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

Anti Biden ?

You mean posters who arent pro Biden or Biden cheerleaders surely ?

You can criticise someone without being anti them, there is a difference.

Anyone who criticises Biden in here more than often gets called "you lot" "Trumpists" and far far worse.

You've added nothing of substance twice today already, and have dropped the discussion on policies that are looking to help demographics that the other poster agreed with then ran away after talking themselves into a corner only for all the debate to be reduced to pretend outrage again, but it can start again if you like. Native Americans are 20% more likely to smoke, is it OK to target them with an anti smoking campaign?

I was going to highlight the MisterAnarchy spiral of dumping and running and then this happened anyway in the quote below, start adding some substance, reduce the shitposting, you've become a parody, if you want to attack Biden, bring evidence, stick around for the debate, he's doing plenty wrong but falling back on the sleepy Biden memes at this stage is ridiculous.

Nice that you've had a change of heart re triaging based on race.

Do you accept that the Covid payments policy we discussed earlier was also racist, as determined by the courts?

Also I watched the video from 28mins on and saw nothing strange. He's listening to some farmer lad shite on and it's boring to say the least, he then finishes by saying 'I'm from Delaware, most people think the largest industry is chemicals, it's not its chickens'. The conference is over and the press are asked to leave, shouting questions as they go. Don't see what the issue is personally.

He, uhh, made a reference to Delaware's biggest industry not being chemicals, but chickens. Broilers. Laughed a bit about that as did the press in the room. Then, he ignored press questions as they were ushered out.

Might've looked a bit fatigued having listened to the farmers go on for 30 minutes about the plight of the farmer, but I don't expect him to bang his desk and shout about it.

Nice of him to have had this conference. So, I believe he's a bit fatigued and looks somewhat worn after nearly a year in office fighting a huge challenge to America's security in Covid (and the GQP).

There's no 3 card trick here, but at least you seem to be saying it's fine to target a demographic in some circumstances (so I guess for others it's no longer an outrage but just not good).

So, if we take it back a bit, what's happening here, if it were in an Irish context, is that people with blond hair are having consistently worse treatment and outcomes than redheads and brunettes. The doctors and nurses have been told to treat all hair types the same, and they agree, but nothing really changes. The outcomes for poor blondes remains worse for poor redheads, the outcome for obese blondes remains worse than that of obese brunettes.

Now, if the goal is for everyone to have the same opportunity of outcome, then that means targeting blonde patients specifically, and it doesn't mean they get better treatment but that by putting a policy that puts them to the top of the list that their outcomes at least start matching that of the brunettes and redheads, and yes, the policy looks like it's disadvantaging the redheads and brunettes, but the real world outcome is that the redheads and brunettes still average better outcomes but that blondes outcomes improve.

This does of course mean that a different set of people have better outcomes, but the argument is that there should have been no difference between the groups in the first place and that the policy has worked in creating more equal outcomes even though it discriminates against some groups.

And if we start seeing blondes have on average better outcomes, then the policy can be dropped or lessened (and I'm sure some shouty type redheads and brunettes will be watching like a hawk in case this happens).

You're right, there is always disparities, however, in this case the reason for different outcomes is solely because the people involved in the treatment are putting one group ahead of the other rather than anything to do with genetics and background. It's also not historical racism if people are wrongly being prioritised by race today, there can certainly be historical reasons why it happens.

Personally, I am not a supporter of Trump, but think that Biden is not the best president. I don't even know who will vote for him in the next elections. 

I don't know this, it's the reason the policy is being enacted in this case, if that data is wrong, then the policy can be changed, but the objection seems to be that such a policy even exists rather than the data it's based off being wrong (this is a problem when the immediate reaction is to jump to outrage rather than look at the data and reasoning first).

Similarly with equality of opportunity, the policy is trying to achieve that because it is not being achieved already, this can, on paper, look like it's discriminating against some groups, in practice it would likely only get to a position where equality of opportunity existed (and I doubt it would even get that far). Outcomes can't be normalised but when 2 groups have consistently different outcomes and the only difference is their ethnicity (and the outcome is unrelated to genetics) then there is a problem.

Just caught about half of Biden's speech in the Capitol rotunda.

I like the guy, I think he's been an outstanding public servant for over 50 years, heck I'm even related to him.

But....it was a dreadful speech. It was antagonistic, it had no note of reconciliation or aspiration to do better for everyone. It was rambling, it was overly bitter and he seemed very, very old.

He could have tried to elevate the discourse, but honestly he got down in the dirt with some quiet Trump like rhetoric.

Given that Trump pulled out of his own gong show later, this was Biden's opportunity to be the real Statesman, a president for all the people and I just didn't hear that from him.

It isn't.

Those that want to move on and try and improve things need to bring small-C conservatives along with them, those who are Republicans but who are disgusted with their leadership. I don't think Biden's remarks today did a lot to attract them.

Read Bush Chief of Staff Karl Rove in the WSJ today for an excellent description of where things are and what is needed.

Sounds bang on the money to me.

Because he's the POTUS and has mid-term elections in 10 months time.

In other words, the same reasons every President in history has tried to appeal to registered voters of the other party. The same reasons Reagan won 49 states.