The Scholars ratings are 1) Lincoln, 2) Washington, 3) FDR, 4) TR, 5) Ike.
I said to my Sister: “OK Barbara, you want Trump in those five, who gets displaced?”
“Washington; he owned slaves”.
Of course, that would do nothing for her perceived “travesty”, as Obama would become #11 — still in the first Quartile.
“Washington, he owned slaves”?? He was not the only early president to own slaves.
As to Lincoln being number one, nope. I am not going to try to revise the list, but I would put Washington as number 1, and probably move Lincoln well down it. Read some of his speeches, and the careful wording of the Emancipation Proclamation such that carefully excluded freeing slaves in Kentucky and Maryland. He was a skilled politician, and despite the “log cabin” promotions, quite a wealthy man by the time he became president.
FDR? Not so sure. In many ways he gave away the store to Stalin, but many people in the State Department were deluded as to the realities under Communism. Ike was in many ways president like he was general. He played his cards very close to his chest so that many issues were never publicized. I would put him ahead of FDR.
My grandfather always insisted Truman should have been considered much more highly as he was the one dealing with the end of war settlements and issues.
I think I would go with 1. Washington, 2. Ike, 3. Trump, or maybe even with Trump as No. 2. Not going to try to go further down the list. Had really not given much thought as to who gets displaced to where. We have had quite a few very good presidents, some of which were dealt very bad hands, and a few total losers, of which I consider the present resident of the White House about the bottom if not the absolute bottom of the pack.
As to Obama? He should also be near the bottom. I can think of very little he did at all. As to his Nobel Prize? What was that for? Looking pretty? Saying, hey look at me, I am the first black president of the USA?
Many of the first leaders of the USA had owned slaves. Washington’s will from 1799 stipulated that all of his slaves would be freed. Jefferson was less magnanimous in terms of manumission, but still professed a belief that slavery was evil; who knows what manner of societal and familial pressures he was up against.
The Emancipation Proclamation was specific to states “in rebellion” most likely to prevent MD and KY from rebelling themselves. MD abolished slavery in 1864 notwithstanding; KY had a number of politicians on the ground falsely asserting “states’ rights” in response to Lincoln attempting to directly influence emancipation laws in the state. Frederick Douglass said the following about the Proclamation:
quote:“We are all liberated by this proclamation. Everybody is liberated. The white man is liberated, the black man is liberated, the brave men now fighting the battles of their country against rebels and traitors are now liberated… I congratulate you upon this amazing change—the amazing approximation toward the sacred truth of human liberty.”
There were a number of problems with Truman’s postwar management, among them the Marshall Plan (empowering Konrad Adenauer to fill the government of the nascent Federal Republic of Germany with “former” national socialists, and to eventually go forward with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, today’s European Union), firing Douglas MacArthur when he wanted to go on the offensive against Red China’s direct interference in the conflict in Korea, allowing Alger Hiss to have his way in the creation of the United Nations (his committee essentially made the Charter a clone of Stalin’s USSR constitution from 1936), the allowing of Red China to come to be in the first place, and some other problems that do not come to mind immediately.
Eisenhower was far too soft on the “New Republicans”, many of whom worked in his administration; he also gave assent to big government spending programs, the most (in)famous of which is the Interstate Highway System that perhaps should have been built by the private sector. Reagan in his early political years warned about these people, who are commonly termed “RINOs” (“Republicans In Name Only”) nowadays, as did Goldwater’s book The Conscience of a Conservative which accused them of being no different from left-wing Democrats in terms of desiring to subvert the freedoms in the Constitution and institute oligarchic tyranny.
Back to FDR: Much of what he is praised for in terms of wartime actions perhaps could have been averted if he had listened to the pleas of contemporaries like Churchill eight years earlier, never mind being more aggressive towards Japan than mere economic blockades.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I voted for Joe during ’20; I did so to “bid 4NT at the Bridge table” (really haven't played since ’76) and that Joe would be a “bring us together” unifier …
With all due respect, I am still amazed that anyone still believes that even when Biden made it clear in his campaign rhetoric that he was no such thing, and even when he tried to claim to be such a thing provided no basis other than far-left policies. Biden is exactly the chief executive he claimed he would be.
First, a preceding message quoted in its entirety as such appears on a prior page.
