quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: What did Trump “irrefutably d(o)”? Still hurling accusations without base and can actually be refuted?
Mr. Helfner, I think it hard to refute that government documents, classification notwithstanding, were found at Mar-a-Lago. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 is clear that these documents are government property and are to be turned over to the National Archives.
They weren't.
Further, I am very fearful, just as much as you are apparently joyful, that first the Hearings, followed by the Raid, and topped off with the Speech, as good as assure that Congress will return to Republican control during Jan '23, that Joe will resign shortly after delivering the SOTU during February or March, that President Harris' "caretaker succession" will expire Jan 20, '25, and at that time, POTUS48 Trump will take the Oath.
It will be tempting to follow in the steps that my Maternal family made during '34 and live out my years on the shores of Wolfgangsee - of course, never mind why they returned home during '38.
Finally, there is one item presently deemed under PRA78 to be government property that should be exempt. That is the letter the outgoing POTUS writes to his successor and places in a desk drawer. I hold such is personal property; and contrary to what some might think, Trump did write Joe such a letter, and such was reported to be quite cordial.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The presence of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago is not a crime. There is no obligation to turn them over to the National Archives. And classified status rests in the hand of the POTUS under which they became so. Notwithstanding, Trump was cooperating long before the FBI stormed in and rifled through Melania’s closet.
The warrant specified nothing. That is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and employment of the “general warrant” abomination of George III of England that was one cause of the move for independence of the colonies.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: 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"
Oh, did I ever learn RHIP. The General housing at Long Binh were not double wides. They were essentially very nice individual houses in a compound with separate entrances and guards, the guards being MP's that looked like they never knew what dirt was.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As this is written, the Mid-Term elections are a little more than five weeks away.
Well, out here in my "Demofied land", JB will "trounce" whoever that "cornball" the Republicans came up with, and that Tammy will keep her Senate seat (does she actually have an opponent?).
Aside from around these parts, I hold the Republicans will take control of both the House and Senate, or very simply, Congress. If Joe has visions of any further legislative initiatives, those are now in the trash barrel. Should there be a SCOTUS vacancy to fill, the Senate will decide who either Joe or Kamala will appoint.
I guess that kind of leads into reiterating my long-held contention that Joe will not complete the term. I believe he will resign during March '23, and could even announce that resignation as part of the SOTU.
"Too much stuff is piling up" that, right or wrong notwithstanding, Joe will be blamed for. Afghanistan, inflation, interest rates, the "Bear" market (think I'm happy about how my portfolio has declined?), the "overstep" with education loan forgiveness, maybe even Ukraine's inevitable defeat or China rattling sabers at Taiwan. Further, the strong possibility he will be impeached will be lessened by his resignation.
Maybe Amtrak will have an Aviella set available by then for Joe's return home. I don't think a Former President's security is on the front burner.
The high points of Kamala's twenty month "caretaker presidency" will be rolling Easter Eggs, throwing out first pitch at a Giants-Nationals game, and pardoning turkeys.
But otherwise, she will preside over Ukraine's defeat. Sure, we are providing them arms, but if this Journal editorial is to be believed, we are "getting tapped out". As I noted earlier at this Forum, it's not that the Russians are superior fighters, it's just that there are so many more of them available - especially to a leader who cares little if they simply become cannon fodder.
Finally, absent losing "the battle of Big Mac", I foresee Trump being nominated and winning during '24.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe Amtrak will have an Avelia set available by then for Joe’s return home. I don’t think a Former President’s security is on the front burner.
? Not how things work. Ex-presidents have SS protection for life, per the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012.
There has not been a case of any Republican Congress utterly stymieing a Democratic POTUS’ agenda, particularly when the majority are RINOs.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amongst my "first reads" in Tuesday's Times is the weekly column comprising a conversation between two columnists - "Fairly Conservative" Bret Stephens and "rather Liberal" Gail Collins. The column addresses a wide number of points, but one appearing today addresses the "fate of Joe" and, for that matter, the Democratic party come '24. Here is a Fair Use quotation regarding such:
[Bret]And the Democrat who is going to turn around the party’s fortunes is …
Gail: Sorry to say it won’t be Joe Biden. I think history will give Biden a lot of points for the way he brought us out of the Trump presidency, but his strong points — good at bipartisanship, powerful history of congressional negotiating, fatherly image — aren’t holding up well in the current still-quite-Trumpian political world.
