The Biden Presidency

Carolina Red said:
I would love every candidate to have to do that. But the debates have been brought down to the level of a WWE shouting match at this point, and that’s something that’s been a long time coming… I’m reminded of how folks listening on the radio thought Nixon beat Kennedy, but folks watching TV thought the opposite. Add into that the fact of the short sound byte format and/or a crowded stage of people all vying for time, and you’ve not got a lot of opportunity for nuance anyway. There’s usually a bit more meat on the bones found on political campaign websites, but the likelihood of the average person digging through those point by point is also rather low.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with all that. The Nixon/Kennedy bit is really interesting.
 
Eboue said:
yall foreigners just don't understand how we do things round here. pull up a chair bucko and listen carefully. we have what is called a constitution. that's con-sti-tu-tion. ain't no got damn parliaments in this country. the gist of this here constitution is that aint nothing gonna get done around here unless joe manchin and kristen synema will it. joe biden can't do nothing. kamala harris do nothing. nancy pelosi can't do nothing. chuck schumer can't do nothing. the only thing we can do is donate money to democrats and vote blue in 2024. you picking up what im laying down now son?
Click to expand...

I read this in the voice of @Eboue cosplaying Foghorn Leghorn cosplaying a civics teacher. It works.
 
Raoul said:
He wouldn't know that (for example) Manchin and Sinema would not want to spend what Biden would (never mind how much progressives wanted) on things like infrastructure. 96 % of Dem Senators support Biden's infrasctucture agenda, so ultimately, all delays fall square on the shoulders of Manchin and Sinema and Republican obstruction.
Click to expand...

Of course he knew that Manchin would want to spend much less than Sanders, and of course he knew that the Republicans would have their own agenda. These divisions were obvious long before he made the campaign promises. He said he should be elected to heal the divisions. To reach across the aisle. To be a dealmaker. He had all this experience in the senate and he knew all the players, and he’s be able to navigate it to deliver on his agenda. That wasn’t just a campaign promise but part of his core value proposition. He should be held accountable for that.

If he’s incapable of delivering on his agenda then that is very obviously a failure on his part. One of the core arguments against Biden and moderates in general was that their negotiations inevitably led to watered down bills that violate many of the original principles of the legislation. People like you argued for him because he knew how to navigate situations exactly like this. The idea that any of this is unexpected is completely ridiculous.
 
Brwned said:
Of course he knew that Manchin would want to spend much less than Sanders, and of course he knew that the Republicans would have their own agenda. These divisions were obvious long before he made the campaign promises. He said he should be elected to heal the divisions. To reach across the aisle. To be a dealmaker. He had all this experience in the senate and he knew all the players, and he’s be able to navigate it to deliver on his agenda. That wasn’t just a campaign promise but part of his core value proposition. He should be held accountable for that.

If he’s incapable of delivering on his agenda then that is very obviously a failure on his part. One of the core arguments against Biden and moderates in general was that their negotiations inevitably led to watered down bills that violate many of the original principles of the legislation. People like you argued for him because he knew how to navigate situations exactly like this. The idea that any of this is unexpected is completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest driver of Biden's election was to get rid of Trump. The policies he ran on were distantly secondary when juxtaposed against the possibility of another four years of Trump's nonsense. Although I agree Biden will be held accountable, he really has no way of forcing Manchin and Sinema to vote for his policies, which means that at the end of the day, they will also be viewed as the biggest points of failure should infrastructure not pass. They've already managed to water it down from 3.5 trillion to something like 2t, so the progressives are going to have to decide whether they want it to pass or else fall into the same category as Manchin or Sinema.
 
Raoul said:
I think the biggest driver of Biden's election was to get rid of Trump. The policies he ran on were distantly secondary when juxtaposed against the possibility of another four years of Trump's nonsense. Although I agree Biden will be held accountable, he really has no way of forcing Manchin and Sinema to vote for his policies, which means that at the end of the day, they will also be viewed as the biggest points of failure should infrastructure not pass. They've already managed to water it down from 3.5 trillion to something like 2t, so the progressives are going to have to decide whether they want it to pass or else fall into the same category as Manchin or Sinema.
Click to expand...
What I don't get: why can there be no meaningful negotiation with those two? If so, what are they trying to achieve? Just be obstructionist to anything and that's it? Cause that won't do their states any good either.

