Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

You'd think if there were any truth in that tedious conspiracy of cognitive decline, a politician famed for zingers and snark wouldn't have played that instance so effortlessly. I don't necessarily admire that kind of approach anyway, but respect the ability to think on the fly all the same. We've all had those occasions when the perfect comeback pops into our head hours later

Especially as it seems to be an ongoing joke from Biden aimed at Doocy when he shouts questions at him when they aren't supposed to.

Back in August he also answered back 'you' when asked about the VP pick.

https://twitter.com/TVNewsHQ/status/1292143591993872384?s=20

Timberrrrrrrr

hotmail.com wrote: »

This is a Biden thread.

I don't wish to derail the thread with stuff about Trump.

As I said, it's probably best that a Trump Years thread is created so people can keep talking about him.

Another cop out reply as usual.

ancapailldorcha

I've deleted several posts. Enough of the petty sniping and bickering please. Constructive posts only please.

interlocked

You can call McCain a warmonger all you want, he was a brave man, but listen to Joe Biden at his funeral: that mutual respect is gone today. When you see the GOP party in Arizona try and deselect his widow, then America is really in a bad place.

Brian?

interlocked wrote: »

You can call McCain a warmonger all you want, he was a brave man, but listen to Joe Biden at his funeral: that mutual respect is gone today. When you see the GOP party in Arizona try and deselect his widow, then America is really in a bad place.

I completely agree. Someone will be along shortly to tell you they should both be indicted for war crimes though.

Gbear

Brian? wrote: »

I completely agree. Someone will be along shortly to tell you they should both be indicted for war crimes though.

I feel like it shouldn't be utopian to expect that US administrations are held to account by the law.

One can have empathy for the people in the position they're in - probably the hardest job in the world, and to understand that there are levels of culpability and wrongdoing that set some administrations on very different levels to others, while still holding some kind of absolute sense of morality that condemns murder, arming brutal dictators and wholesale attacks on civil liberties, among other crimes.

There's a spectrum of belief systems that goes from fully hierarchical to fully principled, and while conservatives tend to be the former, and progressive people are generally more the latter, they're still human and still subject to the same need to defend the indefensible when it's their own side doing it.

I think it's fair to say the the US would be a much, much better country if each of the living former presidents, possibly with the exception of Jimmy Carter (although he may have his own issues that I'm not familiar with), were tried for the crimes they committed while in office, and spent much of the remainder of their lives in jail. You couldn't have had the naked criminality of Trump in a country that had any capacity to hold the executive to account. Trump is the direct result of that impunity.

There are certainly bad faith efforts to either ignore the crimes of Republicans (or Tories, or what have you), or to equivocate them when there can be no equivocation, either because of intent (Obama's misguided neo-liberal, security-focused patriotism, vs Trump's malicious and selfish criminality), or because of effect (Bush's destruction of the post cold-war period of peace, and the wave of death and human suffering that came in its wake is perhaps the worst thing any major world leader has caused since Mao's famine in China), and its fine not to engage with people who do that, but in a good faith argument, the crimes of the "good guys" shouldn't be ignored or minimised.

Water John

If you get to become a leader of a major country, you do have decisions that decide who lives and dies. Absolutely no excuse for outright criminal behaviour but it's part of the gig, making ethical decisions, when you take it on.

hotmail.com

interlocked wrote: »

You can call McCain a warmonger all you want, he was a brave man, but listen to Joe Biden at his funeral: that mutual respect is gone today. When you see the GOP party in Arizona try and deselect his widow, then America is really in a bad place.

I'm becoming more convinced that had Trump played the game, acted "presidential" , tweeted less and was generally more polite, he would have been re elected.

From reading on Trump, it's rare that his policies are ever mentioned. His outbursts, his rudeness, his disrespect for the opposition and the media, not having a dog etc are stuff that keeps coming up time and time again.

All a US president has to do is wear a nice suit, mention God a lot, get pictured in front of lots of US flags, own a dog and most importantly remain polite and courteous.

Dredging up a nice speech at a funeral of a so called opponent just confirms this weird version of what a U.S. President should be.

Gbear

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm becoming more convinced that had Trump played the game, acted "presidential" , tweeted less and was generally more polite, he would have been re elected.

