g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });

2024 U.S. Elections

InfiniteBoredom

Full Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
13,678
Location
Melbourne
How?

We had a literal man child who spent his days golfing, watching Fox News, calling in to Fox n Friends and gobble fast food, meanwhile life went on without major disruptions. If it weren’t for his party legislative agenda (which is influenced by ‘unelected handlers’), you wouldn’t even notice the difference, so why does this notion about the necessity of having a virile, hands on leader persist when we have had ample evidence from Reagan (2nd term) to Trump that the US gov and institutions are perfectly capable of running itself regardless of which party or person occupies the WH?
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,995
Location
Florida
Look, first of all, let's live the legacy discussion for when he leaves office.

I'm concerned about Joe Biden's basic mental acuity. And the feeling looking at the White House is there's a shadow government that's actually running the country. And this is nothing to say anything bad about Janet Yellen or Jeff Zients, or anybody else, but we didn't elect these people in office. One of central themes of US govt has been the president is in charge, and I just don't think Biden is in charge.

So I think it's very important where we have a president who'll be 82 odd years old next November, to allow the American public to reexamine his mental acuity. Is he mentally super sharp and ready to go for another four years, in which case a lot of folks will support him? Or is this a moment where we actually need to be very responsible for the future of the country and not create some puppet government situation? I don't think it's funny that we have this weekend at Bernie's like meme that goes around about him. This is the President of the United States. It's the most important person in the world.
No legacy building, just simple comparison can be used to define Biden's first term thus far.

The most important person in the country in some aspects has consistently been the Fed chair for years, nothing new to the Biden admin. And, the CoS has always played an outsized role with any president & wields considerable power. Again, nothing germane to this admin singularly.
 

WI_Red

Redcafes Most Rested
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
12,203
Location
No longer in WI
Supports
Atlanta United
How?

We had a literal man child who spent his days golfing, watching Fox News, calling in to Fox n Friends and gobble fast food, meanwhile life went on without major disruptions. If it weren’t for his party legislative agenda (which is influenced by ‘unelected handlers’), you wouldn’t even notice the difference, so why does this notion about the necessity of having a virile, hands on leader persist when we have had ample evidence from Reagan (2nd term) to Trump that the US gov and institutions are perfectly capable of running itself regardless of which party or person occupies the WH?
Did you memory hole COVID, Dobbs Decision, massive tax breaks, etc.?
 

Suedesi

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
23,886
Location
New York City
:lol:

And yet there's been no impeachment. The mensas at the head of the committees talk incessantly, but haven't pulled the trigger on anything.

The angina that it must create when putting faith on Comer & Jordan must be constant.
"The Big Guy" is just a dirty old politician, but sure since the Republicans are bringing it up let's dismiss it.

By the way, no one ever accused Obama or Bernie of corruption. With Joe it just doesn't stop.

Must be the Republicans then
 

WI_Red

Redcafes Most Rested
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
12,203
Location
No longer in WI
Supports
Atlanta United
Famously there has never been another president who was accused of not actually being in charge. Dick.

Sorry, I don't know what came over me.
Exactly, I for one felt safe and secure knowing that Nancy Reagans mystical fortune teller ran the Federal Government.
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,904
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
:lol:

And yet there's been no impeachment. The mensas at the head of the committees talk incessantly, but haven't pulled the trigger on anything.

The angina that it must create when putting faith on Comer & Jordan must be constant.
I feel they will do it when most politically advantageous. They do it now, it will be old news to voters come election time.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,995
Location
Florida
"The Big Guy" is just a dirty old politician, but sure since the Republicans are bringing it up let's dismiss it.

By the way, no one ever accused Obama or Bernie of corruption. With Joe it just doesn't stop.

Must be the Republicans then
Yet all the Repubs are doing is constantly bloviating & treading water.

