Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You asked, I answered, pretty accurately, I think. "Everyone else was doing it" didn't work with my mother when I was 12, what makes you think it's a valid excuse for ******* up the world so thoroughly?

Your characterisation above has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

I'm simply saying that 'boomers' are no different than any other group of people, and that blaming them for our ills is not only naive; it's counter-productive, on top of not actually addressing those ills.

If I accept your objection above, that doesn't actually leave us anywhere else does it?

It's because the original argument goes nowhere to begin with.
 
Your characterisation above has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

I'm simply saying that 'boomers' are no different than any other group of people, and that blaming them for our ills is not only naive; it's counter-productive, on top of not actually addressing those ills.



It's because the original argument goes nowhere to begin with.

In the context of demographics and what policies/politicians they support, there is very much a difference between the boomers and other groups.
 
I am rather skeptical of this claim. Are you attributing the reforms of the war on poverty and civil rights era entirely to the generation just above the Boomers and thereby discounting the youth movements of the mid- and late-60s?

Just for the sake of topicality, I should point out that both Biden and Bernie were born a bit before the boomers came on the scene, oddly enough.

The Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Head Start, Medicare/Medicaid etc. were on the books by '65. Most baby boomers weren't even 17 years old then.
 
Seriously, the man has been battling against the establishment, and winning political fights all of his life.

I don't think this is actually true, though.

He's established a constituency in Vermont that consistently re-elects him. That's about the biggest political fight he's won. The high water mark was probably when they elected him to the Senate for the first time.

Other than that? His legislative successes have largely been achieved by avoiding political fights with the establishment. He adds minor amendments to bills sponsored by other Democrats.

He has not successfully championed any landmark legislation. He has not raised money for the purpose of primarying other incumbents and replacing them with people who share his ideology. He has not been successful at bringing more legislators to his cause, or starting a movement in the nation, beyond the confines of his home state.

There are 25 Blue Dog Democrats, a caucus which started in 1995. But even though Bernie first arrived in Congress four years earlier, there's still only one Berniecrat. He still caucuses with the Democratic establishment he's supposed to be fighting.

His two biggest fights with the Democratic establishment, in 2016 and 2020, have both ended in failure*.

I dunno, maybe in Vermont it's a huge political fight for him to get re-elected every term. But on the national level, he simply doesn't have a history of battling the the establishment and winning political fights. The time he does battle the establishment, he tends to lose.
 
Some of us feel that a person getting "in your face" is an aggressive act of itself, and that it is acceptable to respond in kind.
Further, behaving as if one is "above it all" is easily seen as cowardice disguised as arrogance. Meeting aggression with aggression is rarely appropriate- or productive, but every now and then it is the exact right response.

As I said, it's up to you to decide whether that's the kind of person you want to be president. The Republicans have fallen on the side of "yes". The Democrats were a "no", but now appear to have changed their minds after one of "theirs" did it. If that's truly the tone that Americans want, then good luck to them.
 
As I said, it's up to you to decide whether that's the kind of person you want to be president. The Republicans have fallen on the side of "yes". The Democrats were a "no", but now appear to have changed their minds after one of "theirs" did it. If that's truly the tone that Americans want, then good luck to them.
I have been a Democrat since the 1980's.
Never been a "no". Never thought of the Party as one that was a sure "no".

Don't feel like Biden betrayed anything.
 
Your characterisation above has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

I'm simply saying that 'boomers' are no different than any other group of people, and that blaming them for our ills is not only naive;


It certainly isn't naive to apportion responsibility accurately.



it's counter-productive,

I don't think it is.

on top of not actually addressing those ills.

It most certainly is. To fix something, first found out how it went wrong and by whose actions. If you can't work out why what went wrong went wrong and who did what during the course of events, you just can't fix a damn thing.




It's because the original argument goes nowhere to begin with.

It does. See above.

You may not think it's important to work out what just happened and by whom. I think it's an essential part of any problem solving exercise.


When the front, nearside wheel falls off an F1 car, you go speak to the bloke who put the nut on the nearside front.
 
Last edited:
As I said, it's up to you to decide whether that's the kind of person you want to be president. The Republicans have fallen on the side of "yes". The Democrats were a "no", but now appear to have changed their minds after one of "theirs" did it. If that's truly the tone that Americans want, then good luck to them.

If Biden starts approving and suggesting violence when addressing large crowds, then we can talk in generalities about discourse.

When he is on a factory floor and during an informal encounter someone squares up with him in an intimidating way it is a totally different thing.

A common way Trump people confirm their own bias in one on one conversation is to display aggression and dominance. It isn't usually a conscious thing, just that they don't realize that people not wanting to confront them head on isn't a concession that they are right, so they fall into it without really thinking about it.