I mean, it won't help these people get reelected if their record is that they stopped the Dems from doing stuff, and got no wins for their states otherwise. People might as well vote Republican for that. So you'd expect quid pro quo to be possible, much more than what appears to be happening. And given that these people stand alone in the Senate and are heavily at risk of losing an election (given they're so close to traditional Reps ideologically), you'd think their negotiation position is fairly weak, too. Although I guess that doesn't stop people from letting things burn for the sake of it.
 
Cheimoon said:
What I don't get: why can there be no meaningful negotiation with those two? If so, what are they trying to achieve? Just be obstructionist to anything and that's it? Cause that won't do their states any good either.

I mean, it won't help these people get reelected if their record is that they stopped the Dems from doing stuff, and got no wins for their states otherwise. People might as well vote Republican for that. So you'd expect quid pro quo to be possible, much more than what appears to be happening. And given that these people stand alone in the Senate and are heavily at risk of losing an election (given they're so close to traditional Reps ideologically), you'd think their negotiation position is fairly weak, too. Although I guess that doesn't stop people from letting things burn for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

Its probably a combination of they don't think that much spending is a good idea in a nation already running budget deficits and a debt that is increasing by the year - with a healthy dose of self-interest given that they know they live in largely Republican states. Trump won WV by nearly 40 points and AZ has been historically R, which for Dems means being perceived as anything other than centrist may affect their reelection hopes.

Structurally, I think the problem is also a result of the federalist system of governance where each state votes for its own politicians based on the political dynamics in that state, instead of based on immediate national priorities. This means you always see phenomena like Manchin and Sinema become problems when control of Congress is tight. If the roles were reversed, the likes of Collins and Murkowski may also be a problem for Rs on policies like Abortion. The obvious difference between Dems and Reps is that one is attempting, perhaps to their own detriment, to be a "big tent" party incorporating a wide range of views from Sanders to Manchin, and from the Squad to Sinema, while Republicans are basically run like an authoritarian dictatorship where everyone conforms to the views of one man.
 
Last edited:
Cheimoon said:
What I don't get: why can there be no meaningful negotiation with those two? If so, what are they trying to achieve? Just be obstructionist to anything and that's it? Cause that won't do their states any good either.

I mean, it won't help these people get reelected if their record is that they stopped the Dems from doing stuff, and got no wins for their states otherwise. People might as well vote Republican for that. So you'd expect quid pro quo to be possible, much more than what appears to be happening. And given that these people stand alone in the Senate and are heavily at risk of losing an election (given they're so close to traditional Reps ideologically), you'd think their negotiation position is fairly weak, too. Although I guess that doesn't stop people from letting things burn for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

As if that matters anymore. One of the biggest casualties of the hyperpolarization of American politics is that reelection is no longer based on what you accomplish, all that matters is the letter after your name.
 
WI_Red said:
As if that matters anymore. One of the biggest casualties of the hyperpolarization of American politics is that reelection is no longer based on what you accomplish, all that matters is the letter after your name.
Click to expand...
Just curious, was this ever the case?
 
a tale told by a newborn, full of sound and wishful thinking, signifying nothing

 
entropy said:
Not when they take a handout and choose to lay off employees. That’s just disgusting scumbag behavior.
Click to expand...

Even (especially?) then SCOTUS says they are people.

Seriously though, I agree with you on the absurdity of it all. Student loans, coupled with sub minimum wage as a grad student, crippled me financially in my 20's/early 30's. But those tasty corporate campaign donations though.....
 
Why are democrats so ineffective in comparison to republicans? Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt like Trump actually made changes, a difference to the country. Almost entirely in a shitty way. But the moderate democrats, who pride themselves on bridging the divide and enabling the push through of policies, just do feck all.
 
altodevil said:
Why are democrats so ineffective in comparison to republicans? Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt like Trump actually made changes, a difference to the country. Almost entirely in a shitty way. But the moderate democrats, who pride themselves on bridging the divide and enabling the push through of policies, just do feck all.
Click to expand...

