I don't believe he wouldn't know that, so we'll just disagree on that.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Fair enough, I get what you're saying about republicans and I didn't enter this conversation trying to clear them in any way. But one can't just play the "obstructionist republicans" card when talking about Biden's failures in delivering what he promised.
There is tremendous variance between what Bernie Sanders wants and what Joe Manchin wants - and since both caucus with the Dem party, not every single Dem agreeing to the same spending policy is going to complicate Biden's agenda. Blaming him for the behavior of others is obviously neither fair nor sensical.
Promising things which didn't depend on him was his behavior.
He didn't offer the voters the nuanced view you're giving. He said"vote me in and I'll do it". Surely you understand voters' frustration and he's the reason the frustration exists, he's the one breaking his promise, not Manchin nor Sinema.
That was the correct thing to do, as that was the policy he was running on. The fact that others aren't cooperating is a problem of the Dem party, not Biden himself.
The American voter would pay as much attention to that as folks pay to the principle of separation of powers.
Ross Perot famously bought 30 minute television time slots and fully explained exactly what he’d work to do if elected and he didn’t win a single electoral college vote.
So, Biden, the Democratic president-elect, is campaigning for the election of two Democratic senators - yet the reality of the diversity of the Democratic party only comes into play when Biden's plans falter when he's in power? Come on now.
It seems like you're just learning about how US politics work. Its not particularly complicated - the President runs on a policy platform which is aspirational, then once elected, attempts to implement it.
Fair enough, we'll just disagree. I think majority of voters will see it like "he promised, he failed".
That's kinda my point, Biden knows how voters hear messages and how simplistic (not having a go at americans, voters are pretty much the same everywhere in this regard) is their decision making process. Voters heard a promise and now they're seeing that what they were promised will not happen. Biden made his bed with simplistic promises, now he has to sleep in it (I hope I haven't fecked up a second saying in the same night).
Yes. What he promised has been altered. But that’s been done by Congress… and if folks don’t understand that Congress is who writes legislation, then that’s on them. Every candidate lays out a vision for what they want to do. They all know that the vision will be altered by Congress. Anybody with an inkling of how government works should know that also.
Blah blah blah. Your facts don’t line up with my feelings so you are wrong and bad and I don’t like you.
Candidates don't offer that vision to voters, they clearly say they'll do something. So it's unfair that they then tell voters they don't understand the process and presidents can't actually do it. It just makes people sick of politics and I bet many who voted for his will stay at home next time.
You can't say "voters should know better" when it's politicians who create the environment, through their words, that makes it very difficult for them to know better.
They invented these cool things for adults to use to communicate. They are called words.
I think it can be somewhat confusing when people who are used to politics in parliamentary democracies attempt to analyze politics in constitutional republics. The dynamics are entirely different given the separation of powers in the latter, where you can have a President who runs for office on one set of policy positions, who then has to work with a completely different body to advance his policies, where people in said body often have diverging opinions on how much to spend and the reelection ramifications of implementing certain policies in their respective home states.
You just summed up my last posts as blah blah blah so I'm not sure you're actually interested in words.
I think you grossly underestimate what types of politics I know or what I know about US politics. And isn't @maniak based in the US anyway?
Again, thanks for the condescension.
Your better than a wum, come on. @maniak is arguing in good faith, are you at this point? You're just laughing at them.
OK mate, if you actually think I'm just disagreeing because my feelings are getting hurt then so be it.
I'm not, I have Trump loving family there, but I'm in Portugal.
Right, it's actually in your profile! You can tell I'm on my phone.
Honestly? No.
Why? Because at this point we have devolved into y’all willfully ignoring how the US system of government works. Shit on Biden all you want, he has massively disappointed me as well, but to shit on him for stuff the he constitutionally has no control over is just infuriating. I think we all want the same thing, but going after the wrong branch of government is just pointless.
Also, the US is getting beat by Panama and I might be a tad bit angry.
Its not condescension. Its simply being familiar with a particular style of governance because you live in said country. Most folks don't spend much time pretending to know more about Canadian, South African, or Indian politics than the people who actually reside in those countries do, so why would the US be exempt from this phenomenon ?
Last edited:
I think you are quite right there. They’re expecting a prime minister and what we have is designed to be exactly not that.
You’re failing to realize that this is a two way street. The American voter has created this system as well by blaming the executive branch for things that aren’t within the branch’s powers, and by demanding that candidates have answers to questions and plans for things that they cannot implement by themselves.
Not to mention, as to the blame game aspect, it’s supposed to be your civic duty as a voter to understand how your government works.
I think it’s bad that the funding bill has been mangled… I also think it’s bad to blame the wrong branch of government for that happening.
americans thinking others can't understand their exceptionally stupid constituional system 
it's also interesting how important the separation of powers is when it needs to be, and how central a president becomes when you're opposed to him.
Raoul 2017:
people understand that the congressional leadership of the president's party tries to implement the president's stated agenda. people also understand that despite the words on paper about separation, bills are not allowed on the floor unless they have been vetted by the leadership and the white house. it's why during this latest crisis the leadership and individual legisaltors went to the white house which uhhhhh has no role in writing bills.
but everybody must pretend to be 5th standard civics student flailing at the real world.
it's also interesting how important the separation of powers is when it needs to be, and how central a president becomes when you're opposed to him.
