The Biden Presidency

Boycott said:
Greenwald is one of the most childish journalists around. There's an awful lot of them but his ability to make things all about him, his lashing out at people as if a stranger on the internet with 32 followers is the embodiment of all bad in the world, and the hypocrisy of bashing media coverage on one side while being the frequent guest and defender of Rupert Murdoch's wonderboy. Fox's own lawyers didn't give such good faith to Tucker Carlson the way Greenwald does.

I remember watching a debate about what exactly is right-wing populism with one person arguing it is a total fraud and a cover to get to fascism arguing Trump on what he got done was no different to had anyone else in the 2016 republican race won. And in fact his signature legislative accomplishment (tax cuts) were bigger than Bush's. Then Greenwald on the other end blurted out along the lines "well what if he still had Steve Bannon around" which revealed a lot. Honestly seems like he is the type of guy who if a democrat pushes out a 10 page plan on a particular issue he will parse every line for flaws, but hey if Donald Trump Jr puts out a 20 word tweet then he should be taken in good faith.
Click to expand...
His "the Deep State is after Trump" campaign, partly on Carlson's program, was something else.
 
berbatrick said:


...

The CDC schools order, especially in the backdrop of being the "party of science" (a stance most scientists I know celebrate), is quite amazing, quite under-covered, and will probably be like Cuomo's handling of the pandemic - something left loonies talk about while sensible people wonder why they're angry at good leadership.
A few threads about the questionable science behind the order*, and the questionable order itself.


*the part about spread happening at lunch was confirmed in my university, which found its covid ward nurses were more likely to infect each other during lunch breaks than while interacting with patients, and again among students when the few cases on campus seemed to be linked to dining clusters.
Click to expand...


Don’t know who grimm is, but I can’t take anyone seriously who claims Porter was stripped of her power.
 
WI_Red said:
Don’t know who grimm is, but I can’t take anyone seriously who claims Porter was stripped of her power.
Click to expand...
she was removed from the committee position which made her famous because of a norm, a norm that was subsequently overridden with waivers by the same leadership for many other people.

https://prospect.org/politics/why-katie-porter-not-on-house-financial-services-committee/

In all, 13 members sought waivers to serve on the Financial Services Committee, for ten open slots. It’s virtually without precedent on the other exclusive committees that members seek a waiver to serve elsewhere. Financial Services is supposed to be an important committee, but nearly all of the membership splits their duties.

Only two didn’t get the waiver—Porter and Wexton. The latter is serving on Appropriations, another exclusive committee. Only Porter didn’t serve on another exclusive committee, tried to stay on Financial Services, and was rebuffed.

Contrast that with who is serving on the committee. An incredible four chairs of other committees are on Financial Services: New York Reps. Carolyn Maloney (Oversight), Nydia Velázquez (Small Business), and Gregory Meeks (Foreign Affairs), and Georgia’s David Scott (Agriculture). Presumably chairing an entire other committee is a time-consuming job, yet these members—13 percent of the Democrats on Financial Services—are still there. Scott received a waiver to maintain his membership.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who serves on two other committees, got a waiver to stay on Financial Services. Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) got a waiver to serve on two other committees. Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) did as well; his waiver allows him to serve on Financial Services and Natural Resources, the same thing Porter wanted. Reps. Brad Sherman (D-CA), Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), and Sean Casten (D-IL) also sit on two other committees while still serving on Financial Services. Only newcomer Financial Services members Torres and Williams don’t serve on at least one other committee.

In other words, it’s easy to look at the committee makeup and conclude that Porter was singled out. You can supplement that with how Porter was treated when on the committee.
Click to expand...
 
berbatrick said:
she was removed from the committee position which made her famous because of a norm, a norm that was subsequently overridden with waivers by the same leadership for many other people.

https://prospect.org/politics/why-katie-porter-not-on-house-financial-services-committee/
Click to expand...

She has addressed this herself. She is allowed 2 committees. She got her top 2 choices, finance was her 3rd choice. Other people had placed finance in their top slots. How is getting her top 2 choices stripping her of her power?

Edit: Just did a list reading and learned that Oversight is not an exclusive committee (I thought it was). Knowing that I am now more on board with Waters actively wanting her off.
 
Last edited:
WI_Red said:
She has addressed this herself. She is allowed 2 committees. She got her top 2 choices, finance was her 3rd choice. Other people had placed finance in their top slots. How is getting her top 2 choices stripping her of her power?
Click to expand...

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who serves on two other committees, got a waiver to stay on Financial Services. Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) got a waiver to serve on two other committees. Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) did as well; his waiver allows him to serve on Financial Services and Natural Resources, the same thing Porter wanted. Reps. Brad Sherman (D-CA), Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), and Sean Casten (D-IL) also sit on two other committees while still serving on Financial Services. Only newcomer Financial Services members Torres and Williams don’t serve on at least one other committee.
 
berbatrick said:
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who serves on two other committees, got a waiver to stay on Financial Services. Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) got a waiver to serve on two other committees. Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) did as well; his waiver allows him to serve on Financial Services and Natural Resources, the same thing Porter wanted. Reps. Brad Sherman (D-CA), Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), and Sean Casten (D-IL) also sit on two other committees while still serving on Financial Services. Only newcomer Financial Services members Torres and Williams don’t serve on at least one other committee.
Click to expand...