Bret: History will definitely remember him as a transitional president, but whether it’s as George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford or John Adams — all former veeps, I might add — remains to be seen.
Gail: I’m still hoping Biden will change his mind about his vow to run again and open up a competition among the more promising Democrats. That would include the names we’ve been tossing around for some time, like Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris — although I absolutely do not think Harris’s position as vice president should give her automatic support.
Bret: Of those three, the only one I think of as a strong contender is Klobuchar, who is smart, experienced and competent, her salad-eating habits notwithstanding. Another favorite of mine is the commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo. But like so many would-be centrist politicians, she could win handily at the national level but would have no chance of making it through the primaries. It seems to be part of a larger problem we have in this country, which is that in one institution after another, it’s almost impossible for the best people to rise to the top.
Finally, in the interest of fairness and balance, my "first read" in Saturday's Journal is "rather conservative" columnist, Peggy Noonan.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Asked in an interview with NBC News on Wednesday about a second term, the first lady made an argument for keeping the president in the job.
“He understands government better than anybody else,” Jill Biden said.
She said she’s not deterred by another vitriolic campaign or the prospect of Republican-led investigations into her family should the GOP win control of Congress in November’s midterm elections. And she was adamant that her son Hunter Biden, who is under federal investigation and is a potential target of congressional probes, has broken no laws.
Both Houses will be controlled by Republicans come New Year's; and further legislative initiatives beyond defense and spending are a "DOA". Jill will have change of heart and that it is time after the SOTU to go back to Wilmington (on Amtrak; maybe?); Champ and Commander are ready for some "rassilin".
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I'm simply astounded by "Dr. Jill's" comments.
Likewise. Sometimes I wonder what alternate universe she is living in. Maybe she is a Mrs. Wilson enjoying being the power behind the throne?
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think NBC News in the immediately captioned quote misleads.
Hunter, along with Beau, were born of Joe's first wife, Neilia, who, along with a daughter Naomi, was killed in the car crash (never hear too much regarding who was at fault; "we report, you decide") that Beau and Hunter survived. However, Jill, after marriage to Joe, did legally adopt both.
The daughter, Ashley, who stays out of the limelight (think she works in Social Services), belongs biologically to Joe and Jill.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's what this Times Guest Columnist holds Joe will be looking at should he choose to hang around until his term expires:
Fair Use:
But if forecasters — who currently give Republicans about a four-in-five chance of taking control of the House and an even chance of taking the Senate — are correct, the next Congress may well provoke whiplash. It will not come as a surprise that a Republican majority will be a less willing partner to a Democratic White House, but a G.O.P. House majority in 2023 is shaping up to be combative to an alarming degree.
Yes, some will hold that Joe's resignation that I still hold will occur after the State Of The Union address will look like "desertion in the face of the enemy", why should anyone with over fifty years of commendable public service, or put another way, a career politician who achieved the ultimate prize, be "tarred and feathered" as he will if he hangs around for another two years. It will be so painful to watch - and Champ and Commander are ready for some good "rassilin matches".
addendum: now that Former President Trump is starting to drop the hints that come '24 he will seek to drop the "Former" from his title, the Democratic party, with no one who could potentially beat him, could persuade Joe to "take one for the team". Customarily, the nomination for a second term within either party is held open for the incumbent, and the likes of "sacrificial lambs" such as Beto and Stacy will be "in hiding" hoping for a better day come '28. It will simply to be too tragic, for a man who has endured so much publicized personal tragedy in his life, to go out the way too many a professional athlete that have "stayed too long", does so.
But that is what will happen.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I have no positive view about Biden's political history, recent or more distant past. I have my doubts that he will resign, as there seems to be a lack of perception of the reality of recent events, particularly economic, that makes it appear that they feel that somehow they shall prevail. I really think one of Joe's best insurances against Impeachment for use of multiple executive orders that usurped congress's authority is Kamala.
Hopefully, should the turnover of party in power prevail, one of their first acts will be to deep six the Soviet Style Show Trial that is the January 6 hearing and turn loose all those persecuted therewith.
Beto and Stacy? I would say not a chance. Both are perennial losers in their home states.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris; Beto and Stacy? we're "on the same page"! I noted them because, as you also note, they can't win an election (maybe somewhere for dogcatcher ) in their home states, which sure would make either of them a "sacrificial lamb" unto Trump's altar come '24 (grief: first primaries are fourteen months away; "announcements" in six).
Jan 6 hearings; they're history on New Year's Eve.