It's quite a bit worse than that.

If he had done the bare minmium in handling covid he would've almost certainly been reelected. That's literally all he had to do.

All the other stuff would've been ignored. The fact that he was a fascist and a criminal barely moved the needle for his followers and the vast bulk of the Republican party base.

Most executives and governments had a bump in popularity from Covid; even Italy, where it was a total disaster from the get go. If Trump had done basic stuff around messaging, mask-wearing, avoided holding mass infection events, not peddling conspiracy theories or pushing snake oil, he would've walked the election.

From a political standpoint, Covid was a gift to Trump. What he showed is that there really is a difference between being utterly incompetent and not being utterly incompetent, and there are limits to what even the American public will accept.

Eric Cartman

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm becoming more convinced that had Trump played the game, acted "presidential" , tweeted less and was generally more polite, he would have been re elected.

From reading on Trump, it's rare that his policies are ever mentioned. His outbursts, his rudeness, his disrespect for the opposition and the media, not having a dog etc are stuff that keeps coming up time and time again.

All a US president has to do is wear a nice suit, mention God a lot, get pictured in front of lots of US flags, own a dog and most importantly remain polite and courteous.

Dredging up a nice speech at a funeral of a so called opponent just confirms this weird version of what a U.S. President should be.

If trump had have kept shtum on anything to do with mail in ballots Im convinced he would have had it in the bag. I think thats what really did him in.

salmocab

Gbear wrote: »

It's quite a bit worse than that.

If he had done the bare minmium in handling covid he would've almost certainly been reelected. That's literally all he had to do.

All the other stuff would've been ignored. The fact that he was a fascist and a criminal barely moved the needle for his followers and the vast bulk of the Republican party base.

Most executives and governments had a bump in popularity from Covid; even Italy, where it was a total disaster from the get go. If Trump had done basic stuff around messaging, mask-wearing, avoided holding mass infection events, not peddling conspiracy theories or pushing snake oil, he would've walked the election.

From a political standpoint, Covid was a gift to Trump. What he showed is that there really is a difference between being utterly incompetent and not being utterly incompetent, and there are limits to what even the American public will accept.

Said it many times, Covid was not in anyway his fault. All he had to do was appoint the right people and stay on message with them. Instead he decided to politicise it at the start then lost interest when it was obvious it was out of control

hotmail.com

Gbear wrote: »

It's quite a bit worse than that.

If he had done the bare minmium in handling covid he would've almost certainly been reelected. That's literally all he had to do.

All the other stuff would've been ignored. The fact that he was a fascist and a criminal barely moved the needle for his followers and the vast bulk of the Republican party base.

Most executives and governments had a bump in popularity from Covid; even Italy, where it was a total disaster from the get go. If Trump had done basic stuff around messaging, mask-wearing, avoided holding mass infection events, not peddling conspiracy theories or pushing snake oil, he would've walked the election.

From a political standpoint, Covid was a gift to Trump. What he showed is that there really is a difference between being utterly incompetent and not being utterly incompetent, and there are limits to what even the American public will accept.

Yeah I thought that. He just needed to give prepared speeches and generally keep quiet.

The policy of allowing states to do what they want is a policy that is supported in America, so he wouldn't have lost support for that.

Instead, he couldn't help himself with ridiculous press conferences. He eventually stopped the press conferences, as I think he even realised he had become a laughing stock.

Resistance to lockdown and other measures would have happened in America anyway, as it happened in every country. So again all he had to do was to keep his mouth shut and mention "thoughts and prayers". Lots of Americans want to hear this, but are clearly unwilling to give increased funding to health services etc.

hotmail.com

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If trump had have kept shtum on anything to do with mail in ballots Im convinced he would have had it in the bag. I think thats what really did him in.

Absolutely, between that and his tweeting/rudeness.

The fact that he seemed not to realise this confirms that he isn't that bright.

pixelburp

Wait now, Donald Trump was so inept at feigning humanity he couldn't even "do well" from a natural disaster, generally seen as pretty straightforward political wins (as callous as that reads). Ok, Bush Jr kinda ballsed up Katrina but Trump continuously showed an inability to behave with even the bare modicum of empathy or decorum. Maria and other events convinced me that he neither cares not understands people on any kind of basic emotional level. Maria itself should have been a slam dunk yet got into a war with Porto Ricos mayor, then pivoted to conspiracy that the death toll was a Democrat ploy. When not tossing paper towels like basketballs.

