Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Tell me how

12gauge dave wrote: »

Dude what questions are you on about?
Why I support Ron Paul?

Could you quote where I said I was in support of Ron Paul in anyway?

Or are you assuming I'm a Ron Paul fan because I am a Donald trump fan?

Quoted for posterity.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

Excellent questions but I'll have to circle back to you on them.

For today I'm just glad we have found common ground and both disagree on Bidens transgenders in female sports order.

Some of that unity Biden was looking for in action.

Also, just to take you up on this quote that you keep referencing.

Yes, we now actually have daily press conferences again rather than Twitter rants from a president hiding in his bunker. And yes, when Psaki doesn’t know something, she doesn’t ramble or lie like Kayleigh, she instead says that she will find out the answer later. If you actually watched the press briefings in full, you will see that she actually answers the overwhelming majority of questions and answers them directly and truthfully.

And most importantly, if you had actually watched any recent briefings (and you evidently haven't) you would see that she did actually circle back and answer those previous questions. She was not saying that just to avoid answering the question, she was saying it to ensure that she gave an accurate, truthful response. She didn't know the answer at the time because some questions were complicated or about specific figures so she went back and answered them next time.

The fact that you think that this is not what a press secretary should do is bizarre. How do you think she should answer such questions? Lie and ramble like Kayleigh? Or do you think a press secretary should have the figures ready for every possible question that could be asked?

Quantum Baloney

Interesting post and I will read through all of it. On a superficial level, it seems to me that alongside the more troubling claims, there are a large number of of ideas which although we might not share them, are in essence a question of philosophy rather than a question of undeniable truth with which to beat him. This would not be so important except for the fact that he self-identifies as a libertarian, and must admit that his personal sentiments regarding the social organisation of a libertarian society would be 100% monopolized by its structural ethos.

Regarding the worst of it: if he ever did court racist elements, which would be a deep shame if true, then it creates an interesting conundrum.

Firstly, we should admit that is hard to reconcile it with the image of the man as he presents himself today, and I would assume that many of his enemies would go as far to agree this much also. But at the same time, one can easily imagine that some of the elements converging around libertarian interest groups at that point in history were supportive of those tendencies. Is racism fundamentally tied at the hip to the concept of American Libertarianism as a whole? Or is it possible that Ron Paul was actually unique among libertarians at that time in not ascribing a whole lot of value to that question, but who nevertheless rubbed shoulders with a collection of people that did.

nolivesmatter

Deleted User wrote: »

There is actually a lot of outroar from feminists and others about that. You're trying to make out that this is a partisan opinion and that you've found a "look Biden is bad, gotcha!" moment. Unlike the GOP, democrats do not all agree with what a sitting president has ordered just because it was the president that ordered it and have the backbone to voice their own opinions on matters.

I see that you have liked paw patrol's posts about Ron Paul so I assume you are also a fan of him. Would you like to defend his opinions or would you also prefer to put your fingers in your ears?

Lets hope they do that on this issue.

12gauge dave

Deleted User wrote: »

No, I am asking you if you are a Ron Paul fan. Are you?

No are you?

extra gravy

12gauge dave wrote: »

Excellent questions but I'll have to circle back to you on them.

You should probably stop saying this, it's just making you look silly. Psaki actually answers the questions she's asked, you don't.

12gauge dave

extra gravy wrote: »

You should probably stop saying this, it's just making you look silly. Psaki actually answers the questions she's asked, you don't.

I answered his question he assumed I am a Ron Paul fan.

I answered saying I am not a Ron Paul fan.

If you have any questions you would like to ask me then go ahead sir.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

No are you?

No. Why have you liked this post then? Is it because you are just a sheep that likes any posts that attacks democrats even if you don't agree with them personally?

12gauge dave wrote: »

I answered his question he assumed I am a Ron Paul fan.

I answered saying I am not a Ron Paul fan.

If you have any questions you would like to ask me then go ahead sir.

He is saying that you should stop making this "circle back" statement as it's embarrassing for you based on what I said. Would you like to respond to my post about Psaki or shall you also ignore it like you have many of my other posts?

Quantum Baloney

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

Interesting post and I will read through all of it. On a superficial level, it seems to me that alongside the more troubling claims, there are a large number of of ideas which although we might not share them, are in essence a question of philosophy rather than a question of undeniable truth with which to beat him. This would not be so important except for the fact that he self-identifies as a libertarian, and must admit that his personal sentiments regarding the social organisation of a libertarian society would be 100% monopolized by its structural ethos.