Mr. Helfner, I understand and respect your position regarding Joe's campaign rhetoric. If such be the case, he had me fooled, as I was certain "Build Back Better" related solely to infrastructure. At least it was around infrastructure, including Amtrak, that slogan seemed to "sprout".
Had I been aware that slogan was simply a cover for more Obama era social ligislation, I might have "thought twice" walking to the polls (half mile from my house).
Oh but then; the alternative was simply "unthinkable".
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All i can say is ive learned since 2016 how cults get started, how they get so many people to join, (even highly educated people), and people who one would think would have critical thinking skills. This country is finished. Period.
Posts: 449 | From: St. Albans, Vermont | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, if there is any credence to the carefully orchestrated "made for prime time" TV event aired last night, then I don't know how we recover from the attempted "coup d'etat" for which the planning apparently was being formulated even prior to the Election.
Somebody is not going to be happy with the outcome of the '24 Election. All I can think is "watch out".
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MontanaJim: All i can say is ive learned since 2016 how cults get started, how they get so many people to join, (even highly educated people), and people who one would think would have critical thinking skills. This country is finished. Period.
Jim: There is a very old joke about people being educated beyond their intelligence. I think we are seeing a tremendous amount of that going on. When we see what is being taught / indoctrinated in schools, particularly in colleges, there is a lot of living proof of the adage, "those who can do, those who can't teach." There are a few groups that I really do define as cults that think could be considered as such by most people, but commonly "cult" is thrown around as a defining term for any religious or other organization with which the person making that call strongly disagrees.
I do think this country is in serious trouble as many have lost the basic concepts of the things that have made the country great. There are way too many things considered wrong or even disgusting 50 plus years ago that are currently not only permitted but encouraged. Finished? Maybe and hopefully not as there are still a lot of people who disagree strongly with the current trends.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Times article that will appear in print tomorrow, shows the concern some within the Democratic party that Joe will attempt to run again in '24.
Fair Use:
quote:Should Biden Run in 2024? Democratic Whispers of ‘No’ Start to Rise.
In interviews, dozens of frustrated Democratic officials, members of Congress and voters expressed doubts about the president’s ability to rescue his reeling party and take the fight to Republicans.
Many Democratic officials and voters bear no ill will toward Mr. Biden, but would like a new face to lead the party.
Midway through the 2022 primary season, many Democratic lawmakers and party officials are venting their frustrations with President Biden’s struggle to advance the bulk of his agenda, doubting his ability to rescue the party from a predicted midterm trouncing and increasingly viewing him as an anchor that should be cut loose in 2024.
Such has happened in our history before; most notably to TR - considered amongst our greatest Presidents (he did run as a Third Party candidate - and was predictably defeated).
The article throws out on the table "the usual suspects" - Bernie, Liz, Amy; but I'm surprised the article does not mention Gretchen (Whitner Gov MI). Columnist Brett Stephens mentions her in his past Tuesday Conversation column, but then I admire and respect the Times' long standing "firewall" between the opinion columnists and the newsroom.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bernie the off the left edge of the continent socialist? No Eliabeth Warren? What ethnicity is she claiming this week? No way! pathological liar. If she said the sun is shining, I would go look out the window before believing her. Amy who? Whitner? Do we really want what she has done in Michigan done to the rest of the country? Another no.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sorry Gray Lady, after shelling out now $1600/yr to hear your "thump on the porch", I think it is mighty "chintzy" of you to limit your subscribers' shared content as you do.
Yesterday, at Breakfast in Indianapolis with my Social Worker friend (Executive Director; not-for-profit adoption agency) who "doesn't know what a Republican is other than that they are evil" (her husband X's party lines, and with my Presidential voting record to date of 7R, 7D, 1I, no one can say I don't), did not instantly recognize "Gretchen". This is telling me that if a "die hard Dem" did not instantly know her (and in a contiguous state to boot), there need be a lot of name recognition indoctrination if Gov. Whitmer is to be a viable candidate come '24.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MontanaJim: All I can say is I've learned since 2016 how cults get started, how they get so many people to join (even highly educated people), and people who one would think would have critical thinking skills. This country is finished. Period.