That should tell you something.
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,904
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
Let’s assume for one second that it is true that Joe Biden is a doddering old grandpa with failing mental faculties, is it really that big of a deal when we lived through 4 years of Trump? That presidency has put to bed any notion that the state apparatuses need the president to be ‘in charge’. If anything, they ran themselves just fine while being actively sabotaged by the executive branch.
Yes, Government will function regardless of President.

But just because Trump has set a very low bar, doesn't mean that should continue.
 

WI_Red

Redcafes Most Rested
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
12,203
Location
No longer in WI
Supports
Atlanta United
Which is the legislative agenda I mentioned. Unless you think Trump was solely responsible for that and the result would change if any other Republican were the president.
Absolutely when it comes to COVID. The damage done was not legislative but due to his disastrous and egotistical response to it. I would also argue that Dobbs and many other horrific SCOTUS decisions were a direct result of his choices for the court. Would other GOP Presidents have allowed the Federalist Society to hand pick candidates? Maybe, but Trump absolutely did.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,995
Location
Florida
I feel they will do it when most politically advantageous. They do it now, it will be old news to voters come election time.
Wouldn't surprise me if they initiated it right when they shut down the government in the coming weeks.

These aren't 'very bright guys' running the committees, to use a DeepThroat-associated plrase.
 

InfiniteBoredom

Full Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
13,678
Location
Melbourne
Absolutely when it comes to COVID. The damage done was not legislative but due to his disastrous and egotistical response to it. I would also argue that Dobbs and many other horrific SCOTUS decisions were a direct result of his choices for the court. Would other GOP Presidents have allowed the Federalist Society to hand pick candidates? Maybe, but Trump absolutely did.
Roberts, Alito, Thomas weren’t Trump appointees. Repealing Roe is a litmus test for GOP SC nominees, it’s naive to expect otherwise.

I would concede on COVID, although the fevered, conspiratorial response from the MAGA base were also the fruits of conservative talk radio and news networks. A saner man than Trump wouldn’t have exploited that festering sore but it was always there, and the likes of Freedom Caucus or any conniving GOP politician would be waiting on the wing to play on those fears and conspiracies.
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
11,225
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
To be fair, voters and random people do not find solutions. They just vote for politicians whose job is to find solutions.

California (and big Californian cities like LA or San Francisco) have been lead by Democrat governors, mayors and legislators for an eternity. California’s big cities, especially San Francisco have become unlivable. I think it is a bit too rich to blame voters (or random people) for not providing solutions instead of Democrat politicians who have governed the country since forever and during the time it has become a shithole.

BTW, you can see San Francisco’s degradation year after year. In 2017, parts of it looked bad to me, in 2019 it was terrible and by 2020 it had become ‘I’ll stay here for only as long as I must’. Haven’t been there since end of 2020 but people I know who live there say that it has become even worse.
First, the reason Democrats keep getting elected is because the GOP in California offers no viable solutions just BS ring-wing idealism. Also, Newsom shouldn't be blamed for problems other Democrats created- like Jerry Brown's completely ridiculous fossil fuel burning boondoggle train from Bakersfield-Fresno to LA instead of doing something with actual economic value like building a mag-lev train from LA to Vegas. All in all, Newsom has been the best California governor in probably 40-50 years who is trying to undo the long-term damage of generations of Republican governors that sought only short-term solutions (Reagan, Duekmajian, Pete Wilson) and a Democrat governor who was a complete moron (Jerry Brown). There have also been some very bad Democrat mayors like Antonio Villagarosa in LA (also a horrible leader in the state senate when he was there because he was a champion of the failed energy deregulation scheme). Newsom also had to bring California through the worst health crisis in 100 years so personally, I'm willing to cut him a little slack for not magically solving homelessness and other macro issues. You also can't blame him for San Francisco because the problems there really come from local city policies, not state policies. And yes education is not a statewide thing, it's controlled by local school districts and if richer liberal neighborhoods vote to not share their money with poor districts, there isn't much Newsom can do about that.