I somewhat agree that Trump could have won had he kept his head down - but that's a line of logic that runs counter to Trump's key state of being. The alcoholic would be fine if it weren't for the drinking. 2020 was always coming, the signs were always there.

hotmail.com

pixelburp wrote: »

Wait now, Donald Trump was so inept at feigning humanity he couldn't even "do well" from a natural disaster, generally seen as pretty straightforward political wins (as callous as that reads). Ok, Bush Jr kinda ballsed up Katrina but Trump continuously showed an inability to behave with even the bare modicum of empathy or decorum. Maria and other events convinced me that he neither cares not understands people on any kind of basic emotional level. Maria itself should have been a slam dunk yet got into a war with Porto Ricos mayor, then pivoted to conspiracy that the death toll was a Democrat ploy. When not tossing paper towels like basketballs.

I somewhat agree that Trump could have won had he kept his head down - but that's a line of logic that runs counter to Trump's key state of being. The alcoholic would be fine if it weren't for the drinking. 2020 was always coming, the signs were always there.

Trump was and is an idiot.

He forgot that he had to be popular to win an election. The first rule of a politician is to be popular. That means you "fake it". Politicians do it all the time. He didn't have the brains to realise this.

Water John

Well Biden doesn't fake it. What you see is what you get.

bertiebomber

Water John wrote: »

Well Biden doesn't fake it. What you see is what you get.

A beautiful silver tongued speaker or should i say a damn good speech writer just like Obama had and everyone was taken in by it. Maybe some of the speech writers should run for office !!

duploelabs

bertiebomber wrote: »

A beautiful silver tongued speaker or should i say a damn good speech writer just like Obama had and everyone was taken in by it. Maybe some of the speech writers should run for office !!

But Trump was one of the best orators of all time???

bertiebomber

duploelabs wrote: »

But Trump was one of the best orators of all time???

No, dreadful but he didnt employ a good speech writer, the dems always do polished succinct and coached delivery super. Everyone in awe of the brilliance of the man but what did he do in 47 years? I cant pin point any real result from him , he is likeable smiley probably knows a lot of Delaware folks by first name as he has been voted back in long enough but what out standing thing has he done. I am not against him i am just looking at a career politician who has bode his time and eventually got in place bit like Michael Martin. Thats all.

Water John

bertiebomber wrote: »

No, dreadful but he didnt employ a good speech writer, the dems always do polished succinct and coached delivery super. Everyone in awe of the brilliance of the man but what did he do in 47 years? I cant pin point any real result from him , he is likeable smiley probably knows a lot of Delaware folks by first name as he has been voted back in long enough but what out standing thing has he done. I am not against him i am just looking at a career politician who has bode his time and eventually got in place bit like Michael Martin. Thats all.

Stephen Millar will be deeply offended.
BTW the Obama Care Act wouldn't have been passed except for Biden. A small achievement You will say but very important to millions of Americans both Dems and GOP supporters.

bertiebomber

Water John wrote: »

Stephen Millar will be deeply offended.

Stephen might have written some good stuff but Trumpys tendency to ad Lib and go off topic ruined his written word and the strategic points he was trying to make. So if Trumpy was a little more obedient like Joe it might have come across better.

duploelabs

bertiebomber wrote: »

Stephen might have written some good stuff but Trumpys tendency to ad Lib and go off topic ruined his written word and the strategic points he was trying to make. So if Trumpy was a little more obedient like Joe it might have come across better.

Point to me some of the examples of Steven Millers work that you think is good

bertiebomber

I wont write anything from his work as it polarizes especially the immigrant policies and i am on probation here ok

ancapailldorcha

bertiebomber wrote: »

I wont write anything from his work as it polarizes especially the immigrant policies and i am on probation here ok

Mod: Please be constructive. Your being on probation is not constructive. Thanks.

