It was interesting to see who told us that Biden's withdrawal was selfless as opposed to long over due. Timothy Snyder's Bloodlines is one of my favorite works of history so it was sad to see him so misjudge something that just happened right before our eyes.
It took me a few days to figure out, but I think I know what I find unsettling about this. If impeachment is going to be anything more than a vehicle for political score-settling, then it must be based on an actual crime or misdemeanor. What crime do you anticipate Trump will commit on his first day in office?
Perhaps you think he should be impeached for something from his first term. I'm not sure that is legally permissible. In any event, he's already been impeached twice and not convicted either time.
Perhaps you are looking at his current legal troubles. The three New York cases are all so legally dubious that not only will they be overturned, but they are far more likely to be used as bases for impeaching the judges and disbarring the attorneys, than for impeaching the president.
As for the outstanding cases, they will hinge on whether or not it is a crime to declassify documents, question whether an election is fraudulent, or to encourage people to protest peacefully. So there is that.
I can see why this post cost you a number of subscribers. I, however, will be sticking along for the ride. I may even upgrade to paid -- I like honest opinions, even if I don't share them.
I will note that impeachment is only supposed to cover high crimes and misdemeanors.
I do not worry about some of Trump's more extreme ideas in this election because I doubt he will be able or willing to do things like withdraw from NATO. As Michael Brendan Dougherty at National Review has argued, the trajectory of his second term will depend entirely on the degree to which his executive branch appointees undermine him. I understand that Trump and his future transition team will be vetting nominees more closely for their loyalty to Trump and his ideology, but he has frequently shown that he can turn on people loyal to him on a dime. This argument that his appointees are fanatically loyal was made during his first term, with commentators arguing vociferously that figures like Bill Barr were loyal to Trump over anything else when there was little actual reason to believe that, and lo and behold, they now hate each other. I do not see a second Trump term as playing out that differently from the first, except Congress not being a solid conservative constraint on him now that Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and other establishment figures have little control over the party. The fact that a good chunk of Republicans in Congress owe their current offices to Trump's endorsement is itself one reason why they will never impeach him.
Fewer than one-quarter of eligible voters voted in the presidential primary elections. A number of polls indicated that a majority of respondents did not want another Biden versus Trump matchup. I conclude that most considered the matter insufficiently important to take 15 minutes out of their lives on primary election day to make their wishes a reality.
Re #1, the story among Dems who I respect is that Biden is not significantly impaired except when it comes to public speaking, and that there is some sort of interaction between his stutter and his age. I'm not sure how probable I think this is, but it's less than 50-50 and I have always liked the guy.
Yes, it would be optimal to impeach Trump, but only in the same sense that it would be optimal for Democrats to nuke the filibuster or pack the Supreme Court. Breaking norms this way has all kinds of messed-up risks, and would lead to all the Rs in Congress getting primaried by folks like Royce White and Dr. Oz.
Whether or not he commits gaffes is beside the point, in my view. I just cannot picture him in charge. Instead, I picture underneath him intense power struggles, with various people asserting authority. From an organizational behavior point of view, I would bet that the White House is now a shambles. There is a power vacuum at the top, and that threatens disaster.
The really hilarious thing about the debate was that this wasn't Biden at his worst- anyone who regularly watches videos of him interacting in any unscripted forum has seen him much more confused and mentally incompetent than he was Thursday night. During the debate I think Biden's team didn't provide him with near enough material to fill up his time slots and, as result, after he had recited/read off his answer to the question asked, he was forced to ad lib and repeatedly lost his train of thought. The other thing that very noticeable but, again, not the worst I have seen of him, was that he never really rebutted anything at all or even tried to- it was almost like he had no idea what Trump was saying even standing right there- the blank stares off into space while Trump was speaking are a terrible visual and a big missed opportunity that Biden even 4 years ago wouldn't have let slip by.
If Biden hasn't withdrawn by the week after the 4th, then he will be the candidate the Democrats are stuck with. Getting stabbed in the back by the media all of a sudden after they have covered for them the last 4 years is going to make the Bidens angry and recalcitrant on the issue and Biden, even if he withdraws, is likely to endorse Harris as the replacement candidate. Also, any funds on hand raised by the Biden/Harris campaign cannot be used by any presidential candidate who isn't Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.