Again, most of these problems have very macro causes (like systematically cutting social safety net across the country for 40+ years) and there are no Republicans offering anything close to viable solutions. I think Newsom has done an outstanding job considering the circumstances. If you don't like being asked to provide your idea of a solution then feel free to link to Republican ideas that you think would solve the issues in California.

Either way, it's just ignorance to claim Newsom caused all of these things.
 
Last edited:

Suedesi

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
23,886
Location
New York City
How?

We had a literal man child who spent his days golfing, watching Fox News, calling in to Fox n Friends and gobble fast food, meanwhile life went on without major disruptions. If it weren’t for his party legislative agenda (which is influenced by ‘unelected handlers’), you wouldn’t even notice the difference, so why does this notion about the necessity of having a virile, hands on leader persist when we have had ample evidence from Reagan (2nd term) to Trump that the US gov and institutions are perfectly capable of running itself regardless of which party or person occupies the WH?
US President has tremendous power, so Joe not being all there is kind of a big deal. I'd like the American electorate to the have the right to re-underwrite Joe's mental acuity. I think that's a judgment that we should all be allowed to make.

And just because Trump set a low bar, that doesn't mean we should continue that path. I'd like to think America can do better than Trump and Biden.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,570
Location
South Carolina
Yes, I wrote an essay at the time about John Taft's administration :houllier:

Any more nonsensical q's?
It's... it's William. William Taft. And, [shock][horror], he had unelected advisors and bureaucrats making the government function, too.

Side note: I can't wait till you find out who actually created the Monroe Doctrine.
 

Mike Smalling

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
11,340
Actually you’re right - Bernie was accused by the DNC of having THREE houses!
Of course, I'm not saying there's equal validity to the accusations, but Obama has been accused of all kinds of crap before, during and after his presidency. Bernie has obviously been under much less scrutiny.

By the way, I think there is probably some truth to Hunter trading in influence somehow. I just don't think it's anywhere near enough to prefer any from the Republican field over another term of Sleepy Joe Biden.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
10,162
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
I have to question Joe Biden's judgment in the case of his son.

For one, why would he ever let Hunter Biden serve on the board of Burisma? He should have known how murky that company was. To allow that when he was the VP is a bad look.

The left leaning Atlantic had a very good piece about it last week...

The Problem With Hunter Biden’s Business - The Atlantic
Hunter Biden is a grown ass man, I assume you are too, if your father told you to support City or the Scousers and not have anything to do with Man United or Redcafe you'd do as he said - right?
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,904
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
US President has tremendous power, so Joe not being all there is kind of a big deal. I'd like the American electorate to the have the right to re-underwrite Joe's mental acuity. I think that's a judgment that we should all be allowed to make.

And just because Trump set a low bar, that doesn't mean we should continue that path. I'd like to think America can do better than Trump and Biden.
I don't disagree here.

I personally don't know if Biden has lost a step cognitively, or if he just appears to sometimes because he suffers from a speech impediment, which may be more difficult to control as he gets on.

Falling off a bike certainly shouldn't be a gauge of someone's fitness to lead.

Democrats have got to be honest. If Trump leaves the race and the GOP put forward a half decent, younger candidate that doesn't divide the party like Trump has, would there be more clamor for an alternative candidate?

De Santis is a terrible politician, but against Biden in a debate, I think he would wipe the floor with him.

I think many Democrats are happy with Joe because they know he only has to stay alive to defat Trump.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,818
Absolutely when it comes to COVID. The damage done was not legislative but due to his disastrous and egotistical response to it. I would also argue that Dobbs and many other horrific SCOTUS decisions were a direct result of his choices for the court. Would other GOP Presidents have allowed the Federalist Society to hand pick candidates? Maybe, but Trump absolutely did.
Trump and most Republican governors soured on stay-at-home at the same time. Regarding the vaccine, Trump was actually booed at his own rally for supporting it, while Ron has openly doubted it. You can watch this party (Ron, Vivek, Cruz) and you will know instantly that they would never have "listened to the science".

