US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
And after J6, I think the Swamp will straight-up assassinate Trump before letting him anywhere near the White House again. He has way too much baggage to be re-electable.
Killing Trump, like sending him to jail on trumped up bullshit charges, will just martyr him.
And give us Day of the Rope.

And at this point, the only possible way I can see (((the Swamp))) OKing that, is if the plan is to eat proverbial shit and regress shit for a couple of decades to let shit cool off to stop a Day of the Rope from happening, by martyring Trump to put DeSantis in power and use DeSantis to regress shit socially and culturally back to the 1980s or early 1990s complete with erasing any gay rights gains and making it legally to put trannies into insane asylums and legal to straight up brutalize liberals, feminists, and minorities who get uppity.
 
Killing Trump, like sending him to jail on trumped up bullshit charges, will just martyr him.
And give us Day of the Rope.

And at this point, the only possible way I can see (((the Swamp))) OKing that, is if the plan is to eat proverbial shit and regress shit for a couple of decades to let shit cool off to stop a Day of the Rope from happening, by martyring Trump to put DeSantis in power and use DeSantis to regress shit socially and culturally back to the 1980s or early 1990s complete with erasing any gay rights gains and making it legally to put trannies into insane asylums and legal to straight up brutalize liberals, feminists, and minorities who get uppity.
Makes sense. The only issue: Democrats wont settle for giving up an inch of social policy, or putting just one LGBT individual in the closet.
 
Long-term, I honestly think it’s best if Democrats keep the White House in 2024, because whoever’s in that hot seat is gonna be overseeing Great Depression 2: Electric Boogaloo. The best anyone can do is soften the blow, and even if they do the best possible job, nobody will thank them for it - the public will only decry them for letting it happen at all, even though it was really just an inevitability that nobody can prevent by this point,

My prediction is that it’ll be another Herbert Hoover/FDR situation, and do the Republicans really want another Herbert Hoover? Might as well just let the Democrats take the millstone around the neck.

That's not an apt comparison as:

1. We are already in a new depression, and to be perfectly frank? We have been in one ever since the economy took a shit and died in the fall of 2008. Bush and Obama basically did the opposite of what Hoover did (IE they did shit and not nothing like Hoover did) so they were able to cauterize the wound to the point that they could prevent a full-on economic collapse, but do nothing to actually undo the damage of the depression with Covid and the lockdowns basically being a backslide that undid whatever small recovery we had built up over those last 12 years from 2009-2020.

2. The political picture is very different. Republicans took office in 1920 after Wilson connived Democrats back into power in 1912. The 1920s was a period of intense economic growth and you had Harding and Coolidge in charge for the bulk of that period. Hoover was our third GOP President in a row, so there was a lot of fatigue to be had with the GOP at the time and Hoover fucked shit up in how he didn't lift a finger to help people when the Depression hit.

Ideally, getting rid of Biden is imperative purely to stop the bleeding and prevent the Democrats from doing long term damage via institutional hijacking as we have already seen the damage that Obama did in his two terms with his henchmen he seeded throughout the government and the agencies. It will probably take two-three terms of a GOP candidate to either root those fuckers out and replace them with sane people just to undo the damage eight years of Biden will do to the country.

Can someone tell me what problem libtards have with Mitch McConnell apart from being a fossil politician with an R in his party affiliation? I recall them scaremongering about muh Russia and some oligarch starting a firm in Kentucky, but what else are libtards ginning their base up on old ass Mitch?

I don't like him either. I just want to dislike him for better reasons than them.

McConnell is an all-powerful rules lawyer expert who knows every fucking trick in the book to game the Congressional system of law to the GOP's advantage and was radicalized by the way Bork got fucked over and denied a Supreme Court seat/Clarence Thomas was called a degenerate nigger rapist, to basically see politics as a zero-sum game where you must be utterly and without mercy and pity when battling the Democrats.

Adding to that, he has a huge fucking hate boner for Obama and point blank said (and refused to deny saying it when it leaked as far as owning it) that he was going to do everything in his power to make Obama's Presidency a living hell and do his damnest to fuck him over with no lube politically in order to try and prevent him from getting a second term as President. And who started working on said scheme no less than 24 hours AFTER Obama won the 2008 election as far as not even waiting until he was sworn in to start drafting war plans to destroy Obama.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To be fair to @Gehenna he has at least pointed out that he doesn't know everything (nor does anyone) and some of his claims could be wrong. Personally I see it like this within each new political event, there are two major outcomes, either the glass-is-half-full outcome or the glass-is-half-empty outcome, it just so happens Glass-half-empty predicters were right including on how the democrats are already invested in illegal operations to fuel the machine they're running, I personally don't see how they could run out as long as they continue illicit operations to continue making and laundering their money around. That's just me though. In other words you weren't the only one who thought so. There can be more than two potential outcomes/prediction outcome possibilities but when people have a certainty of two likely outcomes it boils down to those main two. Nothing wrong with following political insiders and "sages" as long as you realize there needs to be room for an opposing belief on the outcome, and understand even if they are right or predict correctly multiple things they are not an omnipresent being and open to human error margin.
I suspect some of it is just that a lot of people are still holding on to an ideal that things are relatively still the same as they were, that the same logic applies, that events follow a logical conclusion.
They think that no, there's no way such a level of fraud could or would be brought out repeatedly, that's just silly because someone would have noticed!