I grant that all Joe ever wanted to be in this life was a "career politician". He was active in High School politics, went to the "not exactly renowned for much of anything" University of Delaware (that wasn't nice of me; Blue Hens around here), after attaining a bachelor's, graduated from their law school (towards the bottom of his class but he got that law degree - the "ticket" for aspiring politicians) and from there went on his way to the ultimate prize all too often held by those with Yale, Stanford, et al on the CV. So let's give him credit for that.
Now as to the possibility of Joe's resignation, let's take that up on Nov 9 (or later depending upon how many disputed elections there will be).
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
As this is written, it does not appear that the "Trump Red Wave" is about to crash on shore. As such, the likelihood that Joe will resign is somewhat diminished.
It appears the House will go Red; and I'm sure the Republican leadership has an office on a high floor in the oldest House Office building with a view of a service alley all picked out for Nancy. If Joe can accept the Investigations will be against him, and not Trump, and that Impeachment articles will be sent to the Senate, then maybe he will choose to hang around.
Now if the Senate stays Blue (Fetterman in PA is a "pick up"), then Joe can still control appointments (Justice Thomas retires? There are plenty of well-qualified Black jurists out there, but they're by and large "Libs"), further he still has a veto should any "whacko" legislation, such as repealing some of Joe's agenda or cutting off Ukraine, get passed.
A second term? Oh, please!!!
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After another nine days to "think it over" and see the largely final election results, we must note that the House is "razor thin Red" and the Senate (regardless of what happens in Georgia between Walker and Warnock) "razor thin Blue".
Here beginneth "Divided Government".
Predictions: Anything remaining of Joe's legislative agenda is dead, however "Spending" ($$$ to keep the lights on; also, Amtrak) and Defense will be funded at consistent levels, and for which both sides will claim "Bipartisanship". For these to pass, it matters not if we have a "First Gentleman".
However, House Investigations will continue but with a change of direction. The January 6 investigation is "finito", and impeachment articles will be filed against Joe (of course going nowhere and for what who knows).
So "I have done what I can to leave our country in better shape than I found it, but it's time to step aside and allow Vice President Harris to sit at The Desk...."
Again, I still hold this will occur after the State Of The Union address.
Joe just looks so tired; as did FDR at Yalta.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I will say something just to keep the thread from dying. To say the lack of a true "red wave" has left me disappointed is putting it mildly. At least given the loss of a Democrat majority in the House the J6 show trial should end. How many times can they say, we've got him and nothing happens? It is almost like the old joke about the incompetent high school team that finally made a touchdown. The opposing team failed to show up and after three plays they managed to finally score.
Yes, I remember the pictures of FDR at Yalta. Frankly, Stalin wiped the floor with him. Churchill just did not have enough political clout to stop him and, what was the French guy's name?, was fairly well useless. I think Biden is far worse than that and would have been even when firing on all cylinders, which he obviously is not.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris, I have to acknowledge that given Joe's "success" with the mid-terms, i.e. avoiding a "Red Tide" in both houses, I must acknowledge that it is not likely he will voluntarily step down.
All "we the people" can hope for is that no major unforeseen event occurs, e.g. "nukes a popping", and that Joe can hold it together for another 759 days. When it's over, I think the Notable Scholars, who presently rate Trump as 41st of 44, will place Joe in their Fourth Quartile between 35th and 45th.
If Joe chooses to run again (while the second term nomination was denied to elected Franklin Pierce and four other successor VP's in our history - Tyler, Fillmore, A.Johnson, Arthur, the nomination is customarily held open for a sitting POTUS to decide if he wants it), De Santis will mop the floor with him. While I have friends (educators, social workers) who would strongly disagree with any policy a "President DeSantis" would set forth, I acknowledge that he is rational and sane. I don't know who the Democrats have on the bench with a chance of beating him.
The only hope the Democrats have is that Trump, with his "star becoming dimmer by the day", runs as a third-party candidate. That could "siphon" enough votes from the Republican nominee to allow the Democrats "four more years".
Finally, so far as Investigations go, just look for "a change of players" with Trump being replaced by Hunter and Dr. Fauci - and of course, Articles of Impeachment filed against Joe.