Itssoeasy

bertiebomber wrote: »

No, dreadful but he didnt employ a good speech writer, the dems always do polished succinct and coached delivery super. Everyone in awe of the brilliance of the man but what did he do in 47 years? I cant pin point any real result from him , he is likeable smiley probably knows a lot of Delaware folks by first name as he has been voted back in long enough but what out standing thing has he done. I am not against him i am just looking at a career politician who has bode his time and eventually got in place bit like Michael Martin. Thats all.

It wouldn’t have mattered if his speech writers were good or bad. Trump at times refused to read what in the teleprompter so the speeches could have good but we will never know.

hotmail.com

Water John wrote: »

Well Biden doesn't fake it. What you see is what you get.

This would be a first for a politician.

hotmail.com

bertiebomber wrote: »

No, dreadful but he didnt employ a good speech writer, the dems always do polished succinct and coached delivery super. Everyone in awe of the brilliance of the man but what did he do in 47 years? I cant pin point any real result from him , he is likeable smiley probably knows a lot of Delaware folks by first name as he has been voted back in long enough but what out standing thing has he done. I am not against him i am just looking at a career politician who has bode his time and eventually got in place bit like Michael Martin. Thats all.

He's a continuity politician. He won't rock the boat, pro establishment domestically. The all American man. He'll be hoping to get re elected in 2024.

Meanwhile, I await to see what he does on foreign policy.

Gbear

pixelburp wrote: »

I somewhat agree that Trump could have won had he kept his head down - but that's a line of logic that runs counter to Trump's key state of being. The alcoholic would be fine if it weren't for the drinking. 2020 was always coming, the signs were always there.

They were, but he had prior to that been possibly the luckiest president in a century. The question was always about what would happen if he faced a crisis but for much of his presidency none were forthcoming. Bush and Obama, whatever you think of them, either inherited or immediately faced massive crises.

Trump had a layup of a presidency until Covid. He cocked things up with abandon, but mostly he could just hang around, steal money and play golf without too much immediately degenerating. A literal dog could've done a better job. Covid changed that.

Professor Moriarty

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He's much healthier than the last president by a long shot. I'm actually looking forward to the conspiracies in a year or two that Biden has died and they are using a stand in/double for whatever reason.

There is already a theory being widely circulated in QAnon circles that the Joe Biden in the Joe Biden inauguration was a hologram.

bertiebomber

his foreign policy will be to give the armaments industry a leg up so he will go to war as soon as he can they are big donaters.

Timberrrrrrrr

bertiebomber wrote: »

his foreign policy will be to give the armaments industry a leg up so he will go to war as soon as he can they are big donaters.

Its like you don't even bother looking before posting :rolleyes:

Its getting embarrassing now.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/356df221-251f-4eba-a307-88e485ef1d45

The White House has suspended arms sales agreed by Donald Trump to two Gulf allies, the first significant move by President Joe Biden to reset US relations with Sunni Arab regimes heavily courted by his predecessor.

bertiebomber

missed that one thanks soo much for the link. Its so informative to come onto this forum you learn so much from other posters thank you again .

duploelabs

bertiebomber wrote: »

missed that one thanks soo much for the link. Its so informative to come onto this forum you learn so much from other posters thank you again .

You'll be glad to hear know then that following the Americans lead, the Italian government have done the same with the two countries, so yes it's great to defund the weapons industry

bertiebomber

bertiebomber wrote: »

his foreign policy will be to give the armaments industry a leg up so he will go to war as soon as he can they are big donaters.

Well they had very good profits during the trump administration, $175 billion in 2020 alone.
Maybe not such a good year for them under Biden given his potential reversal of sales to the likes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE depending on how the review goes after the current freeze put in place.

robinph

hotmail.com wrote: »

He's a continuity politician. He won't rock the boat, pro establishment domestically. The all American man. He'll be hoping to get re elected in 2024.

Meanwhile, I await to see what he does on foreign policy.

I thought that Biden said he's only standing for one term.

Carfacemandog

robinph wrote: »

I thought that Biden said he's only standing for one term.

I think he's been the fence on the matter. If you google 'Biden one term' you should see articles from late 2019 hunting at one term, and from the summer hinting at two. I only took a quick look but couldn't find any definitive statement from him in either direction.

hotmail.com

robinph wrote: »

I thought that Biden said he's only standing for one term.

