the concept that the solution to discrimination from past times ought to be to create new discrimination now, simply going in the other direction. A concept I've oft mentioned here as concerning. This is slowly emerging as being a fundamental difference in the basic philosophical "starting point" of the different sides of opinion to the current issues.
I recently read an article where someone boldly proclaimed:

An appropriate and adequate solution to past or existing discrimination is not simply neutrality.

I thought yep - that's the difference between you and me, buddy. (There's not much use allowing the dialogue to progress much past that point).

 

[Steve R.]

The Washington Times reports: Biden visit comes under scrutiny over Jacob Blake Sr.'s anti-Semitic comments. According to the Times, the father, Blake Sr. posted anti-Semitic comments. So here we have Biden (falsely) attempting to assert that Trump is a White Supremacist while, he, Biden openly coverts with a known anti-Semite.

The grotesqueness of Biden's meeting with the Blake family goes deeper. On "Outnumbered" (a Fox News presentation) one of the female anchors pointed out, that the son (the quote is from the Times article) "Jacob S. Blake had a warrant for his arrest based on a July charge of third-degree sexual assault, ..." This raised the issue that Biden may be visiting and providing condolences to a person who may be guilty of domestic violence. Biden claims to be on the side of women, yet here we have him "supporting" someone who may have been involved in domestic violence. The optics are clearly very bad.

Additionally, it was pointed out that Biden was acting as if the police were totally at fault for the shooting of Jacob S. Blake without the completion of a full investigation. Once again a politician is making a premature declaration of guilt before all the facts are in.

PS: Went slumming and watched CNN's coverage of Biden's visit with the Blake family. No mention of the fathers antisemitism or the sons apparent problems with domestic abuse. The Blake family sounded like an all American family on CNN.

PS: Fox news has this news clip up now: Joe Biden speaks with Jacob Blake two days after President Trump surveyed damage in Kenosha

 

[Pat Hartman]

As someone once said, "If the left didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all"

Being photographed with someone like Blake would be the death knell for a Republican. The dirt would always rub off on him and he would never get clean again.

I also wonder just how stupid the non-African-Americans who believe that the CA prosecutor is right to not prosecute an African American for looting if he "needed" what he took. Do they think they would get the same treatment? I'm pretty sure that if I looted a Gucci's and took a $5,000 handbag because I "needed" it, they'd throw the book at me. What happened to the Constitution? When our "justice" system applies the law differently to different individuals, we've become a banana republic. I'm not suggesting that the courts show no mercy, just that they are blind when they make their judgments.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Yeah, that statue of Justice with a sword, balance, and blindfold doesn't have a corner of the blindfold lifted.

 

[Isaac]

It will be the pendulum swinging, again. Just give it time. Even if the "to correct perceived systemic discrimination we must create special favors for one class of people" idea takes hold and becomes additional policy, it's destined to be short lived. It will only be a matter of time before the other people realize "hey, now we're being discriminated against", and then another reactionary set of policies will take hold.

This topic only goes to demonstrate and emphasize the extraordinary importance of balanced thinking. Over-correction is a policy designed to self destruct in time.

This is all especially true when 75% of the perceived discrimination isn't discrimination at all -- it's only different outcomes as a result of different qualifying behaviors/choices. But that's a separate topic and probably a more sensitive one. All I can say is I've had a lot of ups and downs in life. During the period of time when my family was in an apartment and others were in owned homes, I never once thought "The system has failed me! It is discriminating against me!" I knew full well that the reason I didn't qualify at the time could all be traced back to my choices. Even when I was dealt a bad hand a few times, it wasn't the system dealing me a bad hand, it was life & luck--and again, the right personal choices, sustained over a period of time & consistency, could and did get me out. Welcome to the starting point of conservative thought.

 

[Steve R.]

Biden took some questions following his speech. Only three of the questions were close to being legitimate. The remainder of the supposed "questions" seemed designed to give Biden additional opportunities to elicit vitriol against Trump rather than have Biden further explain his proposed policies. Were the questioners "real" or "plants"?

 

[Isaac]

Biden took some questions following his speech. Only three of the questions were close to being legitimate. The remainder of the supposed "questions" seemed designed to give Biden additional opportunities to elicit vitriol against Trump rather than have Biden further explain his proposed policies. Were the questioners "real" or "plants"?

The debates will be very interesting! I was glad to see Fox represented once out of the 3 ... That's cool, and furthermore, the choice of Wallace. I've seen Wallace give Trump tough questions - and even multiple push backs and follow ups - many times! So nobody can say it will be anything like Hannity interviewing Trump, for example.

 

[Steve R.]

Takes a few days for some of the supporting material to pop-up.

On Biden's abysmal new conference: Reporters blasted for 'shamefully embarrassing' softball questions at rare Biden press conference

 

[Pat Hartman]

Wallace is a never-Trumper which is why he was chosen. There are other Fox hosts who also don't ever miss an opportunity to criticize the President. What is a tough question though is dependent on how much you dislike the candidate. They typical question from a Trump hater is "so, when did you stop beating your wife and will you ever stop beating your children?" Is anyone ever going to ask Biden if it should be illegal for children and siblings to benefit from their association with the elected official? Or even "what percentage of total income tax collected is paid by the top 10% and how much is paid by the bottom 50%?" Or "EXACTLY how much additional money do you expect to collect from the 'rich' and which deductions will you be removing to ensure that the money gets collected?" That is also a good question for the Republicans.

