Isn't it the Secretary of Homeland Security Alehandro Mayorkas who would have to authorise RFK Jr Secret Service protection, not Biden?
It could be argued that this is an attempt to accentuate RFK Jr's nepotistic value and consequent public status if having Secret Service protection reinforces the narrative that he's 'no ordinary candidate'.
Do you think perhaps this armed person is under investigation and a decision will depend on the outcome of that? Y'know, just checking for corruption in the Democratic party and all that.
Or would it be favorable to one of the weedy Republican presidential candidates once Trump is disqualified if RFK Jr runs as a no ordinary Independent presidential candidate?
After all, RFK Jr has protection that appears to have worked effectively with respect to catching this armed person impersonating his security. (I imagine he has to pay for that out of his campaign funds, though.)
And you'd want a presidential candidate to win fairly, wouldn't you?
And you wouldn't want enormous amounts of tax payers' money to be spent on a whim, or without any evaluation, would you?
I can't comment on any symptoms Biden may be exhibiting, nor any cause, but in the wake of the Trump phenomenon, I do think it's about time presidential candidates were screened just like any other person in public office with similar high stakes responsibities.
I think perhaps there has been some anticipation that there woud be a Biden/Trump rerun that the Democrats know they can win. I imagine all the legal stuff will run it's course, however, and Trump will be out of the picture. It will be interesting to see how that changes things.
Although I have some inclination to think that most politicians are self-serving, I think it would be foolish to ignore the current climate and that democracy might be a motivational factor for the Democratic party.
Well you do need to at least follow the OLC guidelines for impeachment that were introduced by the Republican OLC to protect Trump from impeachment.
That is, an impeachment investigation cannot be brought unilaterally by the speaker of the house, but must go to the house floor to be put to a vote.
Kevin McCarthy didn't put it to the vote knowing he didn't have the support to open an impeachment enquiry.
Kevin McCarthy made the unilateral decision under pressure, having been openly threatened with the loss of his position by Matt Gaetz.
The thing is, other government organisations, such as the IRS for example, are also bound by the OLC ruling that impeachment enquiries opened unilaterally are invalid.
This means that Kevin McCarthy can't actually access any more information than he already has, which amounts to zero evidence.
Without a valid impeachment enquiry finding evidence that warrants impeachment, Joe Biden cannot be impeached.
If I can work that out, there's a possibility that Matt Gaetz and Kevin McCarthy can work that out, ergo, the impeachment enquiry has either been incompetently brought, or has deliberately been declared for the purposes of political game playing in a bid to influence the electorate in the run up to the next election.
Since he lost the election Trump has lost every suit he's filed.
It seems every suit he, and other Trump supporters are filing are frivolous and/or are unsupported by the law, or precedent. Their only purpose appears to be to create chaos and delay.
Trump's only defense can be in re-election, pardoning and changing the constitutional democracy to suit himself and he must know that. With four indictments consisting of 91 charges and including 21 co-defendents, I'm pretty sure all other escape routes have been blocked.
If he gets found not guilty on a few charges, I suspect that will be a part of the legal strategising.
I've been wondering why Trump's pre-trial release hasn't been revoked already on the grounds of him breaking the conditions. It appears he's had unfair, special privileges compared with other US citizens.
Having just viewed some of Jack Smith's motion, I think perhaps the delay was two-fold: firstly, Trump has been given enough rope to hang himself which predictably he has; and secondly, everything is being presented unequivocably.
There is no room for accusations of political bias rather than legal due process, and perhaps little room for legal challenge in this well structured motion.
I wonder if we can predict the future sequence of events given Trump's propensity for breaking any and every rule in accordance with his particular personality traits.
In other words Trump won't be willing, or able to control himself, despite the obvious consequences if Judge Chutkan accepts this motion, or some form of it.
Perhaps Trump thinks he'll be protected from having his pre-tria release revoked by the underlying threat of another insurrection, forgetting that most of the prominent foot soldiers from the last one are incarcerated and other important players have either been indicted, or are on their way.
No, I'm trying to get you to understand that in order to hold people to account for any alleged wrong doing there is a legal process.
Name calling, gossip, tales, demands - these things are not legal due process. You cannot hold people to account using these strategies.
Meanwhile, an awful lot of Republicans are in the middle of an exquisitey structured and requisite due process that is begining to look like the party in it's current form is going to be decimated.
There are two things of note: accusing the other side of wrong-doing that Trump et al have been accused of; and ignoring that the law should apply equally regardless of partisan bias.
You appear incapable of any objective neurality.
If it's ethically reprehensible for somene to make false accusations of sex abuse, that should apply to Trump supporters, too.
If Trump has been impeached twice, it doesn't mean Biden should be impeached as well. If you trully wish to do something about corruption in politics then well structured prosecutions need to be built.
If it's corrupt that Hunter Biden hasn't had the law applied to him in the same way as any citizen of the US, then also call for Trump's pre-trial release to be revoked on the grounds that he persistently breaks the conditions thereof, not to mention that each ordinary citizen, regardless of wealth, status, or colour be treated equally under the law.
