Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1567568570572573732

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 21,415 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Just lovely to have a guy with a sense of humour. It makes such a welcome change from Sourpuss.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,823 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Speaking of that, Fox & Friends spent airtime complaining that the WHCD ‘treated Biden differently than Trump’

    But of course they did: Trump treated the WHCD than any president in 36 years, by never attending a dinner despite annual invitation and instead he broadcast stochastic terrorism against the free press. Calling the free press the “enemy of the people” resulting in Mail bombings to outlets etc.

    But for the echo chamber they had to act as if Biden getting the relationship between the WH and the WHC/WHCD back to normal was an attack on the country. Constantly under siege by progress



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,949 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    One CNN analyst does not equal CNN.

    If it is CNN why havent you even linked to CNN... how come?

    Well?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,823 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    “The job”

    nowhere in Article II of the Constitution of the United States does it mention giving media or press interviews as a perfunctory, proscribed or mandatory role of The President.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 13,688 Andrea Strong Rodent


    We heard a lot from Joseph about the importance of democracy while he was on vacation here, are the DNC going to actually have a primary and allow his challengers argue their case?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,714 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Because there's yet to be a sensible argument made to the contrary. Dumping links and snarky comments doesn't achieve anything.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,823 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    as much of a primary as republicans did in 2020 or 2004 I imagine



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,416 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    There's no mechanism to prevent a challenge from a qualified individual who meets the nomination threshold, like when Ted Kennedy challenged sitting president Carter. Though it's not considered a good look for the incumbent party to have such a battle, doesn't exactly scream party unity or belief in how the on-going presidency is progressing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,991 ✭✭✭Christy42


    The presidential election is the point where it becomes democratic. There is the issue that the US is forced into a two party system by the electoral process but people get annoyed if you try and change that these days without consulting George Washington who has remained pretty silent on the issue for a few centuries. The nomination process for both parties is wildly undemocratic.


    In any case as outlined they will if they have a challenger which does not appear to be the case. It is a little hard to have challengers argue their case if they don't exist.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,991 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Honestly I thought more like Reagan would have been a good thing for the Republicans.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,481 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    How about we look at a blended number showing the combined total of "Press conferences AND pieces of legislation passed" ?

    Given the choice between having a President that spent lots of time shouting at journalists or one that spent the time getting large chunks of their policy agenda passed I'm pretty sure I know which one I'd prefer.



  • Posts: 13,688 Andrea Strong Rodent


    Marianne Williamson and Robert F Kennedy Jr have already declared their nomination.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,823 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    That’s a whole different era, before 24/7 News and social media. Politics was a completely different animal. Nowadays both parties seemingly agree that it’s nothing much more than erosive to have a primary against their own incumbent.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,481 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Williamson is irrelevant and wouldn't reach anything approaching a sufficient level of support to justify having debates etc.

    RFK Jr. however does seem be be at least polling at a meaningful level for the moment , but hard to see him sustaining that.

    He's more than a bit mental and the concern for the Democrats is not that he'd be a realistic challenger in the Primaries , but that he'd be convinced by the right (who are the ones championing him now anyway) to run as an Independent - Maybe the "No Labels" crew might latch on to him.

    If he was able to carve off a few percentage points in the actual election he could do real damage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,416 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    If either of those candidates (or another candidate) gains traction, reaching a certain figure in the polls or gaining a noteworthy percentage in the initial primaries then the contest is on. The networks will demand debates, they'll give airtime to these candidates etc.

    It's not that a contest doesn't happen (in effect it always does) - it's just that generally no-one serious takes part. Like probably 95% of people think Obama was uncontested in 2012, but actually there was a rather pathetic race which no-one paid much attention to.

    2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia



  • Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭archermoo


    An actor suffering from dementia is what you're looking at as a standard of comparison?



  • Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭archermoo


    Kind of. Political parties are basically private clubs, and get to choose who their nominee is pretty much however they want. As to the election of the President being democratic, not really. The people don't elect the President. The states do. Each state has a number of votes equal to their representation in Congress. 1 vote for each Senator and Representative they have. Most states give all of those votes to whichever candidate gets the most popular votes in their state. For instance in the 2020 election Texas had 38 EC votes. 52% of the population voted for Trump, which meant that all 38 votes went to Trump. California had 55 votes, Biden got 63% of the vote, and so he got all 55 EC votes.

    This is how it was possible for Trump to win in 2016, even though he only got 46.1% of the vote compared to Clinton's 48.2%. Trump actually got a slightly higher percentage of the popular vote in 2020 at 46.8%. But Biden got 51.3%. And more importantly Biden also got more EC votes than Trump, by roughly the same margin that Trump had over Clinton in 2016.

    The fact that the states actually control who is appointed to the Electoral College for their state is what the Republicans have been looking into in the states that they control the government of. Looking in to legislation to allow the state legislature to override the popular vote in the state and appoint the electors that they want if they don't like the results.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,991 ✭✭✭Christy42


    No Reagan was terrible but just so frequently is seen as the standard by Republicans that it amuses me see them call Biden as the worst since Reagan at something. Biden should definitely not look to be more like Reagan.


    Yeah the election is the closest it gets to the people having their say. I would also add the first past the post system to it generally makes it a terrible idea to vote for your preferred option. Hence the primaries and the parties attempting to unify behind a single candidate before the election. You aren't voting for someone as much as voting against the other side.



  • Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭archermoo


    Yup. A lot of the problems in US politics could be solved, or at least helped, by getting rid of the EC and replacing it with the people directly electing the President via a ranked ballot. But doing that would reduce the power of both the Democrats and Republicans, and would effectively require they both assent to it. Which will never happen.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,617 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    It wouldn't really reduce their power. Their power, apart from POTUS, comes from the House and Senate.

    As we saw in Trumps failed coup, the EC doesn't give much power to anyone. The states were forced to vote (correctly I use the terms forced in terms of the law) to vote for the winner of the state. The political parties had no say. The power they tried to assert came from the House and Senate



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭BruteStock


    Sick! Bidens new mortgage policy forces higher fees on borrowers with good credit scores to subsidise those with poor credit scores.

    More backdoor socialism in the name of equity. Over 30 states object.




  • Registered Users Posts: 15,617 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Who do you think paid for all the bank bailouts and the covering of the mortgage failures?



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,481 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    So, it's "sick" socialism when the wealthy are asked to help the poor get a home , but it's perfectly fine when everyone is asked to pay to bail out the wealthy when their businesses go bust?

    Is it "sick" when the GOP want to cut Social security , Medicaid and Veterans healthcare to reduce government costs as part of the debt negotiations but don't want to increase taxes on the super wealthy and are also perfectly fine with allowing the Trump tax cuts to expire for low and middle income Americans??



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,823 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    WSJ opinion piece, lol



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,493 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    After yet another bank bailout caused largely by poor management of the bank in question by... no doubt wealthy people that enjoy good credit ratings and don't want for much.

    And, if loans are risky, umm.... why I seem to remember this was a thing not all that long ago.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,604 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Is there any chance you could respond to and engage with comments made on your previous posts, or will that never happen?



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,823 ✭✭✭✭Overheal




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,272 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    You don't need to be "wealthy" to have a good credit score. I'm sure that most people who do are far from it



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,714 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Poisoning the well defeats the point of pasting the link.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



Advertisement