If you are going to cut and paste someone's article at least do the right thing and cite it.

Why Katie Porter Isn’t on the House Financial Services Committee - The American Prospect
 
berbatrick said:
3 posts up :lol:
Click to expand...

Well feck me I missed that. My bad. I am super sensitive to this shit (the not citing stuff, not my reading comprehension as that sucks) since my grad school PI still cites my work and refuses to cite me in it. Like ever. Apologies.
 
WI_Red said:
Well feck me I missed that. My bad. I am super sensitive to this shit (the not citing stuff, not my reading comprehension as that sucks) since my grad school PI still cites my work and refuses to cite me in it. Like ever. Apologies.
Click to expand...

i'd relate to this much better if i had published anything since starting grad school :lol:
 
Why is it only yanks who go by initials sometimes? Or maybe I'm wrong. A.J.P. Taylor springs to mind. Any others in Britain? PJ and Duncan perhaps.
 
It's been a busy day for Biden

When Joe Biden met with a group of mayors and governors last week he bluntly told them to get ready for a legislative defeat: his proposed minimum wage hike was unlikely to happen, he said, at least in the near term.

“I really want this in there but it just doesn't look like we can do it because of reconciliation,” Biden told the group, according to a person in the room. “I’m not going to give up. But right now, we have to prepare for this not making it.”

The comments, which were confirmed by two other people familiar with the conversation, were the furthest Biden has gone in conceding the coming axing of the $15-an-hour minimum wage provision from his first major legislative package. And they suggest that the president is more inclined to manage the fallout of it not being included than to pursue long-shot, political-capital consuming efforts to fight for its insertion.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/18/biden-governors-minimum-wage-469898
Click to expand...
 
Sorry if this is a basic question, I don't follow politics at all!

I saw that Biden says he won't speak out against Chinese treatment of Uigher Muslims, and other atrocities because it is their "cultural norm"...

Tell me this was something taken out of context?
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Tell me this was something taken out of context?
Click to expand...
The only time in history the US has ever cared about Muslims is when they can use it to their advantage against China.

Calling it their "cultural norm" is speaking out against it otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Sorry if this is a basic question, I don't follow politics at all!

I saw that Biden says he won't speak out against Chinese treatment of Uigher Muslims, and other atrocities because it is their "cultural norm"...

Tell me this was something taken out of context?
Click to expand...
neverdie said:
The only time in history the US has ever cared about Muslims is when they can use it to their advantage against China.

Calling it their "cultural norm" is speaking out against it otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
Click to expand...

Not so much "out of context" but as usual, the old fart can't form coherent sentences all the time

What followed was a mess of an answer about Xi’s brutal Uyghur crackdown. During a winding explanation of how the Chinese leadership views the world, Biden said “Culturally, there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow.”

Many interpreted this as some kind of justification for the Chinese Communist Party’s drive to wipe out Turkic minorities in Xinjiang. If that were true, the president’s comment would fly in the face of what he has previously said about the plight of the Uyghur people. In fact, Biden, who as early as August called the Xinjiang crisis a genocide, ultimately told Cooper, “there will be repercussions. And [Xi] knows that.” Although it’s possible that his cultural-norm comments were some ham-fisted attempt at shielding Xi from criticism, it’s more likely that the president had his foot in his mouth as he attempted to explain his obligation to speak out about human-rights abuses.

If the president believes that the CCP is perpetrating a genocide (White House press secretary Jen Psaki recently confirmed that he does),
Click to expand...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/02/bidens-confusion-on-how-to-talk-about-genocide/

Biden's campaign noted in AUG/2020 that it supported the Trump admin labeling it a genocide.

A spokesman for the Joe Biden presidential campaign said Biden supports the “genocide” designation, which could influence President Trump’s final decision on the matter.
Click to expand...

Look i think most posters on CE could back me up as disliking Biden, so i've got no skin in this one, but i doubt Biden is gleefully enjoying the CCP's actions. I'd land on the side of "old fart can't even make a simple explanation of an issue"
 
WPMUFC said:
Not so much "out of context" but as usual, the old fart can't form coherent sentences all the time
Click to expand...
It could be effective. I'd read this within the context of China's new Silk Road project which requires the consent/participation of multiple middle eastern (Muslim) countries such as Iran.
 
neverdie said:
The only time in history the US has ever cared about Muslims is when they can use it to their advantage against China.

Calling it their "cultural norm" is speaking out against it otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
Click to expand...
Well that's very disappointing.
 
Grinner said:
Why is it only yanks who go by initials sometimes? Or maybe I'm wrong. A.J.P. Taylor springs to mind. Any others in Britain? PJ and Duncan perhaps.
Click to expand...
I used to know a guy(in Scotland) that made everyone call him "TJ". The weird thing was that his name was Gary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.