We can debate whether Biden deserves impeachment for his actions at the southern border (he does) and his profiting off his office from China and Ukraine (though perhaps not to the extent of Clinton), but he sure as hell doesn't deserve re-election. If you can't stomach voting for Trump then don't, but what on earth has Biden done to earn your vote a second time?
I hope this will be carefully argued during the election. Separate policies need to be examined in detail. I think the reality is more complicated than most of us see it now at 20 thousand feet. The border actions and initiatives, what has been done and not attempted, prior court decisions during the Trump administration and the effect of external forces have to be studied in relationship with each other. And I'm the first to admit that I haven't done so and am relying for my own thinking on a lot of secondhand commentary. But is this the sole point on which we judge Biden. His supporters will claim considerable success for his overall policies. Some will argue that it is all the result of what Trump put in motion during his four years, just as those who argue that any of Trump's alleged successes were the result of prior Obama administration policies. And, then again, how much is beyond the control of American presidential actions altogether.
I've watched the stuff about Biden's so-called profiting off business with China and Ukraine and I haven't seen any evidence. It really looks unsubstantiated. On the other hand, there is evidence of severe emoluments problems with Trump booking empty hotel floors and Liv tournaments, Kushner's $billions received from Saudi Arabia, etc. Is this just political slight of hand? And while we need immigrants that we're told are poisoning the blood of America, I thought that wall Mexico was supposed to pay for was supposed to keep immigrants out.
That's good information. One of our problems going forward is the increasing unwillingness of people to accept any information but what they have been receiving from what you and I would probably call unreliable sources.
I think those news sources are quite reliable at what they do. But wow!, this Smirnov thing is quite the story. Everything points to Smirnov working for Russian intelligence for the election of Russia's favored candidate. The Republican Party is complicit, dancing at the end of the puppet strings. Two years of this propaganda.
Smirnov was just indicted for lying under oath for his false partisan allegations. Let's put on our thinking caps so we aren't so easily duped by baseless conspiracy theories.
I am interested how you come to the conclusion “that MSNBC has the more credentialed and intelligent guest experts.”
If you are referring to the “opinion programs”, (Maddow, Hannity, O’Donnell, Watters) then I can’t debate with you as I refuse to watch those shows on any networks as their opinions and take on issues is so easy to predict and repetitive.
In the news programs I have seen the following on Fox recently:
Jonathan Turley - Constitutional law professor.
Alan Dershowitz - Constitutional law professor.
Andy McCarthy - former Federal prosecutor
Jack Keane - former general and vice chief of staff to the Army
Tulsi Gabbard - former Democratic Presidential candidate.
Some pretty strong credentials and intelligent sounding individuals in that group which in the humble of this former political
science major, would certainly match the credentials or intelligence of anyone appearing on MSNBC
We can debate whether Biden deserves impeachment for his actions at the southern border (he does) and his profiting off his office from China and Ukraine (though perhaps not to the extent of Clinton), but he sure as hell doesn't deserve re-election. If you can't stomach voting for Trump then don't, but what on earth has Biden done to earn your vote a second time?
I hope this will be carefully argued during the election. Separate policies need to be examined in detail. I think the reality is more complicated than most of us see it now at 20 thousand feet. The border actions and initiatives, what has been done and not attempted, prior court decisions during the Trump administration and the effect of external forces have to be studied in relationship with each other. And I'm the first to admit that I haven't done so and am relying for my own thinking on a lot of secondhand commentary. But is this the sole point on which we judge Biden. His supporters will claim considerable success for his overall policies. Some will argue that it is all the result of what Trump put in motion during his four years, just as those who argue that any of Trump's alleged successes were the result of prior Obama administration policies. And, then again, how much is beyond the control of American presidential actions altogether.
I've watched the stuff about Biden's so-called profiting off business with China and Ukraine and I haven't seen any evidence. It really looks unsubstantiated. On the other hand, there is evidence of severe emoluments problems with Trump booking empty hotel floors and Liv tournaments, Kushner's $billions received from Saudi Arabia, etc. Is this just political slight of hand? And while we need immigrants that we're told are poisoning the blood of America, I thought that wall Mexico was supposed to pay for was supposed to keep immigrants out.
That's good information. One of our problems going forward is the increasing unwillingness of people to accept any information but what they have been receiving from what you and I would probably call unreliable sources.
I think those news sources are quite reliable at what they do. But wow!, this Smirnov thing is quite the story. Everything points to Smirnov working for Russian intelligence for the election of Russia's favored candidate. The Republican Party is complicit, dancing at the end of the puppet strings. Two years of this propaganda.
Smirnov was just indicted for lying under oath for his false partisan allegations. Let's put on our thinking caps so we aren't so easily duped by baseless conspiracy theories.
I am interested how you come to the conclusion “that MSNBC has the more credentialed and intelligent guest experts.”
If you are referring to the “opinion programs”, (Maddow, Hannity, O’Donnell, Watters) then I can’t debate with you as I refuse to watch those shows on any networks as their opinions and take on issues is so easy to predict and repetitive.
In the news programs I have seen the following on Fox recently:
Jonathan Turley - Constitutional law professor.
Alan Dershowitz - Constitutional law professor.
Andy McCarthy - former Federal prosecutor
Jack Keane - former general and vice chief of staff to the Army
Tulsi Gabbard - former Democratic Presidential candidate.
Some pretty strong credentials and intelligent sounding individuals in that group which in the humble of this former political
science major, would certainly match the credentials or intelligence of anyone appearing on MSNBC