Regarding the worst of it: if he ever did court racist elements, which would be a deep shame if true, then it creates an interesting conundrum.

Firstly, we should admit that is hard to reconcile it with the image of the man as he presents himself today, and I would assume that many of his enemies would go as far to agree this much also. But at the same time, one can easily imagine that some of the elements converging around libertarian interest groups at that point in history were supportive of those tendencies. Is racism fundamentally tied at the hip to the concept of American Libertarianism as a whole? Or is it possible that Ron Paul was actually unique among libertarians at that time in not ascribing a whole lot of value to that question, but who nevertheless rubbed shoulders with a collection of people that did.

It seems that you are focusing on my first point, namely that he is a massive racist, and that that may be because libertarians as a whole had racial tendencies in the past but Ron Paul may no longer have such beliefs is that right?

In 2018, he retweeted an incredibly racist cartoon.
https://newrepublic.com/article/149536/ron-paul-tweets-openly-racist-cartoon

In 2011, he had several meetings with white supremacists and endorsed one for a seat on the Los Angeles Superior Court.
https://newsone.com/1845355/emails-show-meetings-between-ron-paul-and-white-supremacists/

In 2008, he kept a campaign donation from a known white supremacist.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna22331091

12gauge dave

Deleted User wrote: »

No. Why have you liked this post then? Is it because you are just a sheep that likes any posts that attacks democrats even if you don't agree with them personally?



He is saying that you should stop making this "circle back" statement as it's embarrassing for you based on what I said. Would you like to respond to my post about Psaki or shall you also ignore it like you have many of my other posts?

So you assume someone is a fan of someone from liking a post?

You know what they say about the word ASSUME
It makes an ASS out of U and Me.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

So you assume someone is a fan of someone from liking a post?

You know what they say about the word ASSUME
It makes an ASS out of U and Me.

No. Again, I asked if you liked him, you said no, so I am now asking you why you thanked that post? If you don't like Ron Paul, why did you not thank my post where I demonstrated why someone should not like him, but instead thanked the post of someone defending him?

I think we all know the answer, but you just won't admit to it.

And I'm assuming you're ignoring my request to respond to my post about Psaki because you can't come up with a sensible reply is that right?

12gauge dave

Deleted User wrote: »

I see that you have liked paw patrol's posts about Ron Paul so I assume you are also a fan of him. Would you like to defend his opinions or would you also prefer to put your fingers in your ears?

No you first assumed I was a fan of Ron Paul you didn't ask me was I fan of Ron Paul.

I know you like to paint us all as racist bigots but have some evidence first please.

ohnonotgmail

12gauge dave wrote: »

No you first assumed I was a fan of Ron Paul you didn't ask me was I fan of Ron Paul.

I know you like to paint us all as racist bigots but have some evidence first please.

why would you thank a post that defended rand paul?

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

No you assumed I was a fan of Ron Paul you didn't aks me was I fan of Ron Paul.

I know you like to paint us all as racist bigots but please have some evidence first please.

So for the third time, if you indeed are not a fan of Ron Paul, why did you not thank my post where I demonstrated why someone should not like him, but instead thanked the post of someone defending him?

And again, for the third time, are you ignoring my request to respond to my post about Psaki because you can't come up with a sensible reply?

Try your best not to deflect from these two questions this time, I believe in you.

McGinniesta

I often wonder what is wrong with a system that gives the world Joe Biden -v- Donald Trump in a two horse race for it's head of government.

Leroy42

McGinniesta wrote: »

I often wonder what is wrong with a system that gives the world Joe Biden -v- Donald Trump in a two horse race for it's head of government.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Biden. Years of experience has served as VP for 8 years, has a good record of bi-partisan work, well respected, have well-developed policy plans.

The only thing that would go against him is his age, but he seems relatively healthy and coherent.

Trump on the other hand, I totally agree.

12gauge dave

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why would you thank a post that defended rand paul?

I will only like posts that you recommend from now on sorry won't happen agian.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

I will only like posts that you recommend from now on sorry won't happen agian.

Why are you not answering any questions directly? We are asking you very simple questions. You thanked that post for a reason, what was that reason?

12gauge dave

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are you not answering any questions directly? We are asking you very simple questions. You thanked that post for a reason, what was that reason?