With all due respect: no thanks for your pessimism. And do please be candid about what you think to be a cult and how it applies here.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read the Times article. The Times article and many others in an uproar about building access (they seem to forget building codes) and gun control shows ignorance of both. Building access control, that is one (or more) guarded entrances, does not equal one way out. Guess they have never heard about exit doors required for fire safety, that is you can have limited access and the other required multiple exits have locked doors that can be immediately opened from the inside by a push bar. Likewise, if we suddenly outlaw gun ownership, that does not make all the guns in hands of criminals magically disappear. They are all still there, and for that matter so would all the guns held by people that are wanting some protection who would rather be illegal than unsafe. I think it was one of the Founding Fathers that said something like, those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard to believe that this is even being circulated; especially by The Times.
Fair Use:
Mr. Biden has been eager for signs of loyalty — and they have been few and far between. Facing intensifying skepticism about his capacity to run for re-election when he will be nearly 82, the president and his top aides have been stung by the questions about his plans, irritated at what they see as a lack of respect from their party and the press, and determined to tamp down suggestions that he’s effectively a lame duck a year and a half into his administration.
Mr. Biden isn’t just intending to run, his aides argue, but he’s also laying the groundwork by building resources at the Democratic National Committee, restocking his operation in battleground states and looking to use his influence to shape the nomination process in his favor.
Kamala "wouldn't have a prayer", but much as the thought of losing an effective Governor out here, and who will "blow away" any opposition come Convention (November maybe), "JB" could be a viable choice for the Dems. "Joe the Other", according to The Times, might consider a Third Party run . To "that Joe", who I personally could accept as a Democratic (I'll never vote Third Party again; did that once and once only) nominee, "either seek the prize of get out of the ring".
But otherwise, time to accept that the "anointment" of Donald John Trump as the 47th or 48th POTUS begins during this November after the Mid-terms have been counted.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume by "JB" you mean J. B. Pritzker, current governor of Illinois. In a word no. Don't know much at all about how he has performed as governor, however he has done better than some of the past governors simply by staying out of prison. Looking him up, he is a man of great inherited wealth which to me is a strike against him, in that people in that position are usually clueless as to how it means to paddle your own canoe. However, given the current abortion under all circumstances position of the Democratic party, plus several other priorities that to me are either negative or nonsense and the complete cluelessness of anybody in this administration in economics, international affairs, military and several other things I can't see me voting Democrat even with a gun to my head. Biden himself? The man has made himself wealthy off of being in public office. He fits the definition of a person who should be the subject of a fraud investigation, that is a person having a net worth or living beyond the means understandable by their legitimate income. I do agree completely that given the New York Times being essentially a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party anything negative said about Biden, et al, is beyond surprising. I know you (Mr. Norman) seem to have great respect for them, I just do not understand why.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: [I assume by "JB" you mean J. B. Pritzker, current governor of Illinois. In a word no. Don't know much at all about how he has performed as governor, however he has done better than some of the past governors simply by staying out of prison.
Mr. Harris, the "State works again". That hardly can be said of his Republican predecessor when the State was without a budget and had no authority to disburse funds to any party absent a court order. Fortunately, a child welfare agency client of mine, holding contracts with the State to provide Foster Care was well-funded and survived. Others with worthwhile programs did not.
Anyone campaigning with a slogan of "shake up Springfield" won't get my vote - the State is impervious to such.
That JB is wealthy (Hyatt Hotels; five nights YTD for me) lessens the possibility he will end up in "the clink" where three former Governors have since I've been around these parts.
Finally, I've been reading The New York Times since I was eight years old; not about to change as I close in on 81 (also read The Journal).
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Democratic brand has been utterly ruined by now, if it was not before now. The party’s utter disdain for constitutional limits is out in the open, as is the same contempt shown by the members of the supposed opposition party commonly called “Republicans in name only” (RINOs).
I advise a cessation of reading both Times and Journal. If the former’s reputation has not been ruined by its lack of apology for the propagandizing ways of Walter Duranty, then attempting to normalize 1619 Project hacks such as Nikole Hannah-Jones simply has to be the last straw. As for the latter, the late-80s op-ed in which their editorial board demanded “a five-word constitutional amendment, ‘There shall be open borders’” (a demand of the communists), should have consigned their reputation to the dustbin of history.
FWICS, Pritzker has been business as usual for Illinois, having seemingly bought the election with his billions and not growing the state one bit (largest population departure thus far was last year). His predecessor, Rauner, was a stereotypical RINO who similarly bought the office and could not win in spite of left-wing policies.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: I advise a cessation of reading both Times and Journal.
