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

How is it data manipulation?

Take something like salary. In some US states, employers were banned from asking for your previous salary in interviews as they had been using this in setting salary in new job. If someone had been subject to discrimination in the past, this is then perpetuated. Makes sense to me.

Could historical data sets used in business processing algorithms perpetuate past discrimination? Maybe.

Do I know what needs to be done? Nope. But the issue needs consideration and labelling it "data manipulation" with no substance behind that argument is without merit or foundation.

Strongly disagree that it is a messaging issue - many of the outcomes are simply incredibly unpopular.

High level concept or branding of a proposal is where you can message easier, where it gets far tougher is messaging when you're trying to change things and people simply don't like the details of the impacts.

There isn't an easy way to message your way out of a person losing your doctor, longer waiting lists, or higher taxes.

The right is dealing with similar regarding concepts that are relatively popular but the specifics are unpopular.

How will he recover from this absolute scandal??

It's like Obama's tan suit all over again 😞

Actually it very much is idk if that was snark.

This is something I’ve highlighted in police bias threads: if you base your patrols, staffing and tactics etc. off data sets as old as Jim Crow or past eras of racial profiling etc then you’re going off systemically bad/racist data and it will net discriminatory outcomes. Like, was there really a spike in Muslims committing crimes after 9/11 or was there a spike in overpolicing of Muslims after 9/11, e.g.

Is this edited to look worse than it is, because I must say that if it's not edited, then it's fairly bad. He doesn't sound great here, at all.

If the Republicans could muster some kind of candidate who's not a vengeful narcissist, they'd have every chance of taking out Biden in a general, but they can't, so here we are.

I don't think Biden would run if it wasn't incredibly likely Trump would be his opponent

I agree. That's how bad Trump was that he made Biden seem infinitely preferable, where in any other election scenario Biden would come off as almost as corporate/centrist a Democrat as Hillary. But the Republican party made their bed with Trump, and now they may lie in it.

It was good for Biden because it looked more attractive vs. Trump's fire-breathing jackassery. Biden was an established politician with a track record and decent and sane to boot.

It wasn't so good for Hillary because she did not have that tangible comparison, or exciting message or vision. Her candidacy was essentially ran on 'more of the same' at a time when a lot of Americans weren't feeling the rebound from the last recession and were willing to try something different. I would say that if Hillary had waited four years, she would have clobbered Trump, but she obviously thought it was her time then and that she couldn't lose. It was an opinion shared by many, including myself at the time.

I'd agree to an extent, but the Democrats don't really need to go all-in on these issues. If a person is in favour of those things, the Democrats are going to be closer to their positions anyway, even if they equivocate.

I guess they believe that stronger positions on such issues would cost them more votes from more conservative Democrats/Democrat-leaning voters than they'd gain on the other end of the spectrum.

Your Wall Street journal opinion article about the IRS is laughable.

WSJ is a rightwing paper and the increase in IRA agents is to increase audits on the wealthy, home file the most convoluted returns and litigate the most, it’s been chronic understaffing at the IRS that is the reason lower income earners were focused on for more routine audits.

Goldman Sachs. Imagine listening to Goldman Sachs, one of the Wall Street firms likely to be seeing an end to their low audit/no audit holiday, about whether them getting audited more often is a good thing, lol. “Uh well according to OUR study the IRS won’t find our offshore accounts so… please don’t give us more IRS agents pretty please”

And “build back better?” That bill never passed. Not sure what strawman you’re talking about then. Sounds like you just picked up a bunch of talking points but don’t know what to do with them.

Exactly it didn't pass.

That didnt stop you hounding me by frantically repeating the question " What about Build Back Better" a few months back though.

Provide evidence of this exchange please?