Biden catch-all | Kamala comes out swinging

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 300
  • Views: 11K
  • Politics 
Ramrouser said:
I know of no evangelical Christians on this board. Straw man argument. I laugh in that 75% of this board claim to be ex GOPers………RIIIIGHT
Click to expand...
I was raised as an evangelical. Even considered the ministry into the early teens. Fortunately ,I got better.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...



“… “Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said in a statement distributed to multiple outlets. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

He added: “This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans, who are pushing disastrous legislation that would slash essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families—all to fund tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations.” …”
 
nycfan said:


“… “Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said in a statement distributed to multiple outlets. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

He added: “This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans, who are pushing disastrous legislation that would slash essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families—all to fund tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations.” …”
Click to expand...

“… His [Trump’s] new order also points to Biden’s appointment of 235 federal judges and the commutation of sentences for “37 of the 40 most vile and monstrous criminals” on death row as vindication for the investigation.

“Given clear indications that President Biden lacked the capacity to exercise his Presidential authority, if his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity while taking radical executive actions in his name, that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of presidential power,” the memo said.…”
 
superrific said:
Now I understand why you are so angry. Your life has been an unmitigated failure in every way. You went from a privileged background to an of counsel position with a tiny firm.

Just so all the non-lawyers know, an of counsel position with a four person firm is about the lowest job you can get as a practicing attorney. Not quite the lowest -- the sad sacks and drunkards whom Texas employs to handle capital cases for indigent defendants are probably the lowest. But it takes special incompetence to go from a wealthy NC Republican to groveling for scraps from a treasonous criminal.
Click to expand...
Good grief. I disagree with Ramrouser on a lot of political stuff but this broadside against of counsel is a gross exaggeration, IMO. I work with terrific counsel / of counsel lawyers — in a lot of cases, folks whose specific expertise is quite valuable and outweighs their marketing skills to generate their own book of business.
 
superrific said:
Now I understand why you are so angry. Your life has been an unmitigated failure in every way. You went from a privileged background to an of counsel position with a tiny firm.

Just so all the non-lawyers know, an of counsel position with a four person firm is about the lowest job you can get as a practicing attorney. Not quite the lowest -- the sad sacks and drunkards whom Texas employs to handle capital cases for indigent defendants are probably the lowest. But it takes special incompetence to go from a wealthy NC Republican to groveling for scraps from a treasonous criminal.
Click to expand...
Keep on thinking I'm unhappy, angry and unsuccessful if it makes you feel better and gets you through your day. Any objective reading of the postings on this board reveals exactly who are the bitter and angry folks.

I choose of counsel for the freedom it gives me. I was a partner in a law firm and grew tired of the fighting over money and dealing with associates.
 
Anyway, back on topic, this CJP thing is getting ugly fast.

 
Can't speak for anyone else but I've lost all interest in trying to defend the way Biden's team handled the job, at least from 2023-2024. Credit to them for getting some great stuff done in the first two years. But the end was a shitshow, and it's a huge part of the reason we have a fascist authoritarian in the White House now.

My running list of takeaways from the last few years:

1. A party should never, ever, ever allow a person to become a candidate for any federal elected office unless it would be an absolute shock for that person to die before his or her term is over.

2. Presidents and party nominees for president should be required to release a medical report every year, by no later than July 31, that (a) is administered by a neutral AMA-designated practitioner (none of this Trump is 225 lbs bullshit), and (b) includes a credible cognitive function test.

3. A rotating consortium of representatives from 24 media outlets (which should include some conservative outlets, as repulsive as they may be) should be able to veto a president's press secretary nominee with a 2/3 vote.
 
nycfan said:
Good grief. I disagree with Ramrouser on a lot of political stuff but this broadside against of counsel is a gross exaggeration, IMO. I work with terrific counsel / of counsel lawyers — in a lot of cases, folks whose specific expertise is quite valuable and outweighs their marketing skills to generate their own book of business.
Click to expand...
Fine. I will delete. It wasn't a screed against of counsel lawyers, though. It was about of counsel family law practitioners. It is also informed, of course, by the poster's repeatedly demonstrated incomprehension of law.
 
On KJP, some random thoughts:

1. Victory has a thousand parents and defeat is an orphan, right? Everyone associated with the defeat is going to point fingers. They will point most naturally at a person who is leaving the party. Like, literally the best person to point to is the person making their point-back irrelevant, and everyone piles on. I think this is why people are perplexed at KJP's decision -- it just sets her up for slings and arrows. That might be her goal.

2. I never envy the job of a press secretary, but it can be more difficult in some circumstances than others. A person who lies without conscience will not find the job challenging, nor someone insufficiently educated to identify the falseness she spews. But if you're smart and conscientious, and you're told not to say that inflation is going down, when it is, because that seems insensitive, even though it actually is expressing an expectation that things will soon be better -- and so instead you're supposed to say that president Biden believes that prices have gotten too high and unaffordable and that is why he is taking decisive action to combat it. That would depress me. It's factually accurate and not misleading per se, but it's a dishonest tone. I guess that's how you could describe the Press Sec job: it's an exercise in dishonest tone (a fancy way of saying "spin"?)

I have no idea whether this informs the situation but it might.

3. KJP would not be the first person in history to find herself in love with the spotlight.

4. Suppose you're running the Biden campaign. A reporter has a question about Biden's policy about something. Who would you prefer to have answering the question? The WH press secretary, or the Biden campaign spokesperson? That could explain a lot about what she was actually able and/or expected to do.
 
nycfan said:
Good grief. I disagree with Ramrouser on a lot of political stuff but this broadside against of counsel is a gross exaggeration, IMO. I work with terrific counsel / of counsel lawyers — in a lot of cases, folks whose specific expertise is quite valuable and outweighs their marketing skills to generate their own book of business.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I join NYCfan on this one. Of counsel, by itself, doesn't really tell you very much. I know of counsel who make more than partners at the same firm, or they work at multiple firms, or they are semi-retired or they work part-time. To me, of counsel signifies that you are in a dating relationship with the firm, rather than being married. I don't read too much into Ramrouser's title.
 
Calheel said:
Yeah, I join NYCfan on this one. Of counsel, by itself, doesn't really tell you very much. I know of counsel who make more than partners at the same firm, or they work at multiple firms, or they are semi-retired or they work part-time. To me, of counsel signifies that you are in a dating relationship with the firm, rather than being married. I don't read too much into Ramrouser's title.
Click to expand...
You are talking about very different firms, I think. This office has like four lawyers, but anyway it's not relevant. It was an ad hominem attack. He makes clear on a regular basis that he doesn't understand how law works, so piling on doesn't accomplish anything in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top