Current Affairs Joe Biden POTUS #46

[orly]

All right, I'll jump on this grenade here:

Explain how Joe Biden, he of the the Senate Foreign Relation Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee for 90% of his involvement of being in a committee in the Senate, an "architect of failure" of the 2008 financial crisis? And, for that matter, Senator Hillary Clinton(barf): She sat on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001–02),[252] Committee on Armed Services (2003–09),[253] Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001–09), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001–09)[252] and Special Committee on Aging.[254] She was also a member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe[255] (2001–09).[256]

MAYBE the case can be made that Committee on Budget could have helped but, ultimately, had no bearing upon something that she had little control over. Unless you are talking about Bill repealing the Bank Holding Company Act which, again, has nothing to do with Biden or Hillary Clinton.

I feel this is akin to people genuinely asking what Obama did to stop 9/11 or with the Katrina response.

Its all something to do with George Soros the once 15 year old jew who was a Nazi sympathizer and now the most powerful Democrat right? He pulls their strings right? Am I close

Absolutely impossible to have a two-sided debate on this subject for some people. Just look at that second quote, christ.

 

[SteveSC]

Absolutely impossible to have a two-sided debate on this for some people. Just look at that second quote, christ.

Sarcasm friend sarcasm.

 

[riddick]

Absolutely impossible to have a two-sided debate on this subject for some people. Just look at that second quote, christ.

Ignore that part then, I wasn't lambasting you. I'm genuinely curious as to how you connect Joe Biden and Clinton in to the 2008 collapse when they were Senators.

 

[riddick]

Absolutely impossible to have a two-sided debate on this subject for some people. Just look at that second quote, christ.

And I will gladly acquiesce that I agree largely that the Democratic party has little semblance in terms of forward thinking. They often back establishment "don't rock the boat" candidates instead of trying to move the party in any semblance of direction. The problem is that when Republicans come in to office they absolutely destroy the deficit and budget and other institutions, the Democrats come in to "power" and spend a lot of it trying to get back to 90%, then Republicans come back in to power and kick it massively back to the right. Hence the Overton Window.

If you can't get back to where you were you are starting from a defect to begin with.

 

[Tubey]

I find it so weird how Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are SOMEHOW labelled "radical left". That's about as centrist a ticket as you can possibly get in the US. By any metrics of a first world country they are mostly a conservative ticket. Sanders was barely left of center in any normal country ffs..

Has anyone called them that? They'd be mad to do so.

When I called Harris "radical" I meant in terms of her stance on the police and her general demeanour to be honest, not in terms of her political position.

 

[BlueTX]

Has anyone called them that? They'd be mad to do so.

When I called Harris "radical" I meant in terms of her stance on the police and her general demeanour to be honest, not in terms of her political position.

Immediately after the announcement of her selection as running mate, the Cheeto campaign released a video that referred to Harris using that very term multiple times.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Took you less than 24hours.

Congrats Finn, you managed to exceed even my low expectations.

Do you remember few months back when Harris said that she believed that woman (or women(?)) who accused Biden for sexual harrassment? Harris said "I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it.” .....but now She's his VP.
It's all theatre folks.

 

[Death]

Ah hang on we've got a scrub of Clinton's record going on in here now. Time for bed.

That’s not the half of it Orly.

The Tory Democrats have no shame.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Has anyone called them that? They'd be mad to do so.

When I called Harris "radical" I meant in terms of her stance on the police and her general demeanour to be honest, not in terms of her political position.

 

[catcherintherye]

Trump did nothing brilliantly in 2016 but he was brilliantly lucky in two ways: He was part of an overpopulated GOP primary in which being an outrageous bomb-thrower was more likely to be viewed favorably among so many bland JEB! types; and he was running against a Dem candidate who many revile beyond all others, in no small part due to the fact that she's been smeared by the right for 25 years. In the 1990s she was ridiculed for saying her husband's administration had been hounded by a "vast rightwing conspiracy," but history has proved her correct. People critical of Hillary Clinton may well be sensible. People who hate hate HATE her have most likely swallowed a boatload of propaganda.

Whatever you think ethically of it, and I would have a lot of synpathy to that view-it's hard to argue that Trump didn't execute that playbook extremely effectively in 2016. Anger at years of a black president, allied to another 4 years of a woman and a woman who had served in said black mans president invoked a level of hatred and anger in replican and even republican leaning voters. It's hard to argue Trump didn't do this skillfully.