The media's reaction, I think, was either planned in advance or they expected Trump to make Biden look good by comparison so they could continue to sell the Biden brand post-debate. When that didn't happen, they went with plan B since the conviction of Trump in New York didn't bring the hoped-for rise in Biden's electoral chances.
Were they reading pre-written answers off a teleprompter?! I didn't know that. Or perhaps you mean he had memorized a set speech.
I was with my elderly parents and they were quite keen initially, turning on the TV more than an hour in advance as the talking heads talked over shots of people milling about what would be, I guess, the empty room. I went for a walk after giving them their TV trays but noticed they bailed and went to bed after about half an hour. They sundown too.
To do my due diligence after reading the "takes" next morning (elderly parents get 3 papers!) I googled a clip, in which Trump brought up a murder committed last week by a couple of lowlifes from Venezuela, who were fully "legible" to the authorities; if you wanted to chalk the murder up to the account of Soros-funded nonprofits, I'd not disagree.
Biden's answer showed some interesting coaching, as I am guessing his people knew that Trump wouldn't overlook this event.
He started on the usual "many people commit crimes, why would you concern yourself with this one particularly, what does that say about you" type rejoinder that is pretty customary from the left. But then he did that thing where he starts making a list and it just went crazy; it actually seemed to me that he said plenty of people are raped by their sisters ...
I mention this because I doubt many of you were able to stick with the debate either. I'm sure we could each adduce an example of the lunacy on display, yes, from both Trump and Biden, that we were struck with - and cobble together the whole thing. The whole bizarre exercise was so wretched we probably need to collectively forget it.
Maybe we just need to declare that debating is stupid and for losers and not do it anymore. It's not like others in recent years have covered America in glory.
Steve Sailer had the best take midpoint through: "Who would win in a debate, Biden or Trump?"
There weren't teleprompters but either candidate could have cue cards on the lectern- Biden almost never appears at a lectern without cards. His answers at the beginning of any clip were clearly rehearsed/read but then his mind would wander off after 30 seconds to a minute. Trump on the other hand I think was completely unscripted though he did use a lot material I have read before in transcripts from rallies. Of course, I think the difference is that people at CNN gave Biden's staff the questions a week ago so that the answers would be scripted and in the right order- this happens all the time when Biden is doing press conferences at which he occasionally lets the cat out of the bag by mistake.
Your are now terrified enough. But America is safe; it is the outer provinces that are in extreme danger. There are mechanisms for American democracy to survive; no institutional mechanism safeguards Ukraine or Taiwan.
America will not abandon Israel in the next four years, but once the American Hegemony falls…
Maybe I'm just not close enough, but I do not see Biden as in any way decapacitated from being President for another x months. One might have concerns about his 7th r 8th year in office.
There was noting wrong with Harris as VP. Biden made the mistake of not using her (I'm pretty sure she would have agreed to being used) as his bulldog to stake out an "anti-woke" social and neoliberal economic position that he could then have triangulated against the Warren-Sanders forces.
That he did not do this has nothing to do with his age.
Trump on immigration: "The damage he’s done to our country – and I’d love to ask him, and will, why he allowed millions of people to come in here from prisons, jails, and mental institutions to come into our country and destroy our country."
Trump claiming millions from prisons is unbelievable, 99% likely not true.
But we don't know how many of the millions of illegals are actually from prisons, jails, or mental institutions, yet in violating immigration laws they become criminals, who maybe should be in jail.
"Millions of law-breaking illegals, many from jails & mental institutions" would be accurate and is what I convert Trump's meaning to mean.
Because I take Trump seriously, but not literally.
And part of our serious immigration problem is the number of foreign criminals coming.
Inflation over the last 4 years would have been lower with Trump. And would be in the future -- because tax cut based deficits are far more productive than govt spending based deficits. And the same deficit money printing gives less inflation when there's more production.