Raoul 2017:
people understand that the congressional leadership of the president's party tries to implement the president's stated agenda. people also understand that despite the words on paper about separation, bills are not allowed on the floor unless they have been vetted by the leadership and the white house. it's why during this latest crisis the leadership and individual legisaltors went to the white house which uhhhhh has no role in writing bills.
but everybody must pretend to be 5th standard civics student flailing at the real world.
Except US politics really isn't all that complicated. I have certainly learned nothing new here. Also, the debate started with @entropy, who is certainly located in the US.
But more importantly, also covering this point:
I don't think anybody has been saying that. The blame for Biden concerns campaign promises that he would have known he couldn't keep (especially given his long experience), exactly because of the way American politics work. You're cynical about that, basically saying politicians will promise anything to get elected, and that that's just the way it is; but others don't agree with that stance.
Alternatively, it could also be claimed that the promises are possible and that Biden just isn't working hard enough to get Democratic senators and representatives behind his plans (being in the same party is not completely meaningless, and his plans aren't at all 'out there'); but of course none of us know which conversations are being had and what pressure is being put on people. So I don't know about that.
Finally, for what it's worth, I grew up in the Netherlands, where all governing is done through coalitions, and no party therefore ever gets exactly what it wants. Hence, parties don't campaign hard on their super specific plans, cause everyone knows they won't be able to execute them as such. So some realism in political campaigns is not beyond the realm of the possible.
Well there you have it. All that's needed would be for you to add that the President doesn't control how US Senators vote and it would be a solid post.americans thinking others can't understand their exceptionally stupid constituional system
it's also interesting how important the separation of powers is when it needs to be, and how central a president becomes when you're opposed to him.
Raoul 2017:
people understand that the congressional leadership of the president's party tries to implement the president's stated agenda. people also understand that despite the words on paper about separation, bills are not allowed on the floor unless they have been vetted by the leadership and the white house. it's why during this latest crisis the leadership and individual legisaltors went to the white house which uhhhhh has no role in writing bills.
but everybody must pretend to be 5th standard civics student flailing at the real world.
correct, that would be lobbyists
I think this is something most rational folks can agree on. The Dem party is simply too broad in its "big tent" approach, which is causing them to be less, not more, effective in moving meaningful policy when they have the WH. That's not Obama or Biden's fault. Its simply a realization that the Dem party needs a broad coalition of voters to win elections, which means once a Dem President is in office, there will rarely be sufficient unanimity to advance a single party policy. Infrastructure is a prime example, and there will be others.
Last edited:
Reality in that matter is cynical.
And I would agree with you here.
I’m not saying it isn’t possible. I’m just saying in the American system, as it is, it just doesn’t happen. The last presidential candidacy I can think of that did offer realism and a clear plan for it was, again, Ross Perot. And he didn’t win a single electoral vote.
But he did preempt a Laker game with one of his stupid shows so feck him and his zero EC votes.
Cheers @Carolina Red. I appreciate the response.
I think we've all had our say on this, and it's a long weekend over here (Thanksgiving over here), so I'm going to bow out, and get a nice beer out and watch a film instead.
I’m going to sidestep the whole “well you’re not from here” “well so what” and focus on this because it’s actually interesting. I often wonder how much of a difference it would make if it wasn’t a third party candidate doing that. The experiment failed, the proof is in the election results, but what % of that is down to a third party candidate naturally swimming upstream (I reckon it’s worse now) and what % is just that strategy (one I wholeheartedly would love to see more often, but then I do a lot of legislative work so I’m a bit of a nerd for that stuff ) simply doesn’t resonate with the American voter.
If I’m missing an obvious example apologies and please fill it in, I’m on day two of a drinking weekend here, but I don’t recall anyone going for it as hard as Perot did.
I know Bernie said in the last primary (on Joe Rogan’s Podcast no less) and that’s effectively what he wanted every candidate to have to do, rather than the obviously flawed debate/soundbite model.
I would love every candidate to have to do that. But the debates have been brought down to the level of a WWE shouting match at this point, and that’s something that’s been a long time coming… I’m reminded of how folks listening on the radio thought Nixon beat Kennedy, but folks watching TV thought the opposite. Add into that the fact of the short sound byte format and/or a crowded stage of people all vying for time, and you’ve not got a lot of opportunity for nuance anyway. There’s usually a bit more meat on the bones found on political campaign websites, but the likelihood of the average person digging through those point by point is also rather low.
yall foreigners just don't understand how we do things round here. pull up a chair bucko and listen carefully. we have what is called a constitution. that's con-sti-tu-tion. ain't no got damn parliaments in this country. the gist of this here constitution is that aint nothing gonna get done around here unless joe manchin and kristen synema will it. joe biden can't do nothing. kamala harris do nothing. nancy pelosi can't do nothing. chuck schumer can't do nothing. the only thing we can do is donate money to democrats and vote blue in 2024. you picking up what im laying down now son?americans thinking others can't understand their exceptionally stupid constituional system
it's also interesting how important the separation of powers is when it needs to be, and how central a president becomes when you're opposed to him.
Raoul 2017:
people understand that the congressional leadership of the president's party tries to implement the president's stated agenda. people also understand that despite the words on paper about separation, bills are not allowed on the floor unless they have been vetted by the leadership and the white house. it's why during this latest crisis the leadership and individual legisaltors went to the white house which uhhhhh has no role in writing bills.
but everybody must pretend to be 5th standard civics student flailing at the real world.