They think that yes, of course if 3/4 of people polled say they think the country is heading in the wrong direction under one party rule, that they'll try to vote for another party to shift course.

They think that, hey, there's no way half of the Republican party could be maliciously compliant and engaged with the fraud, that's just silly and it's just politics as it's always been.

Except we are no longer in the logical, normal world. We are in clown world. Always expect them to do the very worst to you at the very earliest convenience for the most ridiculous of reasons.

Okay maybe not that far but still, expect things to be different than they were. We've passed a threshold where the people orchestrating things behind the scenes no longer even give a shit about being subtle about it, there's no need for anyone to help them along by being willfully blind.
 
Hoover fucked shit up in how he didn't lift a finger to help people when the Depression hit.
That is a lie FDR spread. In reality, Hoover abandoned his principles and started many of the the interventions that FDR expanded.
When the 72nd Congress convened in December 1931, Hoover proposed the establishment of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). Though some progressives criticized the bill as a bailout for banking interests that was insufficient to address the economic crisis, Congress passed a bill to create the RFC in January 1932. The RFC's initial goal was to provide government-secured loans to financial institutions, railroads, and local governments. The RFC saved numerous businesses from failure, but it failed to stimulate commercial lending as Hoover had hoped, partly because it was run by conservative bankers unwilling to make riskier loans. The RFC would be adopted by Roosevelt and greatly expanded as part of his New Deal
In late 1931, Hoover proposed a tax plan to increase tax revenue by 30 percent, resulting in the passage of the Revenue Act of 1932. The act increased taxes across the board, rolling back much of the tax cut reduction program Mellon had presided over during the 1920s. Top earners were taxed at 63 percent on their net income, the highest rate since the early 1920s. The act also doubled the top estate tax rate, cut personal income tax exemptions, eliminated the corporate income tax exemption, and raised corporate tax rates. Despite the passage of the Revenue Act, the federal government continued to run a budget deficit.
Hoover signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, a $2 billion public works bill, in July 1932. That same month, Hoover signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, establishing 12 district banks overseen by a Federal Home Loan Bank Board in a manner similar to the Federal Reserve System. Hoover and Senator Carter Glass, another gold standard proponent, recognized that they needed to stop deflation by encouraging lending. Hoover was instrumental in passing the Glass–Steagall Act of 1932, which allowed for prime rediscounting at the Federal Reserve, in turn allowing further inflation of credit and bank reserves.
In 1931, Hoover signed the Davis-Bacon Act, which required a maximum eight-hour day on construction of public buildings, as well as the payment of at least the local "prevailing wage."
 
That is a lie FDR spread. In reality, Hoover abandoned his principles and started many of the the interventions that FDR expanded.
The administration of Franklin Roosevelt effectively buried the legacy of Herbert Hoover. He wasn't the greatest president by any means but due to Roosevelt's involvement in WW2 and the general almost cult-like love for him that developed, Hoover became a scapegoat who in the popular American history narrative never took any action to address the Great Depression.
 
I wouldn't hate to see Rand do it. It probably won't happen though. They'll want someone who is willing to fund the war in Ukraine.
I mentioned this a couple of pages back, but in general the GOP has NO ONE who can really replace Mitch and provide the same level of Machievillian genius and ruthlessness Cocaine Mitch displays on a regular basis.

Rand is an unofficial outcast among the GOP elite and has no real power or pull and be an empty suit leader, who no one would respect and have zero power to enforce his will and keep the rest of the GOP Senators in line.

Ted Cruz is basically someone who thinks he is equal to Mitch in cunning and ruthlessness, but in truth is a bumbling fool who's fallen upward career-wise and who vastly overestimates how smart he is and would be utterly exposed as such if he took over.

Lindsay Graham is a quisling who has no spine and would be a bigger fuck up than Cruz, as he would be a cuckservative supreme if given a chance.

Finally, Dan Crenshaw is an even bigger quisling cuckservative, made worse by the fact that he's still a relative rookie Senator (meaning he has very little power or influence) and worse, has an ego where he's been told that he's the second coming of John McCain.
 
It's an undeniable fact that at least SOME of the aid was invested on FTX
No it isn't. There was no proof and a great deal of speculation.

Besides, it's over-complicating. The first big aid bill had less than half of its funds directed to Ukraine aid. Most of it was funding for democrats' pet organisations.
 
Those addresses are just government offices. Pretty sure you can't put that on a business financing form, even if you are a politician. Fake news.
No it isn't. There was no proof and a great deal of speculation.

Besides, it's over-complicating. The first big aid bill had less than half of its funds directed to Ukraine aid. Most of it was funding for democrats' pet organisations.
It's not overcomplicating anything. Ukraine put money into FTX. That is a known, confirmed fact. How much is almost certainly tens of millions of dollars, since everyone knows Ukraine is a place US politicians go to launder money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back