The less reasoned neutrality you display, the more it appears that you are arguing nothing other than corrupt, biased game-playing rather than genuine political issues.
You do realise that the trajectory of the well researched, well structured, really clever indictments against Trump et al, is that the Republican party in it's current form is going to be absolutely decimated, don't you? Grand juries are lining up Trump sycophants who didn't have the courage to say 'no' to criminality and went along with it. Meanwhile, you're fannying about with little more than gossip in the hope that will get voters all riled up.
The sensible approach, which quite a few Republicans in office appear to aligning themselves with, is in recreating the party such that they once again become a reasonable and viable challenge in a largely two party politcal system.
I'm disappointed that you're making light of false child sex abuse accusations, though. If there are some genuine allegations at a later date, it will impact on the perception of them.
It will impact on the perception of anyone who tries to speak out and seek help.
My head is still rattling from it. Half of me is thinking it's so outlandish it's got to be a propagandist conspiracy theory, the other half of me is seeing it as (legal?) campaign strategising that explains a lot about Trump et al's reaction to losing.
I don't think anyone is intentionally wearing out your index finger.
I'm pretty sure there is a limit to how many characters you can fit into the bog title, having had a lengthier one end abruptly once, many moons ago.
I don't know how many characters you can use as I've not seen a limit stated and the programme doesn't seem to stop you waffling on when you've exceeded the limit that will appear once posted.
I try and keep my blog titles short so as not to fall foul of this glitch.
Perhaps you could take this issue up with the site owners, or run a few trials and let us know how many times we have to poke keys so as not to offend.
When women make accusations of of abuse, incuding child sex abuse, there is aways a big rush to shame women for making false allegations and claims of how damaging that is for genuine survivors, not to mention how it ruins men's lives.
And yet here we are witnessing already debunked false allegations of child sex abuse for political gain that does far more damage to survivors that it ever will to a political party, just because they're not liked very much by some people.
Aimee Harris and Robert Kurlander admitted to participating in a conspiracy in which Ashley Biden’s diary ended up in the hands of the conservative group Project Veritas near the end of the 2020 campaign. They were convicted and Ashley Biden denied the bogus content that she was abused by her father.
The thing is, if Trump's ratings go up everytime he's indicted as claimed, isn't it risky for Trump supporters to spew junk that make the gutter look too high a goal for them? Surely, this kind of underhand game playing can only backfire.
Given the RICO and other conspiracy charges currently underway against Trump and his alleged co-conspirators, it looks like many more Republicans are being lined up for indictments. It begs the question, why isn't Kevin McCarthy being more careful and thorough so that he doesn't fall foul of some conspiracy charges himself? Y'know, if there is evidence then handle it properly; if it's bogus, don't touch it with a ten foot pole because it's probably not worth the consequences.
Do you mean to say that it'll take more than Chancer having a quick shufti on the internet to topple the president of the United States?
I'm all for holding him to account for anything corrupt he may have done, but even some Republicans are saying they haven't seen any evidence and they're concerned about the overuse of the impeachment process.
I'm glad you're enjoying yourself, so am I. Neither am I, whichever country. This blog isn't about Biden. It's about the video I cited in the op.
Have you watched it before coming on here and criticising me? If no one is allowed to talk about another country without being perfect themselves, there would be no communication between any country.
Having said that - NHS, equal rights, employment rights, abolition of the death penaty, universal suffrage - we might not be perfect, but we do lead the US by example in many ways.
It's each person's, or each country's choice whether to have the sense to look at what other people, or countries are doing well, though. We can't force you to be nice to each other.
Finally, a bit on topic. Trump did indeed target that demographic very cleverly. Unfortunately, they seem to believe he has emotional empathy for them, when actually it was a calculated move based on cognitive empathy alone. That's all part and parcel of his personality disorder.
This blog isn't about Eisenhower.
He was also found liable in a rape case and sadistically seperated children from their parents as an attempted deterrent to illegal immigration.
The question is what advantage was it to him to sign those executive orders given his inability to emotinally empathise? What work did he actually do to help people beyond lifting a pen and signing the order. Surely any credit for laborious, potentially dangerous investgations and rescues shoud go to the many who did the work?
I've run out of room, but feel free to continue contributing if your comments are on topic..
Inevitaby there will be both nefarious actions and frivolous accusations of politically motivated play, such is human nature. To bring a weak, chaotic case is utterly foolishly leaving yourself wide open to those very challenges.
The reason why accusations about Trump's legal charges being politically motivated are falling flat is because those indictments have been structured so well. All the frivolous counter-suing by the Republican defendents is getting them nowhere. It's like watching a frustrated two year old trying to beat down a calm parent.
Presumably, these people who are in such high office aren't lacking in intelligence, education, or skill.
How the Republicans can't see that they need to change tack is beyond me. Unless, of course, they've got nothing other than a lot to hide.
So, what's all this about Kevin McCarthy not only opening the impeachment enquiry prematurely before having a handle on the facts, but making the decision unilaterally without putting it to a House vote as he promised?
As I understand it, it was the Republican party who, on OLC counsel, introduced the rule that a vote of the whole House of Representatives was necessary before opening an impeachment enquiry in a bid to protect Donald Trump. Now they've instituted that rule they surely need to apply it in this case, too.