Then what SHOULD I read, Mr. Helfner; that Taiwanese based "Epoch Times"?
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I would leave that up to the individual rather than entertain red herrings and false dilemmas, with all due respect. I can only relate what I know about the two aforementioned sources, which have not repented of their past sins and seem bent on committing more. Of course, begging the question as to what is wrong with being based in Taiwan in particular (versus where else? I will not presume that a city whose name translates as “Northern Capital” is implied) leaves one with more questions than answers, aside from whatever other characteristics must be considered.
It is perhaps drudgery sifting through sources to find the unbiased truth (the Times in particular publishes it seven or perhaps fourteen paragraphs in, wearying the reader into not noticing that the previous paragraphs of editorializing have been refuted), but ultimately rewarding. Treat all sources in such a fashion, is all I can advise.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about Gavin Newsome as the Dem candidate in 2024? Sounds like he is thinking about it and seems to feel that DeSantis will be his most likely Repub opponent. Seems that Newsome has been running ads in Florida saying, leave there and come back to the land of the free in California. My first thought on that is that maybe he should be on some medication for hallucinations.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Emboldened by his victory in last year’s recall election and looking toward an easy November re-election, California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his presidential ambitions over the Fourth of July weekend. He challenged potential opponent Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis with a television commercial in the Sunshine State
I guess his motive is to offer voters an alternative to Joe seeking a second term - and of course an endorsement.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not too sure what Joe or his handlers will think about this front page article in the double the weekday circulation Sunday Times.
Fair Use:
When President Biden leaves Tuesday night for a four-day swing through the Middle East, he will presumably be more rested than he would have been had he followed the original plan.
The trip was initially tacked onto another journey last month to Europe, which would have made for an arduous 10-day overseas trek until it became clear to Mr. Biden’s team that such extended travel might be unnecessarily taxing for a 79-year-old president, or “crazy,” as one official put it.
Aides also cited political and diplomatic reasons to reorganize the extra stops as a separate trip weeks later. But the reality is that managing the schedule of the oldest president in American history presents distinct challenges. And as Mr. Biden insists he plans to run for a second term, his age has increasingly become an uncomfortable issue for him, his team and his party.
In addition to myself, my Dental Hygienist doesn’t think he will complete the term.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Atlantic has some criticism for Mr. B., in a piece titled Middle Eastern Autocrats Embarrassed Biden at Will.
quote:President Joe Biden’s much-touted trip to the Middle East—his first as president—was almost entirely devoid of drama or excitement. It produced no significant deliverables, nor was it meant to. To be underwhelmed, however, is to miss a more troubling story. The visit may have been pointless and performative, but it was also a major setback for American interests, confirming what many long suspected: Supposed allies can disrespect, embarrass, and undermine the United States at will.
The costs are already evident. On Saturday, less than 24 hours after Biden left the region, the United Arab Emirates sentenced an American citizen, Asim Ghafoor, to three years in prison on nebulous charges. Ghafoor, a lawyer for the slain Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, was detained only two days prior while transiting through Dubai International Airport.
This is the sort of thing that happens under dictatorships. But it is not the sort of thing that happens under dictatorships that are ostensibly close U.S. partners. In effect, the leaders of the UAE either are taunting Biden or are indifferent to the perception that they are taunting him. …
The president’s very public deference to a brutal but weak regime is not just a problem for American strategy; it is a problem for American identity. On the world stage, is this what we’re intent on becoming? …
Also mentioned is the deference to the effect of requesting the house of bin Saud to up their oil output, with only the matter of the USA looking weak as context.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though, I'm prepared to accept the White House "spinmeisters" at face that Joe is not all that sick from his COVID infection, it may be enough to push him and say "I've had it".
Time to get a book deal and a ghost writer for your memoirs, and have "wrestling matches" with Major.
Had Dinner with a friend, more "libby" than I as a "Clinton left-centrist", last evening who has been an ardent Joe supporter, for reasons more than he "got rid of Trump" (well, for four years). She held he was to be a "bring us together" president. Help those economically impacted by COVID? Of course. Infrastructure? Too many politicians have ignored it for too long. But buying into Bernie, Liz W, and The Squad's agenda. No thanks.