You're welcome, Tom. I'm not sure that "in violating immigration laws they become criminals." You're probably right, but I would want to check the statute. But that's clearly not what Trump is saying. I like that line, which I heard a lot in 2016, "I take Trump seriously, but not literally." Unfortunately, I think it can be overdone. You can distinguish the two. I bet there are millions of Trump followers who think his statement is literally true. I agree with you about inflation. That's why I was so critical of the 16 economists in one of my previous Substacks. I won't link to it here because I don't want to further hijack Arnold's post.
You know I've actually grown more fond of Trump. They throw everything at him and he's still in the game. Any other Republican obviously would have folded by now, either being out of politics or having become a RINO.
"Youngkin"
Youngkin is my governor. He hasn't actually done anything. I'm glad we don't have a democrat making things worse, but nothing is really changing. I still don't have school choice. He didn't do well in the state elections (GOP lost seats in Virginia).
His handling of abortion, like that of every other Republican, has been poor. This is one area where Trump is just better than the rest of the Republicans, managing to overturn Roe v Wade and still be seen as moderate on abortion.
If Trump wants to pick a VP and step aside day one of his own volition, fine. But impeaching him is a really dumb idea. Trump needs to win as a repudiation of the left.
I already stated in my comment that I'm glad he won instead of McAuliffe.
But I'm also not proposing to impeach the president on his first day in office (without a charge even, just because Arnold doesn't like his aesthetics!)
Impeaching Trump first day would basically end Democracy and maybe even spark something like a civil war. We supposedly need to do this because replacement with Youngkin (or someone like him) is such am improvement that a dramatic step like that is worth it.
My observation is simply that I don't see what's so great about the Youngkins of the world that makes them so much better than Trump. Worth starting a civil war over?
It was interesting to see who told us that Biden's withdrawal was selfless as opposed to long over due. Timothy Snyder's Bloodlines is one of my favorite works of history so it was sad to see him so misjudge something that just happened right before our eyes.
It took me a few days to figure out, but I think I know what I find unsettling about this. If impeachment is going to be anything more than a vehicle for political score-settling, then it must be based on an actual crime or misdemeanor. What crime do you anticipate Trump will commit on his first day in office?
Perhaps you think he should be impeached for something from his first term. I'm not sure that is legally permissible. In any event, he's already been impeached twice and not convicted either time.
Perhaps you are looking at his current legal troubles. The three New York cases are all so legally dubious that not only will they be overturned, but they are far more likely to be used as bases for impeaching the judges and disbarring the attorneys, than for impeaching the president.
As for the outstanding cases, they will hinge on whether or not it is a crime to declassify documents, question whether an election is fraudulent, or to encourage people to protest peacefully. So there is that.
I suggest that a runaway Republican convention nominate Nikki Haley.
I can see why this post cost you a number of subscribers. I, however, will be sticking along for the ride. I may even upgrade to paid -- I like honest opinions, even if I don't share them.
I will note that impeachment is only supposed to cover high crimes and misdemeanors.
I do not worry about some of Trump's more extreme ideas in this election because I doubt he will be able or willing to do things like withdraw from NATO. As Michael Brendan Dougherty at National Review has argued, the trajectory of his second term will depend entirely on the degree to which his executive branch appointees undermine him. I understand that Trump and his future transition team will be vetting nominees more closely for their loyalty to Trump and his ideology, but he has frequently shown that he can turn on people loyal to him on a dime. This argument that his appointees are fanatically loyal was made during his first term, with commentators arguing vociferously that figures like Bill Barr were loyal to Trump over anything else when there was little actual reason to believe that, and lo and behold, they now hate each other. I do not see a second Trump term as playing out that differently from the first, except Congress not being a solid conservative constraint on him now that Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and other establishment figures have little control over the party. The fact that a good chunk of Republicans in Congress owe their current offices to Trump's endorsement is itself one reason why they will never impeach him.
I endorse all your takes. Number 3 is no doubt a fantasy, but the other two are right on target.
