President Biden thread

5 hours ago, chare said:

I know Ms. Pelosi had planned to introduce legislation that would have estabished a Commission on Presidential Capacity.  Later, she and Mr. Schumer attempted to contact Mr. Pence urging him to invoke the 25th Amendment.  And of course, there was much discussion here about it here.  However, I don't recall it being discussed by members of Mr. Grump's cabinet.  Perhaps you would provide a source for this?

Assuming for a moment that Mr. Pence did this, gained support from 8 members of the cabinet, and submitted this to Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer, don't you think Mr. Trump would  challenge this? 

As for Mr. Trump's ability to "continue to trouble Republicans and our democracy."  Considering that those that believe Mr. Trump's claims do so as an article of faith, it might strengthen their beliefs.  For the majority, however, I don't think it would make much difference.

There were reports of cabinet members talking about the 25th at the time. More recently, Cassidy Hutchinson testified that there was discussion and DeVos admitted it. Of course the mentally challenged, erratically behaving man would challenge it and there's no guarantee that someone somewhere wouldn't try to shield it protect him in his challenge. 

Yes, anything that happens to Trump at this point only makes him more of a martyr victim in the eyes of the cult and since the GOP depends upon the members of that cult for votes...

 The reason that I believe that Trump troubles the republican party is because it is evident that Trump, and Trumpian politics,  most certainly have affected republican candidates across the country.  Too often MAGAphiles are elevated while actual conservatives are called names and shoved aside.  And yes, I hear all the time in political ads and rhetoric from conservatives here that Trump is unimportant and no they aren't going to use a state constitutional convention to change privacy language.  I'm just not that gullible or naive. 

40 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The reason that I believe that Trump troubles the republican party is because it is evident that Trump, and Trumpian politics,  most certainly have affected republican candidates across the country.  

"Trumpian politics" I suppose is a word now.  My best friend and I were talking and he was telling me about a commentator, I think perhaps on Morning Joe on MSNBC, stating the with the rise of Marjorie Taylor Greene to prominence in the Congress (with zero chance of not getting elected over and over) it hints at the direction Republicans want to take and this direction might last up to 10 years and it seems to be "Trumpian Politics".   Obviously if congress and the Republican Party power leaders didn't like or want Trumpism they'd have stopped it by now.  The only thing that would stop them is defeat in elections and that certainly isn't happening so forward we go with this situation.

Yeah.  It's important to differentiate between politics and candidates that are clearly Trump influenced and those who pursue a more traditional expression of conservatism.  The Trump loving republican base wants more candidates like MTG, Boebert, and Trump but traditional conservatives don't.  

5 hours ago, Beerman said:

He says it's his legislation.  He's a gun owner, supposedly.  And, gun rights has been a big issue for most if not all the decades he's been in DC.  

I've never held a gun, but do know 1 bullet = 1 round.  So, no, it doesn't make sense.

Like I said a lot of people I know are gun owners and are in favor of gun controls and assault weapon bans.  

Yes, the issue has been around as long as I can remember.  I really don't remember a time in my adult life it hasn't been and I'm 63.   I've given up hope with so many weapons out there of it ever being solved.   No amount of tragedy seems to move us to action.   Crime being a top issue for voters certainly while it roots may be in our violent gun-laden culture is only fueling the fear that we need to protect ourselves with guns and assault weapons and so it goes.

I still wonder why you only asked Biden supporters to clarify what he was saying.

I found this definition:  Cartridge: A unit of ammunition, made up of a cartridge case, primer, powder, and bullet. Also called a "round", or “load”. Sometimes incorrectly called a “bullet”.   So a lot of us don't know much.

It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out he's meaning to decrease the amount of bullets being able to fired at one time.   

Even Beribart didn't seem to make a big deal out of it in the article I saw, other than saying he said it and went on to talk about his support for assault weapons an outright assault weapons band. 

I think you're fishing that this is an example of his incompetence and dementia.  Could be, but just say it.

54 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I did some research, as it seemed I was not as familiar with Epoch Times as others.

It seems they are banned in China as they are a strong critic of the communist regime.

So, I'm wondering what makes them part of the "Chinese propaganda system"?

According to this chart that has been used here often as a source, they "lean right".  It's interesting to note their counterparts in the "lean left" category.

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

What "counterparts"? What are you trying to imply now that you realize that you've shared right wing extremism from a Chinese media outlet in your zeal to make a divisive point about Biden.  

Of course, sharing right wing extremist views from foreign actors seeking to destabilize our democracy is commonplace now among Republicans like Ron Johnson or MTG or Gosar and conservative voters have been conditioned to simply accept lies without evidence. CPAC tweets Russian support and elevated right wing authoritarians.  This is not new but it is at a pinnacle that threatens to topple our democracy as conditioned voters are convinced that the government is their enemy.  Discernment is broken in Republican politics. 

13 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Because they are always defending or trying to explain his "verbal gaffes".  I wanted to hear the explanation for this one.

"Cartridge" isn't the term that was in question.

 

It was more of a rhetorical question.   I think some are unaware of how often he "misspeaks".  It is interesting that others deflected from him to the source I linked to.  One commented on the source in three different posts before finally stating it was a verbal gaffe.

And, still no one has tried to claim that the story I linked to was inaccurate.

I think many of us were desensitized to erroneous statements from a POTUS during the last administration.