Could you quote this post i thanked where I am supposedly defending the ideas of a man I'd never heard of before yesterday?

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

Could you quote this post i thanked where I am supposedly defending the ideas of a man I'd never heard of before yesterday?

I already have.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116165542&postcount=1719

And you didn't hear of Ron Paul until yesterday? You don't know much about US politics do you?

And you're still going to ignore my Psaki post I assume?

duploelabs

paw patrol wrote: »

LOLz

yup. that guy.
I'd vote for most of those myself , i'll leave you to figure out which ones.


I'll take your word for all those "allegations",
How dare he have opinions that are opposed to yours. :rolleyes:

You thanked this one, and before you unthank it, I've attached a screenshot

12gauge dave

paw patrol wrote: »

How dare he have opinions that are opposed to yours. :rolleyes:

This is the reason why I liked that post.

Now have you any more assumptions about me or any other brushes you would like to paint me with?

McGinniesta

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is nothing inherently wrong with Biden. Years of experience has served as VP for 8 years, has a good record of bi-partisan work, well respected, have well-developed policy plans.

The only thing that would go against him is his age, but he seems relatively healthy and coherent.

Trump on the other hand, I totally agree.

What did he achieve in 8 years as VP. I'm no expert in these issues so what is his track record of good bi partisan work.

12gauge dave

duploelabs wrote: »

You thanked this one, and before you unthank it, I've attached a screenshot

The reason I liked that post is the final line

"" How dare he have opinions that are opposed to yours.""

Is there something wrong with that and if so could you please explain?

Tell me how

McGinniesta wrote: »

What did he achieve in 8 years as VP. I'm no expert in these issues so what is his track record of good bi partisan work.

To start you off.

• As Vice President, oversaw implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, then the biggest economic recovery plan in our country’s history. helped rebuild the American economy and save the American auto industry, lifting us out of the Great Recession
• Brokered Senate negotiations between Democrats and Republicans to pass the Budget Control Act of 2011 and avert a federal government shutdown
• Led a review in 2014 of federal employment and training programs that reach more than 21 million people per year, retooling $1.5 billion in grants to align with job-driven training best practices

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

This is the reason why I liked that post.

Now have you any more assumptions about me or any other brushes you would like to paint me with?

You thanked the post because you believe it was outrageous that I should call Ron Paul out for having different opinions to me, including racist opinions, nonsense conspiracy theories etc.? But then you attacked me later on for having a different opinion to Biden?

And you did not thank the post where I demonstrated why this man is unlikeable, a man who you claim to dislike?

A very well known man who won four states in the 2012 primaries, and yet somehow a man who you claim to have never heard of until yesterday?

And when we asked you why thanked that post, you deflected from answering that question about a dozen times, while also "forgetting" that I had sent you a link to the post?

Do you think a rational person should believe that? Or do you think a rational person should instead believe that you like Ron Paul, but don't want to admit it?

Leroy42

McGinniesta wrote: »

What did he achieve in 8 years as VP. I'm no expert in these issues so what is his track record of good bi partisan work.

How much does any VP achieve? Is it a ceremonial position mostly.

But what it does it is give a person hands on experience across all areas of government. Dealing with Congress, dealing wit foreign policy, the military, seeing the reality of the problems facing the nation.

The point being that you called into question how a country could have ended up with two such candidates as Biden and Trump.

Regardless of your views on Bidens politics, there is no calling into question his experience. And whilst he may not have had responsibility during the Obama years, it is a rather usual process that those that were previously VP, or assistant etc would be looking upon as being a good nest step for the next job.

duploelabs

12gauge dave wrote: »

The reason I liked that post is the final line

"" How dare he have opinions that are opposed to yours.""

Is there something wrong with that and if so could you please explain?

I have absolutely no issue at all with people expressing different views here.

I do have an issue with posters who come here and argue in bad faith, who answer questions with questions to dodge, or even blatantly refuse to answer questions. It's childish and will be responded to as such

duploelabs

Leroy42 wrote: »

How much does any VP achieve? Is it a ceremonial position mostly.

But what it does it is give a person hands on experience across all areas of government. Dealing with Congress, dealing wit foreign policy, the military, seeing the reality of the problems facing the nation.

The point being that you called into question how a country could have ended up with two such candidates as Biden and Trump.

Regardless of your views on Bidens politics, there is no calling into question his experience. And whilst he may not have had responsibility during the Obama years, it is a rather usual process that those that were previously VP, or assistant etc would be looking upon as being a good nest step for the next job.

