Putting a +80 years old with all these trips, visits, meetings and taking decisions is less than ideal IMHO. Some times he seems full of energy like discussing about the second amendment in his visit to the union a few weeks back but in the last video in Air Force One he seems that is 1 step a way to start buffering like McConnell. And fine, he is elected for this term but we are asking him to have 5 years more of this? I think that the proper agenda of the POTUS is a lot and as I see him lately, I think another candidate would be better.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Putting a +80 years old with all these trips, visits, meetings and taking decisions is less than ideal IMHO. Some times he seems full of energy like discussing about the second amendment in his visit to the union a few weeks back but in the last video in Air Force One he seems that is 1 step a way to start buffering like McConnell. And fine, he is elected for this term but we are asking him to have 5 years more of this? I think that the proper agenda of the POTUS is a lot and as I see him lately, I think another candidate would be better.
And Trump, who is only three years younger, would be any better v. senility & lethargy? I know who I'd rather have.
Anyhoo...
I love this line of thinking that Biden would somehow inevitably lose to Trump in the next general election. Of course he might, but have people already forgotten about 2020? He beat him soundly in both the electoral college and popular vote, although admittedly with slim margins in some key states.
Since then Joe Biden has gotten older, sure, but Trump has gotten even more exposed in his criminality. And who is this magical Democratic candidate that could just take over and easily beat Trump? It's not Harris or Buttigieg, that's for sure. It could be Newsom, but I don't think he would run unless Biden withdraws.
Since then Joe Biden has gotten older, sure, but Trump has gotten even more exposed in his criminality. And who is this magical Democratic candidate that could just take over and easily beat Trump? It's not Harris or Buttigieg, that's for sure. It could be Newsom, but I don't think he would run unless Biden withdraws.
But trump would not be good for many other reasons either but he seems immune to everything to a large part of the GOP voters. Biden sure will have a very large part of the Ds also. So do most of the R and D candidates on this bipartisan system. But is this remark was quoting someone that said that Biden was the only capable among the Ds,
and my comment was that at this point I see him more a liability than being the best D as he will alienate the independents necessary to win. So would do Trump. but hardcore Ds vs hardcore Rs without independents, might make Trump win. I believe that another candidate could be more successful than Biden as they could attract more independents. Someone that it doesn't seem capable due to age to become POTUS. Trump doesn't seem capable to be POTUS for many other reasons but you don't need to convince me
Well, Biden is the only Dem that polls out winning v. Trump.
Because there are not other serious candidates. you are comparing and incumbent against others that are not given a platform that they would have if Biden would be out of the picture. And the polls are not saying that is out winning trump. There are some that says that and others that says that Trump is winning. And even the ones that Biden says that wins, might well say that is losing the electoral college
Problem with the Dems seems to be that they forget they totally have carte blanche to come up with another young candidate now who may be light on experience. Looking at all the criticism on Obama now before re his lack of experience seems so laughable now compared to Trump after. Meanwhile timing isn't in their favor for more establishment candidates like Newsom and Whitmer. They already will have to wait another 4 years at minimum and realistically probably another 8 bc it seems likely the WH will probably flip again after Biden like it so often does. Meanwhile they are not getting any younger.
Personally I think the shady way Al Franken was pushed out (which again..the reason why seems so laughable now compared to what came after or even still walks around DC at this very moment) hurt the Dems so much more than they care to admit as well.
There are better candidates against Trump, but first, Biden has to drop out, if he doesn't, then he wins the primary anyway.
If he does? Harris is suddenly one of the favorites to win that primary, incumbency is a real advantage, so be careful for what you wish for, she is certainly less likely to win than Biden is.
If Biden would drop out, I doubt very much that Harris would be the chosen one in D primaries, She is not rated and Biden doesn't drop her for negative impacts to cancel her among women and black voters and also, do not touch what it is already running. And yes, I am not saying that Biden can't beat Trump, I believe that he has more options to win than Trump. But I think that he is becoming less and less capable and we still 1 year away...and he is not getting any younger. So does Trump, but I am talking about Biden...I see him less and less presidential
It's all well & good to postulate who might be a better candidate, but that's just a fools errand as the race was inevitably decided during Biden's first minute in office. It was always going to be these two.
As far as polling goes, since Carter, there hasn't been an incumbent leading the polls at this point in their first term (outside of the two Bushes, but they would no doubt have been in the same predicament of wars weren't propping them up), so it's not a sky is falling moment for Biden. He is not down in all rated polls & is only marginally down in some, well within the inciumbency saddled margin. He has some underlying metrics both for & against him & the race doesn't really start till Labor Day.
Don't have it right here, but from a poll i saw, there is absolutely no agreement among the base on who should be the nominee, if Biden wasn't the option.
So, you likely have a ton of undecided primary voters, what then? Name recognition matters a great deal, if we are being honest, and being a popular governor in a particular state(Whitmer, Beshear etc) doesn't neccessariy give you nationwide fame, as we have seen on the opposite side with someone like DeSantis.
Harris would very much be in the running due to name recognition, though i'm not sure she would win either, i would for sure not rule her out.