And very lastly, I had to "look it up" myself, but the French were not represented at Yalta:
From Wiki--
The French leader General Charles de Gaulle was not invited to either the Yalta or Potsdam Conferences, a diplomatic slight that was the occasion for deep and lasting resentment. De Gaulle attributed his exclusion from Yalta to the longstanding personal antagonism towards him by Roosevelt, but the Soviets had also objected to his inclusion as a full participant. However, the absence of French representation at Yalta also meant that extending an invitation for de Gaulle to attend the Potsdam Conference would have been highly problematic since he would have felt honor-bound to insist that all issues agreed at Yalta in his absence be reopened
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, yes. De Gualle. I should have remembered that. Yes, I do remember the picture at Yalta showing only those three. (Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin)
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing divided about this government, which seems hell-bent on getting Hakeem Jeffries installed as the new Speaker, particularly with the blather and noise over voting (which a man once known on air as Jeff Christie called “Kabuki theater”).
At least the January 6 komissariat ended as it should have, i.e. with nothing whatsoever. Overdue to release all the political prisoners now.
Also, Trump’s “star” does not fade merely because the Uniparty and media try to wish it away.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Away from topic, Mr. Harris, but then this is Open Discussion!!!
We should note that the French, while not invited to either Yalta or Potsdam - and for that matter Teheran - there were "Four Powers" recognized with the occupation zones of both Germany and Austria.
I doubt if I was aware of such until I visited Berlin during May 1990, and at Checkpoint Charlie, there were security guards all wearing "quaint and curious costumes" (Class A Dress) with boots that saw more "spit" than dirt from the US, UK, FR, and USSR.
There was also Four Power representation with the division of Vienna; became aware of that watching the movie "The Third Man".
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Story from CNN about Biden and classified documents in his possession from the time he was VP.
quote:Among the items from Joe Biden’s time as vice president discovered in a private office last fall are 10 classified documents including US intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics including Ukraine, Iran and the United Kingdom, according to a source familiar with the matter. …
The documents were dated between 2013 and 2016, according to the source familiar. They were found in three or four boxes also containing unclassified papers that fall under the Presidential Records Act.
The vast majority of the items in the office contained personal Biden family documents, including materials about Beau Biden’s funeral arrangements and condolence letters, the source told CNN. It is not clear if the boxes with classified documents contained personal materials. …
(Merrick) Garland chose to have (John) Lausch conduct the Biden documents investigation because he is one of two remaining Trump-appointed US attorneys, and to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest because he wasn’t appointed by Biden, people briefed on the matter said. …
posted
Surprise anyone, but Hannity is "just getting tuned up".
Joe, best give up any thoughts about a second term (you'll lose), and start thinking about resigning. You will simply be unable to do much more for the next two years than roll Easter eggs, pardon turkeys, and light Xmas trees.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Biden were to resign, or be successfully impeached, at this point or any date forward, whoever completes his term could, in theory at least, run for two full terms. However, should this be Kamala, I don't see here as being electable to anything, so this part of history making will not happen.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Joe, you are sinking into this classified "dung" as deeply and quickly as has Trump.
Where's next? your beach house in Rehoboth Beach?
All I know is that if Mr. Harris or myself, who both held security clearances when we served, pulled anything like what now Hillary, Trump, and Joe have evidently done, our home address, even if we served over fifty years ago, would still be Fort Leavenworth.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: All I know is that if Mr. Harris or myself, who both held security clearances when we served, pulled anything like what now Hillary, Trump, and Joe have evidently done, our home address, even if we served over fifty years ago, would still be Fort Leavenworth.
Well, maybe not that long, however, my PE licence, which I will have held for 50 years before my next renewal expires, would never have been a possibility, regardless of education and experience. And, along with that lack of license or criminal history or both would have disqualified me for much of what I have done over my working life, plus my wife would have lost her job if she married me, if not been in trouble just for dating me. (Whether or not it serves any purpose to renew my engineer's license, I definitely intend to do so.)
When I began dating my wife, of now 49 years, I was just out of the army and she was an employee of the CIA. Regardless of my history and service, the CIA still investigated me. How do I know? Because people that were friends of my parents started asking them, "What has George done? We have had strange people coming around asking questions about him." (When she was about 9 or 10 our granddaughter asked me, when do you meet Grandma? I answered, we were both working in DC. I was in the Army and she was working for the CIA. The look on her face was priceless. It was like, who are these people? I have never seen them before. She knew us as a grandpa worked on big construction projects and a grandma that was a schoolteacher.)
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey it's open discussion (and it's really the only activity going on around here).
When I retired, for real, during '17 (tried during '03, but I had clients who wouldn't let me), I surrendered my CPA license. I wasn't going to practice anymore and forty class hours of Continuing Professional Education a year (about $30hr) to keep it was a "for what"; professional pride?