I recall Michael D saying the same thing here.

Timberrrrrrrr

robinph wrote: »

I thought that Biden said he's only standing for one term.

I hope he gets 3 or 4 terms, the Republican voters won't have an issue with that will they? They cheered Trump everytime he hinted at staying on indefinitely.

Gbear

hotmail.com wrote: »

I recall Michael D saying the same thing here.

Big difference between a glorified diplomat role and the US presidency.

Biden's never stated, so far as I'm aware, that he was only going to sit for one term. It's mostly just been inferred because of his age, and the sense that he's unrepresentative of the party, but only he'll be able to decide on the former, and the latter doesn't really wash given that he strolled the primaries.

The USP of Biden was always going to be about his cincilliatory nature and the ability to build a competent administration around him, rather than his own personal vigour. However, he'll be 82 in November 2024, which you could argue is just too old to function at the level required of the US president.

At any rate, there needs to be a consensus within the Democratic party about where he's at leading into the election campaign. They can't afford a situation where Kamala and others attempt to primary him.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Well Biden doesn't fake it. What you see is what you get.

Every US politician fakes it. Biden is a master of his trade by now.

hotmail.com wrote: »

He's a continuity politician. He won't rock the boat, pro establishment domestically. The all American man. He'll be hoping to get re elected in 2024.

He won't run in 2024. It'll be Harris, I suspect.

astrofool

tara2k wrote: »

Every US politician fakes it. Biden is a master of his trade by now.



He won't run in 2024. It'll be Harris, I suspect.

No reason he won't go again in 2024, he won against trump by a landslide already, he may have the chance to do it again and really rub it in. He's also fitter and more mentally able than trump, who seems to be getting more and more deranged by the day (and if he didn't look after himself in the white house, he's going to really be piling it on away from there).

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

No reason he won't go again in 2024, he won against trump by a landslide already, he may have the chance to do it again and really rub it in. He's also fitter and more mentally able than trump, who seems to be getting more and more deranged by the day (and if he didn't look after himself in the white house, he's going to really be piling it on away from there).

I really don't see him doing a second run given his age. And in a way, not running again gives him a lot more freedom in the sense he's not gonna have to fight an election towards the end of his term.

Brian?

astrofool wrote: »

No reason he won't go again in 2024, he won against trump by a landslide already, he may have the chance to do it again and really rub it in. He's also fitter and more mentally able than trump, who seems to be getting more and more deranged by the day (and if he didn't look after himself in the white house, he's going to really be piling it on away from there).

I suspect he won’t run in 2024. Harris is already far more prominent than a VP generally is. Every major announcement includes a speech from her.

Not a bad strategy to set her up for a run in 2024.

Tell me how

Brian? wrote: »

I suspect he won’t run in 2024. Harris is already far more prominent than a VP generally is. Every major announcement includes a speech from her.

Not a bad strategy to set her up for a run in 2024.

I think 2022 midterms are a big event that they should not take their eyes off. Stacey Abrams is likely running for Governor then also. They should support her with everything they can to ensure she is a continued positive story and influence in 2024.

That aside, if I was chief strategist for the DNC, I would keep Harris front and centre, get all the heavy lifting out of the way hopefully in the first 12-18 months with hopefully positive stories to lead in to those mid-terms, and then hopefully Dems retain control and maybe have Biden resign to give Harris 18 months to show she can do the job ahead of 2024 when she will be up against either Pence or Halley.

Of course, if the next 5 years are anything like the last 5, Paris Hilton might be President in January 2025.

y0ssar1an22

Tell me how wrote: »

I think 2022 midterms are a big event that they should not take their eyes off. Stacey Abrams is likely running for Governor then also. They should support her with everything they can to ensure she is a continued positive story and influence in 2024.

That aside, if I was chief strategist for the DNC, I would keep Harris front and centre, get all the heavy lifting out of the way hopefully in the first 12-18 months with hopefully positive stories to lead in to those mid-terms, and then hopefully Dems retain control and maybe have Biden resign to give Harris 18 months to show she can do the job ahead of 2024 when she will be up against either Pence or Halley.