But unlike me, she does think Joe will "stumble through" the rest of his term, will not run, and Trump will defeat any Democrat. I too hold that Trump will be the 47th POTUS, or 48th, should, on Jan 19,2025, the President is named Kamala.
All this from a gal who I'll bet "wouldn't know how to vote Republican". Me; well I've done that half of the time (Presidential record: 7R 7D 1I).
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Washington Post columnist Steve Isenberg is calling for Mr. B to be a one-termer.
quote:President Biden should announce now that he will not run for reelection in 2024.
He should not ask the Democratic Party, or the nation, to assume the risk of a second four-year term that would begin after he reached the age of 82. …
I guess only the left can get away with so-called ageism.
Further down in the article, Isenberg claims that if Biden did not run in 2024, the 2022 midterms would no longer be about his policies, which is utterly false; the policies in question are not his alone.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points are raised with this Times column appearing today.
Fair Use:
Just months after being sworn in as president in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave an unusual task to his vice president, Richard Nixon.
Years earlier, when Eisenhower was the supreme commander of the Allied forces in World War II, he had been distressed over the unpreparedness of Vice President Harry Truman upon President Franklin Roosevelt’s sudden death. Now president at 62, a former four-pack-a-day smoker with what would become a serious heart condition, Eisenhower understood the importance of training a vice president for the presidency; Nixon had just six years’ experience as a congressman and senator from California before becoming Eisenhower’s running mate.
The president had no great liking for Nixon, whom he barely knew, but he gave him a lot to do — including dispatching the vice president and his wife, Pat, on what would become a 68-day trip through Asia and the Middle East. In the fall of 1953, the Nixons visited Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Libya — the first of many chances for the vice president to establish personal ties with foreign leaders.
If Joe "doesn't make it" for whatever reason, the Constitution defines that Kamala will become President. Ike, amongst the Notable Scholars' "top five", immersed Nixon in foreign affairs, which before he self-imploded his own presidency, paid the world dividends. Whie I will respect Mr. Helfner's likely disagreement, the world is a better place for Nixon opening the doors with China.
Obama gave Joe visible and meaningful "chores" with the result of him being known as the VP. While short of "getting popped", Obama, considering his age and fitness level, was going to serve out his term/s, but Joe's visibility was paramount to him.
Now the "shoe is on the other foot". While I like to think the "spinmeisters" are being straight up about Joe's COVID, there is always the chance it is otherwise. So it matters not, Joe, what you think of her personally (I really don't think "he's in love with her"), get her out there.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So China aggressively asserting its rule over Hong Kong, and likely to copy Russia’s Ukraine example with respect to Taiwan, has made the world a better place? With all due respect, please connect those dots because they are not self-evident; and remember that our making them a MFN trading partner contributed to that aggression on their part.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, did Times columnist, Bret Stephens, ever "lay it on" today:
Fair Use:
The central fact about the democratic world today is that it is leaderless.
Twenty-five years ago, we had the confident presences of Bill Clinton, Helmut Kohl and Tony Blair — and Alan Greenspan. Now we have a failing American president, a timorous German chancellor, a British prime minister about to skulk out of office in ignominy and a chairman of the Federal Reserve who last year flubbed the most important decision of his career. Elsewhere: the resignation of Italy’s prime minister, a caretaker government in Israel, the assassination of Japan’s dominant political figure.
I sincerely believe that the sooner Joe announces he will not seek a second term will be all the better for the Democratic party. Let's see, LBJ announced he would not seek the second term during March '68 (I predicted it to two other guys at Lunch in Saigon during October '67; to my Mother and Father in a letter during Feb '68). Harry Truman announced same during March '52. So, with twenty nine months remaining, Joe would be announcing considerably sooner than did two of his predecessors, but they were not 79yo.
Now it is "almost true" that such nomination is always held open for the incumbent president, but I'm not sure how many presidents have been "underwater" with job approval than is Joe (he is worse off than was Trump nineteen months in).
So I really think the sooner Joe makes such an announcement will be the better for all concerned. This of course is independent of whether my March '23 prediction of a resignation comes to pass.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, it is not about Biden himself, but the policies. I see no evidence that the party as a whole is ready to disavow them and pull back from the left—otherwise they would do something quite remarkable to prove that, e.g. get together with the Republicans to expel Nancy Pelosi and other radical Congresspeople and even Senators (think Charles Schumer, the so-called “Squad” et al).