In fairness, this was the case before Dick Cheney

12gauge dave

Deleted User wrote: »

You thanked the post because you believe it was outrageous that I should call Ron Paul out for having different opinions to me, including racist opinions, nonsense conspiracy theories etc.? But then you attacked me later on for having a different opinion to Biden?

And you did not thank the post where I demonstrated why this man is unlikeable, a man who you claim to dislike?

A very well known man who won four states in the 2012 primaries, and yet somehow a man who you claim to have never heard of until yesterday?

And when we asked you why thanked that post, you deflected from answering that question about a dozen times, while also "forgetting" that I had sent you a link to the post?

Do you think a rational person should believe that? Or do you think a rational person should instead believe that you like Ron Paul, but don't want to admit it?

Am I losing my mind here?

You have assumed that I am a Ron Paul fan and brushing me with all his beliefs because I thanked a post?

When I gave you reason I thanked post you have tried to turn it on me again with new assumptions.

I have made no assumptions against you at all.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

Am I losing my mind here?

No you did that quite a while ago when you became a Trump fan.

12gauge dave wrote: »

You have assumed that I am a Ron Paul fan and brushing me with all his beliefs because I thanked a post?

When I gave you reason I thanked post you have tried to turn it on me again with new assumptions.

No I am assuming one of the following:

1) You do like Ron Paul and don't want to admit it.

2) You did like Ron Paul until you ready my post and realised you didn't know him as well as you thought but don't want to admit it.

3) You are thanking any posts that are pro-republican without thinking because you are a sheep.

I would lean towards 3) with my second guess being 1). 2) is least likely since you said you're new to politics before, but who knows.

And I'm guessing that's a no to replying to my Psaki post? Or have you conveniently lost the link to that post as well?

12gauge dave wrote: »

I have made no assumptions against you at all.

Don't act like you are not one to make assumptions.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=116100344

12gauge dave

Deleted User wrote: »

No you did that quite a while ago when you became a Trump fan.

Now your assuming I lost my mind many years ago.

Dude just admit you wrongly accused me of alot of things today with nothing of any substance to back it up.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

Now your assuming I lost my mind many years ago.

Dude just admit you wrongly accused me of alot of things today with nothing of any substance to back it up.

Why did you spend 3-4 hours making posts stating that the reasons people said you thanked that post were wrong and deflecting from it when, based on the fact that you just recently asked me to link to that post, you didn't even know what post we were talking about?

12gauge dave

Deleted User wrote: »

Why did you spend 3-4 hours making posts stating that the reasons people said you thanked that post were wrong and deflecting from it when, based on the fact that you just recently asked me to link to that post, you didn't even know what post we were talking about?

I can't even make sense of that post my friend but we should just call it quits for the sake of the thread we are arguing about why someone liked a post it's low energy at best.

I'm sure we will have plenty of further back and forwards over coming years about more pressing issues.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

I can't even make sense of that post my friend but we should just call it quits for the sake of the thread we are arguing about why someone liked a post it's low energy at best.

I'm sure you can understand my post very well. You spend hours deflecting from explaining why you thanked a post, and yet you apparently didn't even know what post we were referring to nor did you bother trying to find out (even though it was linked to you).

12gauge dave wrote: »

I'm sure we will have plenty of further back and forwards over coming years about more pressing issues.

I have already given you a new topic to discuss, but you have deflected from it what, 8 or 9 times now? Here, I shall link you the post I am referring to in case you lost this one too.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116164821&postcount=1713

Would you like to comment on it, or would you prefer instead to continue with your assumption (oh no your worst enemy! :eek:) that she is not a good press secretary?

namloc1980

Good news. Joe Biden is withdrawing the US from the war in Yemen. https://apnews.com/article/biden-end-support-saudi-offenseive-yemen-b68f58493dbfc530b9fcfdb80a13098f

The previous "peaceful" administration expanded US involvement in that terrible war, so great to see Joe immediately rectifying that.

12gauge dave

namloc1980 wrote: »

Good news. Joe Biden is withdrawing the US from the war in Yemen. https://apnews.com/article/biden-end-support-saudi-offenseive-yemen-b68f58493dbfc530b9fcfdb80a13098f

The previous "peaceful" administration expanded US involvement in that terrible war, so great to see Joe immediately rectifying that.

