I’d agree with all that. The Nixon/Kennedy bit is really interesting.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
I read this in the voice of @Eboue cosplaying Foghorn Leghorn cosplaying a civics teacher. It works.
Is there even a point for election? When most impactfull policy are made by governors on state level
Of course he knew that Manchin would want to spend much less than Sanders, and of course he knew that the Republicans would have their own agenda. These divisions were obvious long before he made the campaign promises. He said he should be elected to heal the divisions. To reach across the aisle. To be a dealmaker. He had all this experience in the senate and he knew all the players, and he’s be able to navigate it to deliver on his agenda. That wasn’t just a campaign promise but part of his core value proposition. He should be held accountable for that.
If he’s incapable of delivering on his agenda then that is very obviously a failure on his part. One of the core arguments against Biden and moderates in general was that their negotiations inevitably led to watered down bills that violate many of the original principles of the legislation. People like you argued for him because he knew how to navigate situations exactly like this. The idea that any of this is unexpected is completely ridiculous.
Yes. By far the largest weapon is the person that gets to appoint federal, appeals, and supreme court judges. This is a weapon that Trump used well and that we will be digging ourselves out of for decades (if we ever recover).
I think the biggest driver of Biden's election was to get rid of Trump. The policies he ran on were distantly secondary when juxtaposed against the possibility of another four years of Trump's nonsense. Although I agree Biden will be held accountable, he really has no way of forcing Manchin and Sinema to vote for his policies, which means that at the end of the day, they will also be viewed as the biggest points of failure should infrastructure not pass. They've already managed to water it down from 3.5 trillion to something like 2t, so the progressives are going to have to decide whether they want it to pass or else fall into the same category as Manchin or Sinema.
What I don't get: why can there be no meaningful negotiation with those two? If so, what are they trying to achieve? Just be obstructionist to anything and that's it? Cause that won't do their states any good either.
I mean, it won't help these people get reelected if their record is that they stopped the Dems from doing stuff, and got no wins for their states otherwise. People might as well vote Republican for that. So you'd expect quid pro quo to be possible, much more than what appears to be happening. And given that these people stand alone in the Senate and are heavily at risk of losing an election (given they're so close to traditional Reps ideologically), you'd think their negotiation position is fairly weak, too. Although I guess that doesn't stop people from letting things burn for the sake of it.
Its probably a combination of they don't think that much spending is a good idea in a nation already running budget deficits and a debt that is increasing by the year - with a healthy dose of self-interest given that they know they live in largely Republican states. Trump won WV by nearly 40 points and AZ has been historically R, which for Dems means being perceived as anything other than centrist may affect their reelection hopes.
Structurally, I think the problem is also a result of the federalist system of governance where each state votes for its own politicians based on the political dynamics in that state, instead of based on immediate national priorities. This means you always see phenomena like Manchin and Sinema become problems when control of Congress is tight. If the roles were reversed, the likes of Collins and Murkowski may also be a problem for Rs on policies like Abortion. The obvious difference between Dems and Reps is that one is attempting, perhaps to their own detriment, to be a "big tent" party incorporating a wide range of views from Sanders to Manchin, and from the Squad to Sinema, while Republicans are basically run like an authoritarian dictatorship where everyone conforms to the views of one man.
Last edited:
As if that matters anymore. One of the biggest casualties of the hyperpolarization of American politics is that reelection is no longer based on what you accomplish, all that matters is the letter after your name.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signals Democrats could cut major pieces of Biden’s economic plan
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/12/pel...-could-trim-biden-build-back-better-plan.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/12/pel...-could-trim-biden-build-back-better-plan.html
Just curious, was this ever the case?
I think so, at least to some extent. I have not data for this, but my gut tells me things have way over shifted to the poles.
a tale told by a newborn, full of sound and wishful thinking, signifying nothing
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The Nothing-Burger Presidency.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Businesses are people too.
Not when they take a handout and choose to lay off employees. That’s just disgusting scumbag behavior.
Even (especially?) then SCOTUS says they are people.
Seriously though, I agree with you on the absurdity of it all. Student loans, coupled with sub minimum wage as a grad student, crippled me financially in my 20's/early 30's. But those tasty corporate campaign donations though.....
Why are democrats so ineffective in comparison to republicans? Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt like Trump actually made changes, a difference to the country. Almost entirely in a shitty way. But the moderate democrats, who pride themselves on bridging the divide and enabling the push through of policies, just do feck all.
The only significant "legislation" Trump got through was the tax cuts. Otherwise he was a completely ineffectual president despite having 2 years of controlling both houses. Almost everything he did was through the use of executive orders or just not giving a shit if it was legal. The Republicans of today run and govern on a platform of grievance and obstructionism. They don't actually do (legislatively) anything when in power at the federal level.
Because they're too fixated on incorporating a broad diversity of ideas into the party, which has created competing factions vying for their piece of the pie on policy. This approach could work if the Dems had an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress, but is ineffective when both the House and Senate are split nearly 50/50 between both parties. The Republicans on the other hand, are galvanized in thwarting everything the Dems do; even more so recently in the Trump era.
Sounds about right. Trickle-down issue of non-proportional electoral systems.
It’s because democrats don’t really stand for anything.
Most of the 'moderate Dems' are centre right conservatives who don't really have a problem with the rightward direction of America over the last 40 years. Sure they'll kick back against the extreme right excesses of the Republicans sometimes, but they have no real desire to move the country leftwards.
Believe him when he said to his Wall St buddies, nothing will fundamentally change. Good luck with trying to explain this to the voters in 2022,that once again they will be getting crumbs.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/don-lemon-goes-off-on-joe-biden/
Even CNN getting digs in. What's next? Wolf Blitzer threatening to shank Biden?
He's wished Kamala Harris happy birthday three days running. Everything's ok...
Is the general consensus that he's doing well or?
Not sure how credible the book Peril is but I'm most of the way through the audiobook and he comes across well by all accounts
Not sure how credible the book Peril is but I'm most of the way through the audiobook and he comes across well by all accounts
That's pretty much a rule for all women. He'll be wishing her happy birthday for another four days yet.
He would be a joke if he wasn't an outright catastrophe. Crime, Afghanistan, inflation, the border, bending over in the culture wars, global prestige, irreversible cognitive decline, being on the same page as no one in his own administration, all Benny Hill levels of zany. But sure, the general consensus is that he's doing well.
Did the last poster get banned ?
They said some naughty things in another post. I don't know how long the ban is.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Democrats are just republicans who lie a bit more.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date