There are accusations that this is a political move to muddy the waters of the democrats' election campaign whether the prosecutors can find anythng to prosecute, or not, but perhaps more pertinently, there are suggestions that Kevin McCarthy has unilaterally and prematurely opened this impeachment enquiry due to intense pressure including threats to oust him from his job.
So, has McCarthy moved too fast, too soon and is this risky political move going to backfire? If there is corruption, the this could be a wasted opportunity for creating change.
For those who bleat on about the indictments against Trump et al taking so long, here's your answer: having the patience to build an astute and evidenced case is an ethical obligation as well as an effective means of challenge.
I feel like slapping a few fools upside the head with a wet kipper.
A good point, but I didn't get the impression that speaking out was just about being judged by history. The driving force appears to be what it says in the tin - a duty to warn. If the target audience isn't Trump supporters, who are they attempting to warn and why?
I was shocked, but not surprised about J6. Once Trump started talking about being the president for more than two terms, it was clear something might happen, but perhaps the Duty To Warn folk had a better idea of when and how. The timing of the film's release perhaps suggests that their intended audience were those involved in the democratic process.
I can count the number of times I've heard the word used in the UK without taking my second mitten off. I'd use the wrd 'peers' as I did earlier.
Does that mean it can never be? America does regard itsef as a world leader, after all.
Shorty after Trump was elected the Goldwater Rule went from a two line recommendation to a two page enforcement. I think it was John Gartner, the first psychiatrist in the video, who visited the last surviving creator of the Goldwater Rule who stated it was never meant to be binding, or inhibit free speech. It was meant to stop spurious, unevidenced speculation.
Psychiatrist Bandy Lee was the first to embrace the duty to warn concept regarding Trump's dangerousness early on in his presidency, but she found most of her peers were to afraid of losing their reputations and licenses if they spoke out. It seems the movement had gained a lot of momentum in the three years inbetween That's a practical and ethical paradigm shift within this field that has been noted in the video.
Why do you think the diagnosis can have no legal consequence? In the video the very first interviewee describes the in depth assessments that military personnel must pass if they are to be responsible for nuclear weapons, and yet the president of the US currently only needs to be voted in by the people. Why can't that change such that all presidential candidates are assessed as potential Commanders in Chief? There are so many legal suits and changes going on in the US political system to make the democratic process less fragile. Shouldn't this be one of them?
Perhaps the film being around for three years without swaying Trump supporters is because it's not merely an exercise in propaganda as you suggested earlier. Perhaps it's not aimed at Trump supporters: surely psychiatrists who are fully aware of Trump's successful techniques would use techniques that are likely to reach Trump supporters themselves, if that were the case. In the video they, and the filmmakers appear to be aiming at a different demographic, that is those with a certan level of education and understanding. Do you really think that they are not skilled enough in their own fields to pitch appropriately to their target audience?
If we assume, therefore that the video is intentinally pitched at a particular target group, or groups, who are their taret audience and what is their aim?
Did you only see 'a litany of his lies, absurdities, stupidity'?
I saw the examples of lies, absurdites and stupidity as exactly that: they exemplified the personality traits significant to the specific diagnosis. They were the evidence cited to back the argument of Trump's dangerousness. I didn't see them as being listed for the sake of manipulating, or influencing public opinon simply because they were lies, absurdities and stupidity.
What did you think about the shifts in the Goldwater Rule and how psychiatrists originally wary of commenting on Trump's dangerousness instituted the Tarasoff Rule to create the organisation 'Duty To Warn'?
What did you think of the Malignant Narcissist diagnosis? Is supported by the evidence, or is it invalidated by not being incuded in the APA's DSM-5-TR?
But feel free to report this blg to the mods if you feel it's your duty to do so.
If you can't, or don't wish to watch the video, it's not a problem, Ozzie. (You are supporting my opinion.)
If you would like to watch it, feel free to challenge my reason for posting it. (It's very well presented)
If you would like to read more about why I posted it, feel free to wade through all the off topic comments you and others have posted, or watch the video and contribute something meaningful and on topic to the discussion.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,986)
RE: Biden in 2024...
Isn't it the Secretary of Homeland Security Alehandro Mayorkas who would have to authorise RFK Jr Secret Service protection, not Biden?It could be argued that this is an attempt to accentuate RFK Jr's nepotistic value and consequent public status if having Secret Service protection reinforces the narrative that he's 'no ordinary candidate'.
Do you think perhaps this armed person is under investigation and a decision will depend on the outcome of that? Y'know, just checking for corruption in the Democratic party and all that.
Or would it be favorable to one of the weedy Republican presidential candidates once Trump is disqualified if RFK Jr runs as a no ordinary Independent presidential candidate?
After all, RFK Jr has protection that appears to have worked effectively with respect to catching this armed person impersonating his security. (I imagine he has to pay for that out of his campaign funds, though.)
And you'd want a presidential candidate to win fairly, wouldn't you?
And you wouldn't want enormous amounts of tax payers' money to be spent on a whim, or without any evaluation, would you?