The Obama administration in which Joe Biden was Vice President of also expanded US involvement in that war.

Its good to see him change his mind on that war though alll the same and I commend him for it.

eagle eye

I'm impressed by the vigor and energy Biden has brought to the office. He's been very busy, fair play to him. Looking more and more like a great one everyday that goes by.

Timberrrrrrrr

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm impressed by the vigor and energy Biden has brought to the office. He's been very busy, fair play to him. Looking more and more like a great one everyday that goes by.

But But But....he wears a Rolex!!!

Tell me how

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm impressed by the vigor and energy Biden has brought to the office. He's been very busy, fair play to him. Looking more and more like a great one everyday that goes by.

Do you think that is better for American society that Trump is not President for a second term?

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

Jen "I will circle back to you" to avoid answering your question psaki

Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) Tweeted:
SUPERCUT!

Jen Psaki (@jrpsaki) is going to “circle back” https://t.co/uf5yAWmcYy https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1354188490985107456?s=20

Just wanted to bring this up again as I hadn't watched this clip in full and wanted to see if I was being too harsh on you since you said you were new to politics, but it was actually more ridiculous than I thought.

From my count, she said her "circle back with you" comment 15 times over the space of 5 briefings. (Or is it 4 briefings? Did they separate the briefing with her read jacket into two to make it seem like more? Not sure.) This means that she said that phrase on average 3 times each meeting.

Anyway, I decided to rewatch the two of those briefings that I had seen before (in neither was she wearing a red jacket to clarify my question above unfortunately). The Q&A section for these two briefings both lasted roughly 27 and 29 minutes respectively.

This means that she said that phrase on average 3 times within 28 minutes of questioning.

I also roughly counted that she answered 20-25 questions within each of those sessions (depending on if you consider follow up questions separate questions or not).

This means she said that on average 3 times within 20-25 questions.

However, the most ridiculous thing about this twitter clip was that they didn't seem to take into account when she said it.

In total in the two briefings that I watched, she said that phrase five times.

In two of those five instances, she actually fully answered the question that was asked but then added at the end something like "but I will circle back to you if I have more info".

Another two of those five times, it was said it in relation to the same question. She said something like "I will have to circle back to you because blah blah blah so I will have to circle back to you" but the twitter clip of course made it out to appear like it was her answer for two separate questions.

So, in total from almost an hour of questioning and from 40-50 questions, she said "I don't know so I will have to circle back to you" twice. Both of those times were in the first briefing I watched. And, you guessed it, she did indeed circle back to both questions in the second briefing and answered them.

Ridiculous the spin some people try to put on things. The person who edited that was fully aware of what they were doing.

eagle eye

Tell me how wrote:

Do you think that is better for American society that Trump is not President for a second term?

Trump was horrendous, a golden retriever would be better than Trump.

12gauge dave

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wanted to bring this up again as I hadn't watched this clip in full and wanted to see if I was being too harsh on you since you said you were new to politics, but it was actually more ridiculous than I thought.

From my count, she said her "circle back with you" comment 15 times over the space of 5 briefings. (Or is it 4 briefings? Did they separate the briefing with her read jacket into two to make it seem like more? Not sure.) This means that she said that phrase on average 3 times each meeting.

Anyway, I decided to rewatch the two of those briefings that I had seen before (in neither was she wearing a red jacket to clarify my question above unfortunately). The Q&A section for these two briefings both lasted roughly 27 and 29 minutes respectively.

This means that she said that phrase on average 3 times within 28 minutes of questioning.

I also roughly counted that she answered 20-25 questions within each of those sessions (depending on if you consider follow up questions separate questions or not).

This means she said that on average 3 times within 20-25 questions.

However, the most ridiculous thing about this twitter clip was that they didn't seem to take into account when she said it.

In total in the two briefings that I watched, she said that phrase five times.

In two of those five instances, she actually fully answered the question that was asked but then added at the end something like "but I will circle back to you if I have more info".

Another two of those five times, it was said it in relation to the same question. She said something like "I will have to circle back to you because blah blah blah so I will have to circle back to you" but the twitter clip of course made it out to appear like it was her answer for two separate questions.

So, in total from almost an hour of questioning and from 40-50 questions, she said "I don't know so I will have to circle back to you" twice. Both of those times were in the first briefing I watched. And, you guessed it, she did indeed circle back to both questions in the second briefing and answered them.