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Helfner, lest we forget that Members of Congress, short of impeachment, are expelled by the voters - and for all noted, that could come as early as three months from now.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true, but invoking Article I Section 5 would send a stronger message to the electorate that the current Congress does actually care, rather than waiting to be evicted by the electorate which sends the message that they are actually the anti-law people the electorate perceive them to be.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two Thirds to expel a member under Section 5 is a mighty high threshold to meet.
A side note to keep in mind; "Squad Leader" AOC is eligible to run in '24, as she will be 35yo on Jan 20,'25.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Such a threshold would be an easy one to meet if the 118th Congress wanted to prove they had the USA’s best interests at heart.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:… After taking a five-day course of Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid when he first tested positive on July 21, Biden tested positive for a rebound case of COVID-19 on Saturday and resumed isolation. He has not left the White House in 14 days.
“Given his rebound positivity which we reported Saturday, we continued daily monitoring. This morning, his SARS-CoV-2 antigen test remained positive. The President will continue his strict isolation measures,” (Dr. Kevin) O’Connor wrote in a memo to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, which was shared with reporters.
Thursday will mark “day five” of his second isolation. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “People with recurrence of COVID-19 symptoms or a new positive viral test after having tested negative should restart isolation and isolate again for at least 5 days.” …
I get the feeling that some people might be trying to run this man into the ground.
I also have to wonder about the use of antigen tests, which are regarded as far less accurate than the PCR test; I was required by my employer to have a negative PCR test last year before I could return to work after being ill with this virus.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even Maureen Dowd in The Times today is saying "Joe, even if you've had a win or two of late, this does not mean it's a cue to seek another term".
Fair Use:
The timing of your exit can determine your place in the history books.
This is something Joe Biden should keep in mind as he is riding the crest of success. His inner circle, irritated by stories about concerns over his age and unpopularity, will say this winning streak gives Biden the impetus to run again.
The opposite is true. It should give him the confidence to leave, secure in the knowledge that he has made his mark.
Ms. Dowd further references RBG in that she was on some kind of "pop culture roll" and ignored calls from the Obama administration to step down now "Just in case Trump wins".
She missed the moment to leave the stage, ignoring friendly nudges from Democrats and entreaties from Obama allies. She fell in love with her late-in-life image as a hip cultural icon: “Notorious R.B.G.,” the octogenarian cancer survivor who could hold 30-second planks. She thought she was the indispensable person, and that ended in disaster. Her death opened the door to the most conservative court in nearly a century. Her successor, a religious zealot straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” is erasing Justice Ginsburg’s achievements on women’s rights.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the "Sea to Lake raid" is being discussed at another topic, I believe "it's going to end badly" for the Democrats' interests. Even if one of my Sister's "news sources" has reported that the Judge signing the warrant has been associated with Liberal interests, the mainstream sources, i.e. mine, will pick up same soon enough if not already.
I'm predicting a "Democrat blood bath" less than 100 days from now, and I further predict that Joe's resignation will come shortly after the 118th is seated - possibly in conjunction with the SOTU. Maybe, just maybe, Amtrak will have an Aviella train set accepted by then so "Amtrak Joe" can leave town as he has in the past (I don't think the Secret Service would deny a Former President such).
So, even if Kamala is "behind the desk in the Oval" after that time, her chances of not having to write a letter to her successor during January '25 are "slim to none". She will join the ranks of ascending VP's, which presently are "split 50-50" with election success. On one hand we have TR, "Silent Cal", Truman, and LBJ who got elected in their own right, however none sought a second term. On the other, we have Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur, and Ford for whom it was a "less than one and done".
Kamala will tip that scale for the "less than one's".
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Joe's speech from Independence Hall last evening was indeed forceful, well-delivered, and needed to be said.
But I'm fearful it was a campaign speech - and government apparatus - Marines, government property - beyond his security and his seal, which are "his" wherever he goes, was used.
Trump is a criminal; he violated numerous sedition laws culminating with Jan 6, he removed classified documents that are government property - even if to date, he had not disseminated them.
All I know is that "when I was in", I had a Top Secret clearance, and I handled enough of such to need that clearance. But had I, along with Mr. Harris, Ocala Mike, and any others I've overlooked who have worn the uniform of our country and served, done as Trump has, we'd all be in jail - and the key would have "gotten lost".