But that is what the primaries are for
Most progressive president since FDR!
Isn't that an oxymoron, Fox News reporter?
And White house and white supremacy is becoming more a Pleonasm by the minute
I learned a new word today. Thank you.
I learnt it 10 times and forgot 9 times (for now). I was just being snobby
Me as well, had to Google it!
We are going to hear about crazy stories coming out of this Biden presidency after his term ends. Blinken is off his head.
Xi is not a dictator, and he has to rule China that way because the Chinese people need that kind of dictatorship, I mean, leadership.
He can't be a dictator, he's not best mates with the orange one
He's not a dictator, he's centre-left.
He’s a fiscally conservative liberal.
Insanely evil stuff -
There's a reason why Israel doesn't allow journalists in Gaza other than the embedded ones, "to guarantee their safety", and kills the palestinian freelancers whenever and wherever it can. Many are snuffed out in night airstrikes with their families, another one was directly hit by a missile while driving his car.
48 journalists have been killed by the IDF in Gaza and Lebanon, it's been the deadliest conflict for journos.
On the US topic, good article. I personally find that Biden handled the situation the best he could, given his hand. It also confirms for anybody who still didn't know, that there's no endgame on Netanyahu's side and a real worry from the US about a prolonged war with its consequences on the region and the primaries.
Sure, I will put here why he was an effective voice to build up for the war.
In July 2002, as the foreign affair committee chairman, Biden in a hearing to examine threats surrounding Iraq he said "In my judgment, president Bush is right to be concerned about Saddams Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility or share them with terrorists (at the time al Qaeda)"
In October 2002, he stood again as the Chairman of the foreign affair committee in a vital hearing to start a war and gave this speech " the objective is to destroy Iraq's illegal WMD, and its program to develop and produce missiles and more of those weapons. Saddam is dangerous, the world would be a better place without him, but the reason he poses a growing ganger to the US and its allies, is that he poses chemical and biological weapon and is seeking nuclear weapons, and unlike my colleague from West Virginia and Maryland I do not believe this is a rush to war, I believe its a march to peace and security, I believe the failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution"
He did more than just cheerleading for the war, he was a vital voice Bush relied on to gather support to start it. He used his position as the chairman of the committee to ensure a majority for the senate to vote in favor of the invasion. The WMD accusation was sure false and only ignorants would believe that Saddam aspire to produce nuclear weapon, and not only that, but also share it with Al-Qaeda (that Saddam had zero connection with).
The sentence "imminent threat to the US" was a regular in the senate because of his repeated use of it. And of course we all knew even before the war that Iraq had almost zero threat on the US.
You can see it in this documentary.
The damning thing is, he comes out with a straight face every time and say the same stupid thing "I opposed the war from the beginning".
Last edited:
As chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, representing the Democratic majority, he didn't just support and push forward lines about WMDs and regime change in active coordination with the White House, he refused to even bring the UN weapons inspectors or anyone else claiming that Saddam had no WMDs before his committee. He did bring in multiple witnesses claiming Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda.
Of course, at the conclusion of those hearings, he joined 76 other senators including 28 other Democrats in voting for the war. He additionally voted against 3 of the 4 amendments made by other Democratic senators to the war bill (all of which failed).
In the 2020 primary, he said he opposed the war from the beginning.
https://inthesetimes.com/features/joe-biden-iraq-war-vote-democratic-primary-2020.html
At the time when he said it, I was shocked. I couldn't believe how he could say it with a straight face.
As bad as Biden has been in the past, he has done a solid job in the last few years (gotten more accomplished than I could have imagined). Hope to hell he gets another 4 (compared to what a Republican alternative would do for 4 years).
Sorry for the delayed reply. Dealing with two simultaneous ear infections & trying to sleep them away.
Thanks for the info, I recall that Biden was chair of some prominent foreign affairs oriented committees, but not exactly which ones. That's disappointing that he led the cheerleading for invasion, but so did many others in positions of power regardless their political stripe. However, none of the others are the current president & your criticism of him is more than warranted..
Thanks for the reply in a more suitable thread. Figured it wasn't germane foe the I / P current affairs one.
Sorry to hear that, get well soon my friend.
I don't know much about this but I think you need to take the context of the date in to account - less than a year after 9/11 - much of the US was on the warpath for revenge and a lot of tub-thumping was going on
Oh yes, I just forgot (or never knew in the first place) that Biden was in the upper echelons of legislative power & was such a cheerleader for war v. Iraq. As I said, many were guilty of that on either political stripe & the public jingoism was reaching such a crescendo where, being a rather nascent political affair followers, I tended to look at the macro as opposed to the micro.
And yet a majority of Americans believe Trump is better for the economy, when all he's actually good for is the stock market. But PR is important and Bidens team cannot get Bidenomics to catch.
The actual truth is pretty simple. The majority don't understand things explained in the graphs and Tweet a couple of posts above. All they are focused on is petrol (gas) prices are high and that most other things have gone up too. They won't see that under Trump that would have happened anyway AND they wouldn't have had the extra money and help that Boden has created.for them.
The hatred, distrust and ignorance is too strong to overcome, sadly.