 

[Steve R.]

While driving home today, there was a discussion on Bob Woodward's new book (Rage). The discussion revolved around Woodward's integrity as a journalist since Woodward concluded that Trump was not "fit" to be President. Evidently, Woodward stated that he based his conclusion on "the facts" and was not pursuing a political "hit job".

Woodward's "facts" are not an issue in this post, as I have not read the book. What can be surmised is that this book has been released just prior prior to the election by a person highly critical of Trump. Furthermore, ever since Trump was elected, there has been an endless number of failed attempts to unseat Trump (Russia collusion hoax, false impeachment, and an empty Mueller Report). Given its timing, just before an election, the release of this book would appear to be another attempt at manufacturing a negative message. Obviously, I don't know what Woodward was thinking, but the book has some attributes pointing to it being a political "hit job" and not a valid journalistic endeavor.

OK, suppose for purposes of argument that Woodward is correct about Trump being unfit for President, what about Biden? Just because Trump may be "unfit", according to Woodward, it does not automatically make Biden fit. Therefore Woodward, assuming he was pursuing a legitimate journalistic endeavor to evaluating Trump, should have also evaluated Biden's fitness to be President. (Woodward may have written on Biden and I just have not seen it.)

It appears, based on watching Biden's TV appearances, that he is even less fit than Trump. Biden is running a very dishonest campaign that obfuscates what he stands for. Moreover, the media (in the few times that they have had to interview him) ask Biden softball questions. In fact, it even appeared at one press event that I saw were Biden was given "planted" questions by apparent Democratic operatives posing as journalists. Conversely, Trump has appeared before the press on numerous occasions to answer tough questions where some of the reporters have been openly hostile to the President. Biden has not faced any similar questioning. Biden's unwillingness to open himself up to "tough questions" by the media to pry out his proposed policies is a significant negative in terms of Biden's "fitness".

Woodward, of course, is under no obligation to examine Biden, but the fact Woodward has apparently not done so would seen to further negate Woodward examination of Trump as being a journalistic endeavor in favor of Woodward's book being more of a political "hit job".

 

[AccessBlaster]

Biden thinks he's up for re-election.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Harris called their campaign "Harris-Biden" recently. I guess the cat is out of the bag now. She is so unpopular that she couldn't get enough traction to stay in the primaries until Iowa but she's going to end up as president and she knows it. I know that ordinary, rational democrats had no input in the VP choice but couldn't the Democrats have picked someone with less baggage? Maybe a governor? People need to understand that a vote for Biden is actually a vote for Harris since he isn't going to last the full term and may be ousted the first month if Harris has anything to say about it. Her hypocrisy is as shining as that of most of the rest of the left. A few months ago she was accusing Biden of racism and sexual assault because she believes the victim and now she's his running mate!!! How does a rational person resolve that conflict? Looks like a prime example of cognitive dissonance. Maybe it will show up in future Psych books.

 

[Isaac]

How does a rational person resolve that conflict? Looks like a prime example of cognitive dissonance

Only 2 ways to resolve (or lessen the distress from) cognitive dissonance. 1) change the behavior. 2) change the beliefs. Looks like she chose the latter!
My strategizing ideas are a little different ... I actually think (or is it hope?) that the USA would not elect Harris president in her own right. Therefore, I'd like her to end up on the 2024 ticket so she can lose. I'm surprised how close the nation came to electing Hillary, but then again, Hillary had a lot that Harris doesn't....extraordinary name recognition, her own name and the family name from a popular president.

Hillary also came across as tough-as-nails, which raises some other interesting questions about the electorate. On the one hand, there is the requisite "like-ability factor", which electors require of female candidates (whether we like that or not) - and Hillary's tough-as-nails, somewhat wooden personality did her no favors in that regard. However, when it comes to the question of "will the USA elect a female president", which is a big if, I think there...more femininity won't help the candidate (I don't think). I think if/when a female candidate finally gets elected, it is more likely to be one that appears tough, rather than shrill & shrieking like Harris does. Perhaps the two opposing qualities will come out to be a wash. The dynamics of, will we ever elect a female president, and if so, what kind of personality/woman would it be, are very fascinating to me, from a psychological and gender perception perspective.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Pat Hartman]

There are a number of female governors and congress members who could be elected president.

Somehow, Hil just does't go away. Now she's screaming (with a cowed Bill in the background) that Biden should never concede. I guess she knows something about the vote counting of the absentee ballots that we don't know.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Biden is just a place holder for Hillary, she will swoop-in and save the party through some unforeseen loop-hole.

 

[Isaac]

There are a number of female governors and congress members who could be elected president.

Nikki Haley seemed pretty good to me

 

[Pat Hartman]

I used to like her until she turned on Trump.