I'm waiting for Tucker, Hannity, and their ilk to start "making something" of that.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So labeling anyone who voted for Trump as an “extremist” needed to be said? Really? That is an attack on well over half the nation.
Never mind the attending visuals, or the fact that USMC directives forbid any of their personnel from participating in political activities. The color of the background lights is very telling as well.
And with all due respect, enough with the “Trump is a criminal” rhetoric. The powers that be tried and failed when it came to two “impeachments” and they are currently failing in their continuation of their Lavrenty Beria tactics to find us any crime. The USA is supposed to uphold the principle of innocence until guilt is actually proven, not Code Napoléon which is the exact opposite of that.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, I have had it to my eyebrows with all the "get Trump" that has been going on for the last several years. These "January 6" hearings approach or possibly surpass a Soviet show trial. This whole "democracy is in fatal danger if you don't agree with me" perspective gives me the creeps. If anyone has attempted to govern by decree to the extent that Biden has been allowed to get away with, please tell me.
How Mr. Norman gets "needed to be said" is beyond me. What I heard of it comes more under the heading of should never be said and could be dangerous if believed. The whole scene of standing there making pronouncements to the effect that "democracy is dead" if his opponents are allowed any power stated with marines in the background would be more appropriate for tinpot dictators.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, I agree that both timing and venue for the "made for TV" Hearings and the Speech would make the nearly 50% of voters who support FPOTUS45 Trump quite suspect. I believe there will be repercussions over the choice of venue for the Speech as well as the timing of both.
But Mr. Harris, just like me in order to perform your official duties, you had a security clearance. Since we were practically contemporaries over in The Nam, and had we done what FPOTUS Trump irrefutably did, guess we'd be sharing the same cell at Leavenworth.
Finally, for those here who have not served, a security clearance is not some kind of "merit badge"; it is simply a device granted, after a background check, to those personnel, military or civilian, who have a need to know and/or access classified information in order to perform their official duties.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What did Trump “irrefutably d(o)”? Still hurling accusations without base and can actually be refuted?
Just to illustrate that the leftists behind Biden realize that they actually have gone too far, they are currently backpedaling. If the Mar-a-Lago “panty raid” (what became of Melania’s clothing, I still wonder, never mind the 4th Amendment being shredded) has gained a slew of new voters who support Trump-backed candidates, I wonder how many more of such will indeed show up at the polls this November.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman, as to violations of security clearance, you are absolutely correct so far as we were concerned as we were toward the bottom of the pecking order. When it comes to POTUS, then who determines what is top secret and what is not? Since this I suspect to be an Executive Branch decision, then as head of the Executive Branch, would the final decision be his? Think about this for a moment when considering the character of the person holding the office.
As to security clearances themselves, I basically played the game. Too many times I saw clearances used to cover up the embarrassing and things the powers that be wanted to keep hidden that had absolutely nothing to do with any real security issues. One thing that comes to mind is the rule about photographing anything near the generals' compound in Long Binh. It was well inside the middle of the base, but the reality is that they did not want the public to see how well they were living in "combat". OF course, everyone knew where it was so there was no real secrecy issue. I have quite a few stories from a now long deceased Military Intelligence LTC of some of the absolute sillies that got classified solely to cover either stupidity or embarrassment.
In the same flavor is "Non-disclosure Agreements" commonly used in engineering contracts particularly in public works. It seems that most of these serve primarily to cover bad decisions by the owner. In the same vein, "Value Engineering" is frequently used by contractors to reduce costs, as these clauses allow the postulated savings to be shared between owner and contractor, but commonly they result in saving of say, $100,000 that results in a reduction in value of the project by $1,000,000. Been involved in the fix of a couple of failures due to this, but thanks to the "non-disclosure" I can say no more, other than that they involved component failures on constructed facilities located somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, and not involving the project that was my primary at the time.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris, so you at LB were fifteen or so miles "upstream" from me at Tan Son Nhut!!!
So far as the Generals both at MACV and at TSN, yes they did have nice "double wide" house trailers - and Vietnamese servants, but how long had we "been in" to learn RHIP - "Rank has its privileges" Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
. To "that Joe", who I personally could accept as a Democratic (I'll never vote Third Party again; did that once and once only) nominee, "either seek the prize of get out of the ring".
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