The only significant "legislation" Trump got through was the tax cuts. Otherwise he was a completely ineffectual president despite having 2 years of controlling both houses. Almost everything he did was through the use of executive orders or just not giving a shit if it was legal. The Republicans of today run and govern on a platform of grievance and obstructionism. They don't actually do (legislatively) anything when in power at the federal level.
 
altodevil said:
Why are democrats so ineffective in comparison to republicans? Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt like Trump actually made changes, a difference to the country. Almost entirely in a shitty way. But the moderate democrats, who pride themselves on bridging the divide and enabling the push through of policies, just do feck all.
Click to expand...

Because they're too fixated on incorporating a broad diversity of ideas into the party, which has created competing factions vying for their piece of the pie on policy. This approach could work if the Dems had an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress, but is ineffective when both the House and Senate are split nearly 50/50 between both parties. The Republicans on the other hand, are galvanized in thwarting everything the Dems do; even more so recently in the Trump era.
 
Raoul said:
Because they're too fixated on incorporating a broad diversity of ideas into the party, which has created competing factions vying for their piece of the pie on policy. This approach could work if the Dems had an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress, but is ineffective when both the House and Senate are split nearly 50/50 between both parties. The Republicans on the other hand, are galvanized in thwarting everything the Dems do; even more so recently in the Trump era.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right. Trickle-down issue of non-proportional electoral systems.
 
altodevil said:
Why are democrats so ineffective in comparison to republicans? Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt like Trump actually made changes, a difference to the country. Almost entirely in a shitty way. But the moderate democrats, who pride themselves on bridging the divide and enabling the push through of policies, just do feck all.
Click to expand...
It’s because democrats don’t really stand for anything.
 
altodevil said:
Why are democrats so ineffective in comparison to republicans? Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt like Trump actually made changes, a difference to the country. Almost entirely in a shitty way. But the moderate democrats, who pride themselves on bridging the divide and enabling the push through of policies, just do feck all.
Click to expand...

Most of the 'moderate Dems' are centre right conservatives who don't really have a problem with the rightward direction of America over the last 40 years. Sure they'll kick back against the extreme right excesses of the Republicans sometimes, but they have no real desire to move the country leftwards.
 
Believe him when he said to his Wall St buddies, nothing will fundamentally change. Good luck with trying to explain this to the voters in 2022,that once again they will be getting crumbs.
 
It’s our job to discuss what you are doing and yes, part of what’s in it. But it’s not our job to sell your agenda for you! They are not selling their agenda!

And the only reason that I am so enthusiastic about this is because our democracy is on the line and I don’t want America to lose its democracy. I don’t want America to be a country of minority rule and I don’t want America to be a place where Black and Brown people like me whose ancestors fought and died for the right to vote are restricted from going to the voting booth. That is the most un-American thing to do.

So, I have this platform that I have now, and I am speaking very passionately about it. Democrats, get your butts in gear and get passionate about saving this damn country. You’re not doing it! You’re weak! You are weak! You are weak!
Click to expand...

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/don-lemon-goes-off-on-joe-biden/

Even CNN getting digs in. What's next? Wolf Blitzer threatening to shank Biden? :lol:
 
He's wished Kamala Harris happy birthday three days running. Everything's ok...
 
Is the general consensus that he's doing well or?

Not sure how credible the book Peril is but I'm most of the way through the audiobook and he comes across well by all accounts
 
GDaly95 said:
Is the general consensus that he's doing well or?
Click to expand...
He would be a joke if he wasn't an outright catastrophe. Crime, Afghanistan, inflation, the border, bending over in the culture wars, global prestige, irreversible cognitive decline, being on the same page as no one in his own administration, all Benny Hill levels of zany. But sure, the general consensus is that he's doing well.
 
is he the only politician who does his own tweets? even trump outscourced his posts, but this guy's signature style is still there.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.