 

[catcherintherye]

You keep saying this but it just isn't historically accurate. There has also been no Left correction since 2016 in global politics, and the US is no longer a moral or thought authority to lead this change.

Trump has vast amounts on his side going into this run; historical precedent and the record of incumbents; the fact that his continuing presence as the Leader of the Free World is of vast benefit to the darker forces (China, Russia etc.) All of whom will bring their influences to bear; he's a solid fundraiser; his Party still control one side of the House; and what could make his stock drop any lower than all I have listed above in a previous post?

Whats not historically accurate? That his approach previously has been unsuccessful? I would agree- my contention is how well it translates into an incumbence battle against a figure like Joe Biden.

Everything you say is also true, and why you can't count the guy out. He's done it once before, and as you say nearly half of the electorate were happy to vote for him last time with no real political experience, so 4 years of political experience and legitimacy strengthens him.

My feeling is that it wont translate as well against Joe Biden, and the pro Biden (or anti-Trump block) is far more solid than 4 years ago. However you;d be an idiot to say Trump can't win, he has a path to victory for the reasons you state. I take it you feel he will turn this around and win in November?

 

[catcherintherye]

His attacks on Clinton didn't really work. It was Clinton who handicapped herself by not running with any ideas for working class people in key swing states. She lost some normally blue "gimme states" because she showed up at campaign rallies and said things like "I'm not Trump" and when she did propose ideas, they rang empty because she (despite her qualifications, credentials, and smarts) is a charismatic-less individual who can't muster any enthusiasm. She is up there with Dukakis and Kerry for most uninspiring people.

There is a lot of truth in this. There was enormous complacency from teh Democrats and Clinton last time. It was viewed as a coronation. She was happy Trump ran. In a way why woudnt she be, in any normal job interview (which is how many view it) she is far more qualified. Unfortunately that's not how politics work.

You would have to assume the arrogance and naivety that existed 4 years ago won't exist again. You are right to say a female candidate, wife of the quite widely disliked Democratic president in the 90's, who served under the first Black President (both who governed for 8 years) who as you say seemed to take a right turn fiscally to implement further restrictions to ordinary people was the perfect storm for Trump to exploit (and exploit it he did).

A big part of that was people on the Dem side just not wanting to vote. I mean for many black people, wanting to vote in an election for the for the wife and supporter of the 94 crime bill, and the racism that was uttered following it was too much. This was critical in 2016. I think the BLM have made a big difference now, and any unprovoked attacks on a black woman in this campaign will probably damage Trump further. He needs to keep the black vote at home.

 

[Death]

#BidenSexualHarass2020

 

[Death]

Has anyone called them that? They'd be mad to do so.

When I called Harris "radical" I meant in terms of her stance on the police and her general demeanour to be honest, not in terms of her political position.

Trump is calling him that as part of his campaign strategy. I don’t see how complementing them (misplaced as it is) is going to work going forward. Then again might be a reflection of the people if it does.

But I don’t think it will.

 

[LinekersLegs]

No because you have used 2015-16 as a starting point whereas I see it as the apex. The conditions that led to Trump even having a chance go back way before that to the mishandling of the 2008 financial crisis.

The fact that two of the architects of that failure - Clinton and Biden - have been the last two nominees shows that no one is is learning any lessons at all here. Obama/ McCain and Obama / Romney was a choice between candidates. For the second succession US election we've got an "anyone but [x]" scenario. Clinton first, Trump this time round.

Where is the succession planning? Once Obama won a second term who was the new young candidate they could position for the future? No one. A hubris, "the problems weren't our fault" approach has led to Clinton and Biden even being options, let alone nominees. We have it in the UK - prior to him getting the FCO gig Boris Johnson wouldn't even been close to being a serious Tory leadership candidate. And now he's an 80 majority PM who will almost certainly back Trump in some way shape or form.

I agree with you about the lack of succession planning for post Obama, the 2016 election and Clinton being the annointed nominee.

But where we disagree is that I think there was a genuine attempt to try to correct that this cycle, at the least in that there was very little initial establishment party support for Biden.

What do you think the democratic party could/should have done differently this cycle?