The title however, just as I believe is the case with Mr. Harris, is mine for life.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trump was POTUS and was in the right as far as document possession. Garland violated the Fourth Amendment, but the united Democratic Republican uni-party will cover for him.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: Trump was POTUS and was in the right as far as document possession.
Agree, Mr. Helfner; so long as he was POTUS. But, absent holding some unfounded belief that he is STILL POTUS (that is what my sister holds and that Joe is some kind of "illegitimate acting POTUS"), he is no longer such and those documents, CLEARLY MARKED with the same cover sheets as when I was "in", should have been surrendered to the Archives.
Reiterate; same equally applied to Joe during '17.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not so long as he was POTUS. If that was the case, then the spotlight has to be shone on Obama, Bush and Clinton here. And no VPOTUS has the authority that a POTUS has in this arena.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK; I think this will have to be left with that Mr. Helfner holds that President Trump (the title is his for life) is "POTUS in exile". Accordingly, he is empowered to hold the classified documents found at his "Sea to Lake residence in exile", and that when he returns to his rightful "home office with a street number of 1600", so will the documents.
Joe however, upon leaving the VPOTUS during '17, was not lawfully afforded the same privilege and could be subject to prosecution.
Incidentally volks, the State Of The Union address has now been set for Feb 7. I somehow think that will be the venue for Joe to announce "Door #1") seek a second term, "Door #2") not seek such, or "Door #3") resign.
While as I noted above, considering that the mid-term "Red Wave" was only a "Red Ripple" and in only one of two Houses, his legislative victories (COVID relief, infrastructure, and the grab bag titled Inflation Reduction), that Ukraine is a stalemate and not a rout, inflation heading in the right direction, I still hold that "Door #3" remains on the table.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
An extremely balanced opinion piece regarding Joe's re-election chances "post-docugate" appears in The Times today:
Fair Use:
Imagine instead that the president takes a leaf from Nancy Pelosi and decides not to run. Mr. Comer and the clownish members of his committee would probably end up training most of their fire on Democrats not named Biden. Democrats would “turn the page,” as Mr. Obama recommended in 2008, to a crop of fresher candidates, probably governors, who contrast better with Mr. Trump and would have good odds of beating a younger Republican. And the smiling old gentleman in the Corvette — his shortcomings forgotten and his family protected — would assume his proper place as a bridge between political generations and arguably the most accomplished one-term president in American history.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Quoting from the NYT:
And the smiling old gentleman in the Corvette — his shortcomings forgotten and his family protected — would assume his proper place as a bridge between political generations and arguably the most accomplished one-term president in American history
Do what?? Guess we have to differ. I would call this person to be the most inept person to ever hold the office. I cannot think of one positive accomplishment. With this, I had better shut up.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Do what?? Guess we have to differ.
Mr. Harris, I presume the caption is directed at The Times columnist, and not necessarily me.
Given the classified documents matter I think Joe will not seek re-election and, even if lessened since the Afghanistan fiasco, there remains the possibility of his resignation.
The Notable Scholars that we have discussed here I continue to hold that they will rank Joe in their fourth quartile, or between 33rd and 45th (Lincoln #1, Buchannon #45, Trump #42)
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Do what?? Guess we have to differ.
Mr. Harris, I presume the caption is directed at The Times columnist, and not necessarily me.
Given the classified documents matter I think Joe will not seek re-election and, even if lessened since the Afghanistan fiasco, there remains the possibility of his resignation.
The Notable Scholars that we have discussed here I continue to hold that they will rank Joe in their fourth quartile, or between 33rd and 45th (Lincoln #1, Buchannon #45, Trump #41)
Absolutely, I was referring to the NYT. That they continue being a cheering section for Biden baffles me. I often wonder if the choice of Kamala as VP was intended to be Joe's assination and impeachment insurance, as it result in her becoming Pres.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have had to make a slight correction to my immediate that which I have now edited. However I cannot edit Mr. Harris' immediate captioning of that post.
The Scholars ranking of Trump as #41 was based upon 44 presidents who have completed their terms (the three below - Pierce 14th, Johnson 17th, Buchannon 15th, are really considered to be the rogues gallery). Now when the Scholars include a ranking of Joe's term(s???), Joe's would need to be placed below Trump's present 41. If not the case, and Trump otherwise holds his own, he would move downward to #42.