Also, Trump did the $1200 and enhanced UI (=lowest poverty rate of all time in the US) during the pandemic, which no other Republican would have done.

His covid response was bad, but it wasn't worse than any other Republican, in one significant way, it was much better. And for the rest of the term, outside twitter and a few personal insanities (some good, mostly bad), it was very standard GOP stuff: tax cuts for the rich, killing immigrants, and killing the planet.
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,904
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
Hunter Biden is a grown ass man, I assume you are too, if your father told you to support City or the Scousers and not have anything to do with Man United or Redcafe you'd do as he said - right?
If my dad supported those teams, i would have followed his lead as a kid. As I did when I became a United fan.

A little different when your dad is the VP of the USA and you get given a board position at an Ukranian energy company.
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,904
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
Trump and most Republican governors soured on stay-at-home at the same time. Regarding the vaccine, Trump was actually booed at his own rally for supporting it, while Ron has openly doubted it. You can watch this party (Ron, Vivek, Cruz) and you will know instantly that they would never have "listened to the science".

Also, Trump did the $1200 and enhanced UI (=lowest poverty rate of all time in the US) during the pandemic, which no other Republican would have done.

His covid response was bad, but it wasn't worse than any other Republican, in one significant way, it was much better. And for the rest of the term, outside twitter and a few personal insanities (some good, mostly bad), it was very standard GOP stuff: tax cuts for the rich, killing immigrants, and killing the planet.
Trump only did this to sweeten the electorate in 2020, which is exactly he insisted that his name was put on the checks.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,818
An inside look at how Donald Trump's name came to appear on stimulus checks - ABC News (go.com)

It was a terrible decision. Biden compounded the error by cutting even more stimulus checks.
I think both decisions were good, because of this:
In 2021, economic security programs, enhanced by COVID relief legislation, lowered the white poverty rate by 14 percentage points, Black poverty by 23 percentage points, and Latino poverty by 18 percentage points.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/pover...response-turned-a-would-be-poverty-surge-into

I have no objection if he wanted to campaign off it - he was, for once in his life, doing something that helped others, why shouldn't he take credit?
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,904
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,818
In the short term. But they have been a major factor in inflation.
Which has mostly gone now.


It's a good trade-off. Made better by the fact that a massive job loss and recession would normally have seen a massive increase (rather than decrease) in poverty, so the real effect on poverty is even more than the headline reduction.
And I have some doubts about how causal it is (no doubt, stimulus caused some inflation, but how much) given the number of other factors (Russia's invasion, supply chain bottlenecks, etc).
Finally, this isn't a defence of the entire stimulus program - a lot of the """loans""" to small businesses were straight-up fraud, this is just about the cheques and increased UI, which was ~25% of the total.
 

WI_Red

Redcafes Most Rested
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
12,203
Location
No longer in WI
Supports
Atlanta United
Which has mostly gone now.


It's a good trade-off. Made better by the fact that a massive job loss and recession would normally have seen a massive increase (rather than decrease) in poverty, so the real effect on poverty is even more than the headline reduction.
And I have some doubts about how causal it is (no doubt, stimulus caused some inflation, but how much) given the number of other factors (Russia's invasion, supply chain bottlenecks, etc).
Finally, this isn't a defence of the entire stimulus program - a lot of the """loans""" to small businesses were straight-up fraud, this is just about the cheques and increased UI, which was ~25% of the total.
Not sure if you are lumping it in with the "checks", the child tax credit was a incredibly beneficial to millions of children:

" We find that the Child Tax Credit lifted 2.9 million children out of poverty. Additionally, we find that the 2021 expansion of the Child Tax Credit accounted for 2.1 million of these 2.9 million children lifted above the poverty line. "

The Impact of the 2021 Expanded Child Tax Credit on Child Poverty (census.gov)
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,818
Not sure if you are lumping it in with the "checks", the child tax credit was a incredibly beneficial to millions of children:

" We find that the Child Tax Credit lifted 2.9 million children out of poverty. Additionally, we find that the 2021 expansion of the Child Tax Credit accounted for 2.1 million of these 2.9 million children lifted above the poverty line. "

The Impact of the 2021 Expanded Child Tax Credit on Child Poverty (census.gov)
Ah, I remembered it, and forgot whether it was in the same bill or not. If it was in the same bill,even added on to the cheques+UI, together they would still be about <40% of the stimulus based on this.
 

iamking

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2022
Messages
252
The tests immigrants have to take is meant as an barrier to entry, yes, obviously. It's not meant as an initiative to make more immigrants eligible for citizenship. It's not voter suppression, because they're not citizens.
I read this and laughed out loud at how far away this is from reality. The easiest step in the immigrant entry process is writing the civic test. It is clearly given to people who have been selected to become immigrants to learn about the country. Like the brochure you get after you enter the zoo. It is sometimes better to refrain from saying things we are not aware of.

I linked you to a specific literacy test from 1965. It used the exact same type of questions that the civic test for immigrants does, which is the exact same type of question that you and Vivek want to target young people with. The 1965 one was obviously meant to depress turnout, while yours is supposed to increase it, which is interesting because they're the same thing. This is hard for you to square, so you continiously deflect. If you, unlike Vivek, are actually being honest here, it's likely because you don't know anything about voter suppression. You do know, however, that Jim Crow was bad. Very bad! Therefore the 1965 test is bad, because Jim Crow, but Vivek's test is still good because it's Vivek's test, even though they are identical. The only difference between these two tests is that the 1965 was given to primarily black people, while this revolutionary one will be given to young people.
Also, comparing this to Jim Crow has to be the most ridiculous media narrative parroted here by many users. I have discussed about the merits of this test at length with Raoul in the previous conversations. Jim Crow era is the darkest part of American History remnants of which is still impacting modern black americans in many forms. However, tying this to literacy test has to be the kind of demagoguery absurdity used by politicians to obfuscate things.

Black Americans were maimed/lynched/burnt alive for getting near any form of literacy or books. Even learning basic alphabets was a rarity among the black community and even that was considered to be a serious threat by the racists in the Jim Crow era. Conducting literacy tests during this era was patently racist and cynical with the only intention of denying their voting rights.
Now lets compare this with Vivek's test: This test mandates young voters age of 18 of ALL colors/religion/race etc. to learn about their country and its governance before they vote, similar to the half a million immigrants who take these tests every year or else serve in first responder positions or wait to vote till 25, and this is mentioned in the year 2023 not 1965 and has nothing to do with race. These two are the same because the questions are identical? Have some sense of proportion and reality in criticizing something. The rest of the people chirping here have to research their contents better and stop making fancy headline idealism hyperboles to curb honest analysis.

Also stop lecturing about ad-hominem. It will take seconds to learn what it is by googling. It means, your argument is about a person than their position. Any half-witted person would know that in this forum apart from very few matured posters most of them have nothing to say in terms of substance and readily jump the gun at the other person without understanding their position using their own moral hypocrisy to judge and bash the person in order to cover up their own ignorance -ad hominem right there. Also, when I said childish posters (like yourself), it would definitely be ad-hominem but I was also stating the facts.
 
Last edited:

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,231
X will allow political ads from candidates, parties ahead of US election

Aug 29 (Reuters) - X, the social media company formerly known as Twitter, said Tuesday it would now allow political advertising in the U.S. from candidates and political parties and expand its safety and elections team ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Before billionaire Elon Musk acquired the company in October, Twitter had banned all political ads globally since 2019. In January, Twitter lifted the ban and began allowing "cause-based ads" in the U.S. that raise awareness of issues such as voter registration, and said it planned to expand the types of political ads it would allow on the platform.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/...didates-parties-ahead-us-election-2023-08-29/