Ridiculous the spin some people try to put on things. The person who edited that was fully aware of what they were doing.

No you were being harsh on me when you asked me why I liked a post on boards.ie and why I didn't like your post.
I have the liberty to like any post I should choose to and don't have to answer as to why to anyone.


You also brang my mental health in to it when you said I lost my mind when I became a Trump supporter.

As I said I'm willing to let it go and look forward to
Future converse.

Ted_YNWA

Mod

12gauge dave & Deleted User

Bring it to PM, don't drag the topic into a back & forth like this.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

No you were being harsh on me when you asked me why I liked a post on boards.ie and why I didn't like your post.

How is it considered harsh when you are still avoiding questions about it? You have still yet to respond to my last post about it. My assumption is perfectly valid giving the way way you were (and are) deflecting questions.

Speaking about assumptions, are you going to be a big man and admit that this assumption that you made about a person you have never even interacted with is false

12gauge dave wrote: »

Jen "I will circle back to you" to avoid answering your question psaki

based on what I've said, seeing as how you hate assumptions being made about people so much?

12gauge dave wrote: »

You also brang my mental health in to it when you said I lost my mind when I became a Trump supporter.

Have another read of those posts. Who was it that said you were losing your mind first? Me or you? I merely give you a possible reason as to why that was the case, no need to thank me.

12gauge dave wrote: »

As I said I'm willing to let it go and look forward to
Future converse.

I have already given you another topic to converse about and you have now avoided that topic for, what, the 11th time I think? And I fully expect you to not converse about it for the 12th time in your next reply (if there is a next reply, you may instead go silent again, who knows).

Edit: Sorry Ted_YNWA, replied after seeing your post.

Twice impeached and incited an Insurrection... And that's only a small sample.

mcmoustache

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm impressed by the vigor and energy Biden has brought to the office. He's been very busy, fair play to him. Looking more and more like a great one everyday that goes by.

I still think that he's just being boringly competent. Instead of rage-tweeting hours of tv, he's actually showing up to work. Instead of filling roles with grifters, sycophants and clowns, he's gone for experienced experts. Instead of being obsessed with himself, he understands that there's a duty to the country when you're a president.


That might sound like praise but, to borrow from a famous Chris Rock bit, that's what he's "supposed to do". He's just doing a decent job. It only looks impressive because people are used to 4 years of a clown. The same thing would happen if you got a literal clown to fix a leaking pipe in your house and after lots of animal balloons floating on your flooded floor you eventually hired a qualified plumber. Your leak would be sorted out and you'd be impressed but at the end of the day, the man was just a plumber and he did what plumbers are supposed to do.

astrofool

mcmoustache wrote: »

I still think that he's just being boringly competent. Instead of rage-tweeting hours of tv, he's actually showing up to work. Instead of filling roles with grifters, sycophants and clowns, he's gone for experienced experts. Instead of being obsessed with himself, he understands that there's a duty to the country when you're a president.


That might sound like praise but, to borrow from a famous Chris Rock bit, that's what he's "supposed to do". He's just doing a decent job. It only looks impressive because people are used to 4 years of a clown. The same thing would happen if you got a literal clown to fix a leaking pipe in your house and after lots of animal balloons floating on your flooded floor you eventually hired a qualified plumber. Your leak would be sorted out and you'd be impressed but at the end of the day, the man was just a plumber and he did what plumbers are supposed to do.

Some people hired the clown to fix a leak, and won't admit their mistake while their house gets washed away, but, yay, balloons. Those people are now annoyed when their neighbours plumber doesn't make balloons for them.

Water John

Powerful speech by Hoyer and shaming the GOP members who vote for Greene.

Carfacemandog

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Blinken Where Trump vetoed Yemen in pursuit of the war with Iran, President Bidens administration can easily get cross party support to actually do something positive for the people in Yemen. It will not cost him any votes as the cross partisan support is there and it presents an easy political win given the antagonism between the two sides. Why my interest in Yemen on boards now? , the people in Yemen are being punished because of an ideological war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with change in US administration there is now a window to act.

And act Biden now has. The anti war/anti Saudi arms crowd will take note of this, I am sure.

President Joe Biden announced Thursday the United States was ending support for a grinding five-year Saudi-led military offensive in Yemen that has deepened suffering in the Arabian peninsula’s poorest country, calling the move part of restoring a U.S. emphasis on diplomacy, democracy and human rights.