Fewer than one-quarter of eligible voters voted in the presidential primary elections. A number of polls indicated that a majority of respondents did not want another Biden versus Trump matchup. I conclude that most considered the matter insufficiently important to take 15 minutes out of their lives on primary election day to make their wishes a reality.
Re #1, the story among Dems who I respect is that Biden is not significantly impaired except when it comes to public speaking, and that there is some sort of interaction between his stutter and his age. I'm not sure how probable I think this is, but it's less than 50-50 and I have always liked the guy.
Yes, it would be optimal to impeach Trump, but only in the same sense that it would be optimal for Democrats to nuke the filibuster or pack the Supreme Court. Breaking norms this way has all kinds of messed-up risks, and would lead to all the Rs in Congress getting primaried by folks like Royce White and Dr. Oz.
IMO, the best outcome would be for Kamala Harris to be the nominee and lose the election.
I'm curious what Biden has done that makes you think he is unfit.
Unscripted remarks that are gibberish are not only common by others but something Biden did as VP, if not long before that.
I wholly agree Biden made harmful comments regarding Putin and China but again these were things totally like his past behavior.
What else?
Whether or not he commits gaffes is beside the point, in my view. I just cannot picture him in charge. Instead, I picture underneath him intense power struggles, with various people asserting authority. From an organizational behavior point of view, I would bet that the White House is now a shambles. There is a power vacuum at the top, and that threatens disaster.
The really hilarious thing about the debate was that this wasn't Biden at his worst- anyone who regularly watches videos of him interacting in any unscripted forum has seen him much more confused and mentally incompetent than he was Thursday night. During the debate I think Biden's team didn't provide him with near enough material to fill up his time slots and, as result, after he had recited/read off his answer to the question asked, he was forced to ad lib and repeatedly lost his train of thought. The other thing that very noticeable but, again, not the worst I have seen of him, was that he never really rebutted anything at all or even tried to- it was almost like he had no idea what Trump was saying even standing right there- the blank stares off into space while Trump was speaking are a terrible visual and a big missed opportunity that Biden even 4 years ago wouldn't have let slip by.
If Biden hasn't withdrawn by the week after the 4th, then he will be the candidate the Democrats are stuck with. Getting stabbed in the back by the media all of a sudden after they have covered for them the last 4 years is going to make the Bidens angry and recalcitrant on the issue and Biden, even if he withdraws, is likely to endorse Harris as the replacement candidate. Also, any funds on hand raised by the Biden/Harris campaign cannot be used by any presidential candidate who isn't Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.
The media's reaction, I think, was either planned in advance or they expected Trump to make Biden look good by comparison so they could continue to sell the Biden brand post-debate. When that didn't happen, they went with plan B since the conviction of Trump in New York didn't bring the hoped-for rise in Biden's electoral chances.
Were they reading pre-written answers off a teleprompter?! I didn't know that. Or perhaps you mean he had memorized a set speech.
I was with my elderly parents and they were quite keen initially, turning on the TV more than an hour in advance as the talking heads talked over shots of people milling about what would be, I guess, the empty room. I went for a walk after giving them their TV trays but noticed they bailed and went to bed after about half an hour. They sundown too.
To do my due diligence after reading the "takes" next morning (elderly parents get 3 papers!) I googled a clip, in which Trump brought up a murder committed last week by a couple of lowlifes from Venezuela, who were fully "legible" to the authorities; if you wanted to chalk the murder up to the account of Soros-funded nonprofits, I'd not disagree.
Biden's answer showed some interesting coaching, as I am guessing his people knew that Trump wouldn't overlook this event.
He started on the usual "many people commit crimes, why would you concern yourself with this one particularly, what does that say about you" type rejoinder that is pretty customary from the left. But then he did that thing where he starts making a list and it just went crazy; it actually seemed to me that he said plenty of people are raped by their sisters ...
I mention this because I doubt many of you were able to stick with the debate either. I'm sure we could each adduce an example of the lunacy on display, yes, from both Trump and Biden, that we were struck with - and cobble together the whole thing. The whole bizarre exercise was so wretched we probably need to collectively forget it.
Maybe we just need to declare that debating is stupid and for losers and not do it anymore. It's not like others in recent years have covered America in glory.