Of course, if the next 5 years are anything like the last 5, Paris Hilton might be President in January 2025.

i disagree. i dont think there is any chance the DNC run KH in the next election.

far too much of her past is up for debate. laughing at smoking weed while at the same time prosecuting people for the same crime?

americans for the most part, are more clued in.

no idea who the next democratic nominee is.

Tell me how

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i disagree. i dont think there is any chance the DNC run KH in the next election.

far too much of her past is up for debate. laughing at smoking weed while at the same time prosecuting people for the same crime?

americans for the most part, are more clued in.

no idea who the next democratic nominee is.

Some guy who had been accused of several sex crimes, had seen several businesses fail and bragged about grabbing women by their genitalia ran in 2016 and actually won. He had also advocated that people who turned out to be innocent get the death penalty. He then only paid $750 in taxes in some years while he was President, wanted police to use violence, mismanaged a global pandemic, was impeached and still got 74M to vote for him.

But someone smoking weed will be enough to exclude them? Different standards for some eh?

Eric Cartman

astrofool wrote: »

No reason he won't go again in 2024, he won against trump by a landslide already, he may have the chance to do it again and really rub it in. He's also fitter and more mentally able than trump, who seems to be getting more and more deranged by the day (and if he didn't look after himself in the white house, he's going to really be piling it on away from there).

I think a lot of people are basing the idea of Joe running again in 2024 as plausible are taking Trump as his 2024 opponent as a given. I do not think Trump will be back for 2024 , no idea who they’d pick but if the GOP can get somebody the public like, it could be a much harder battle that Joe just doesn’t want to face or his advisors don’t see as a win.

KH running in 2024 is 50/50, a weak GOP candidate and she would be mad not to try take the throne , but it would have to be a weak offering, I think Trump would beat KH but I think she’d beat the likes of Marco Rubio.

serfboard

Tell me how wrote: »

and still got 64M to vote for him.

I know you still can't believe that 64 million people actually voted for him.

But, it's worse than you think. It was actually 74 million.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

No reason he won't go again in 2024, he won against trump by a landslide already, he may have the chance to do it again and really rub it in.

He didn't win by a landslide. Trump polled very well, better than he did against Hillary. He gained support among minorities, for example.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I do not think Trump will be back for 2024 , no idea who they’d pick but if the GOP can get somebody the public like, it could be a much harder battle that Joe just doesn’t want to face or his advisors don’t see as a win.

I can't see Trump running in 2024. That being said, he is adored by tens of millions of voters, and the GOP need to harness that 'Trump factor', when the election comes. If Trump endorses their candidate, that is going to result in a huge volume of votes. I'm amazed by the passion that people have for Trump. I thought that it'd dissipate once Biden took office, but it's as strong as it have ever been now. It's bordering on a cult at this point.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

KH running in 2024 is 50/50, a weak GOP candidate and she would be mad not to try take the throne , but it would have to be a weak offering, I think Trump would beat KH but I think she’d beat the likes of Marco Rubio.

What is your idea of a weak candidate? Trump would beat her hands down. I see Hillary when I look at her. Her background in Hinduism wouldn't sit well with people. Think Mitt Romney v Obama, and his background in Mormonism. The Evangelicals wouldn't vote for because he was LDS.

Timberrrrrrrr

tara2k wrote: »

He didn't win by a landslide. Trump polled very well, better than he did against Hillary. He gained support among minorities, for example.



I can't see Trump running in 2024. That being said, he is adored by tens of millions of voters, and the GOP need to harness that 'Trump factor', when the election comes. If Trump endorses their candidate, that is going to result in a huge volume of votes. I'm amazed by the passion that people have for Trump. I thought that it'd dissipate once Biden took office, but it's as strong as it have ever been now. It's bordering on a cult at this point.



What is your idea of a weak candidate? Trump would beat her hands down. I see Hillary when I look at her. Her background in Hinduism wouldn't sit well with people. Think Mitt Romney v Obama, and his background in Mormonism. The Evangelicals wouldn't vote for because he was LDS.

He got the same number of EC votes as Trump got (and also a lot more in the popular vote) Trump constantly said that his win over Clinton was a landslide, so going by that Biden also won by a landslide right?