Finally and again, here is the survey to which I have made reference throughout this topic:
posted
Looked at the C-span list. Some of it makes no sense to me. Why is George Washington not number 1? I would place Lincoln several points further down the list, but maybe being a Southerner has something to do with that. Several of the lower placements make no sense to me either.
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr.Harris, it's a poll taken of notable scholars. As such, they are certainly more liberal than are you - and for that matter, I.
I have issues as well when reviewing the Presidents since I've been around (born during FDR, cognizant of world and national affairs since Ike). I think Obama is quite overrated being placed in the First Quartile, but I hold Carter deserves more (he saved the railroad industry). Some are so hard to rate; Nixon with his groundbreaking foreign policy achievements of course offset by "guess what". Bill for standing up to Gingrich, yet sitting down to work with him, but offset by his "alley cat morals". If there ever were a President that deserved a second term, it was Bush41, had he prevailed, his low end Second Quartile rating could have easily been within the First displacing Obama.
And Trump? My Evangelical Sister holds he was one of the top five. The Scholars obviously disagree.
But it will be interesting to see where Joe gets placed, whether he has little more than one more month in office (resigns immediately after SOTU) or almost six more years. My prediction, again noted, he will be in the Fourth Quartile, or "neck and neck" with, say, Harding, who also did not complete a term.
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another point to consider with these ratings is how the nature and scope of the presidency has changed. Somehow, I think the Fathers envisioned an "almost ceremonial" role (after all, the President is enumerated in Article Two and not first of the Constitution) and being CEO of a "small business". The only real power he had was Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, to which it could be said "what armed forces?". The real power laid with the States and those their people directly elected (House) and those appointed by State level elected representatives (Senate). The President was elected by a select group (Electors) who came from however a particular state wanted them to come from. I suppose Trump's '20 electoral challenge was based upon that original intent of the Fathers, considering such remains unwritten in the US Constitution.
But now the President is CEO of the largest entity on Earth, with the power to dictate with the purse how entities the Fathers reserved for the States conduct their affairs.
So, I must wonder how the nature and scope of the presidency has changed, have the supposedly fluid Scholars' ratings reflected such?
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, if you were invited to join the Notable Scholars panel, where would you rank Joe's presidency to date? Lest we note, such may only have 50 DTG if my thoughts of a resignation announced next week, and, say, to take effect March 31, comes to pass (now, Mr. Harris, did you "Commissioned Officers and Gentlemen" also have those countdown charts??? )
I hope you can say other than "dead last"; for that would place Joe down with Confederacy sympathizing seditionists. As I've noted, I think he will be in the Scholars bottom Quartile, or 35th to 45th. His was to be a "bring us together" presidency. To help those who were financially hurt by COVID, of course. But why didn't the legislation include a provision to exclude Capital Gains and Losses (we CPA's call that MAGI - Modified Adjusted Gross Income), which allowed some to qualify for the Stimulus on a technicality? Infrastructure? yes, too many politicians had ignored it for too long. But legislation like this so-called Inflation Reduction Act as well as all too much of the Infrastructure act, which look like a grab bag of social projects, are not how to go about healing a divided country. Classified documents? Best have laid low on Trump, for Joe has same problem going back far longer than has Trump's.
While I won't call Joe's a "failed presidency", I certainly will call it "disappointing".
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would go for dead last, based on general incompetence for both him and cabinet. I would call it a failed presidency. The press cheering section for him is amazing. It is like a ball game where the referees are pushing for one team to win, no matter how bad they play. And yes, we did do countdown charts in some form or fashion for the Nam tour. My tour got shortened by 6 weeks due to the cut in obligated time due to an oversupply of junior officers by mid to late 1971. (For OCS inmates, we referred to OCS time as equivalent to stockage time, as your obligation clock did not start running until your date of commission.)
Posts: 2898 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the Scholars'Fourth Quartile and my addition of Joe @38 within such:
35 Taylor 36 Hoover 37 Harding 38 Biden 39 Fillmore 40 Tyler 41 W H Harrison 42 Trump 43 Pierce 44 Johnson 45 Buchanan
I place Joe immediately behind Harding because I still hold that he will not complete the term that will end with a resignation. Such could come as early as tomorrow's SOTU.
Harding had a corrupt administration and died in office; be it assured that there will be 223 House Republicans looking for such in Joe's - in or out of office will matter not.
Finally, I trust it is noted that six of this "rogues gallery" did not serve a full term (seven if Joe joins them)
Posts: 10373 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