Steve Sailer had the best take midpoint through: "Who would win in a debate, Biden or Trump?"
There weren't teleprompters but either candidate could have cue cards on the lectern- Biden almost never appears at a lectern without cards. His answers at the beginning of any clip were clearly rehearsed/read but then his mind would wander off after 30 seconds to a minute. Trump on the other hand I think was completely unscripted though he did use a lot material I have read before in transcripts from rallies. Of course, I think the difference is that people at CNN gave Biden's staff the questions a week ago so that the answers would be scripted and in the right order- this happens all the time when Biden is doing press conferences at which he occasionally lets the cat out of the bag by mistake.
Your are now terrified enough. But America is safe; it is the outer provinces that are in extreme danger. There are mechanisms for American democracy to survive; no institutional mechanism safeguards Ukraine or Taiwan.
America will not abandon Israel in the next four years, but once the American Hegemony falls…
Maybe I'm just not close enough, but I do not see Biden as in any way decapacitated from being President for another x months. One might have concerns about his 7th r 8th year in office.
There was noting wrong with Harris as VP. Biden made the mistake of not using her (I'm pretty sure she would have agreed to being used) as his bulldog to stake out an "anti-woke" social and neoliberal economic position that he could then have triangulated against the Warren-Sanders forces.
That he did not do this has nothing to do with his age.
My take: https://davidrhenderson.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-bidentrump-debate
Thanks for actual quotes David!
Trump on immigration: "The damage he’s done to our country – and I’d love to ask him, and will, why he allowed millions of people to come in here from prisons, jails, and mental institutions to come into our country and destroy our country."
Trump claiming millions from prisons is unbelievable, 99% likely not true.
But we don't know how many of the millions of illegals are actually from prisons, jails, or mental institutions, yet in violating immigration laws they become criminals, who maybe should be in jail.
"Millions of law-breaking illegals, many from jails & mental institutions" would be accurate and is what I convert Trump's meaning to mean.
Because I take Trump seriously, but not literally.
And part of our serious immigration problem is the number of foreign criminals coming.
Inflation over the last 4 years would have been lower with Trump. And would be in the future -- because tax cut based deficits are far more productive than govt spending based deficits. And the same deficit money printing gives less inflation when there's more production.
You're welcome, Tom. I'm not sure that "in violating immigration laws they become criminals." You're probably right, but I would want to check the statute. But that's clearly not what Trump is saying. I like that line, which I heard a lot in 2016, "I take Trump seriously, but not literally." Unfortunately, I think it can be overdone. You can distinguish the two. I bet there are millions of Trump followers who think his statement is literally true. I agree with you about inflation. That's why I was so critical of the 16 economists in one of my previous Substacks. I won't link to it here because I don't want to further hijack Arnold's post.
Really unhinged Arnold.
You know I've actually grown more fond of Trump. They throw everything at him and he's still in the game. Any other Republican obviously would have folded by now, either being out of politics or having become a RINO.
"Youngkin"
Youngkin is my governor. He hasn't actually done anything. I'm glad we don't have a democrat making things worse, but nothing is really changing. I still don't have school choice. He didn't do well in the state elections (GOP lost seats in Virginia).
His handling of abortion, like that of every other Republican, has been poor. This is one area where Trump is just better than the rest of the Republicans, managing to overturn Roe v Wade and still be seen as moderate on abortion.
If Trump wants to pick a VP and step aside day one of his own volition, fine. But impeaching him is a really dumb idea. Trump needs to win as a repudiation of the left.
I already stated in my comment that I'm glad he won instead of McAuliffe.
But I'm also not proposing to impeach the president on his first day in office (without a charge even, just because Arnold doesn't like his aesthetics!)
Impeaching Trump first day would basically end Democracy and maybe even spark something like a civil war. We supposedly need to do this because replacement with Youngkin (or someone like him) is such am improvement that a dramatic step like that is worth it.
My observation is simply that I don't see what's so great about the Youngkins of the world that makes them so much better than Trump. Worth starting a civil war over?
Arnold, any thoughts on Project 2025?