Some are being purposefully aggressive, others just lack self-awareness as to why someone doesn't care to contradict them when they are standing up with a wild look in their eyes while raising their voice and using aggressive language. It must be because they are right, right?

What Biden did was the only other way to deal with him, and as a Presidential candidate just avoiding this isn't an option.
 
If Biden starts approving and suggesting violence when addressing large crowds, then we can talk in generalities about discourse.

When he is on a factory floor and during an informal encounter someone squares up with him in an intimidating way it is a totally different thing.

A common way Trump people confirm their own bias in one on one conversation is to display aggression and dominance. It isn't usually a conscious thing, just that they don't realize that people not wanting to confront them head on isn't a concession that they are right, so they fall into it without really thinking about it.

Some are being purposefully aggressive, others just lack self-awareness as to why someone doesn't care to contradict them when they are standing up with a wild look in their eyes while raising their voice and using aggressive language. It must be because they are right, right?

What Biden did was the only other way to deal with him, and as a Presidential candidate just avoiding this isn't an option.

This, and well said. The Republicans came down on the side of "yes" with a man who does it unprovoked (in fact, to provoke) and as a habit; the Democrats haven't yet said "yes" to anything that was any more than a response to a provocation. Whether the provocation was sufficient to justify the response or not is a matter of opinion- but there was one.

That said- assuming all continues as now expected, and Biden faces off against Trump in a debate, I certainly hope Biden can contain himself a little better than that against someone who will, I suspect, try to bait him into something similar.
 
Last edited:
So what we're pearl clutching because Biden starts his own fights instead of encouraging his followers to do it?

Please. "Whatever you do, don't be a pussy" has been a lesson the Democrats have been failing to learn for a while.

The worst thing Biden could do, and what he probably will do, is issue some wishy-washy no stance "I wish I had handled the situation better" mumble-pology. He should goddamn own it.

It's why Hillary couldn't get away with calling people "deplorables" but Trump could get away with standing in front of a sell out crowd in Iowa on National Television, saying "How stupid are the people people of Iowa?" and then win Iowa in a landslide.

Because Trump never apologized or walked it back.
 
Last edited:
Won't matter. Those who think the Dems are out to take their guns away wouldn't vote Dem anyway.
This is true.



Depends on whom we're talking about. Gun owners who want stricter laws on background checks, support a national registry, banning high-capacity magazines and .50-caliber ammunition, and banning assault style rifles or.....
those who don't. I call the former 'responsible gun owners' and the latter 'idiot gun nuts'.
So they were your words after all.



Nope. You said :


You've moved it from "it does make me wonder what Dr. Lee et. al. have to say" to "how their opinions are taken "by those who have argued that we should take them seriously".
I have the ability to hold many thoughts in my head at once. I do wonder what Dr. Lee et. al. have to say because I'm interested in how their opinions will be taken by my interlocutors in the other thread.

I've been told for 3 years now, by many posters (including you), how it's so important that we listen to mental health professionals when they speak out about candidates. Well, OK; let's see if you guys listen to your own advice when it applies to a candidate you support.

For myself, my opinion about professional opinions hasn't changed a jot: they aren't worth anything unless the professional has done an in-person evaluation of the subject. I'm already going to vote for Biden (or even Sanders if it came to it) because just about anyone would be better than Trump. I won't give Dr. Lee, et. al. an iota of credibility if they decide that Biden is "dangerously mentally ill."

But they won't. If they say anything about Biden it will be mild and something along the lines of "He might have some problems, but he's not as bad as Trump."

Biden didn't seriously threaten anyone, much less "voterS".

Yep, going outside with someone is a really serious threat. I bet the guy was shaking in his boots.
Yes, and I'm sure the citizens of New York (at least the ones that frequent 5th Avenue) were shaking in their boots when Trump said he could kill someone on 5th Avenue and still not lose support.

It's a really serious thing when Trump does something and not serious at all when Biden does something similar.
 
I don't think it is.

Of course not. After all, getting as many people on board with your policies is pointless, right?


It most certainly is. To fix something, first found out how it went wrong and by whose actions.

A platitude and a dodge all at once. Impressive.

"It"s your fault!" isn't figuring out how things went wrong and how to solve them as a society.
 
Biden didn't seriously threaten anyone, much less "voterS".

Yep, going outside with someone is a really serious threat. I bet the guy was shaking in his boots.
Yes, and I'm sure the citizens of New York (at least the ones that frequent 5th Avenue) were shaking in their boots when Trump said he could kill someone on 5th Avenue and still not lose support.

It's a really serious thing when Trump does something and not serious at all when Biden does something similar.
Actually I don't think any democrats consider Trump's "kill someone on 5th avenue" to be a threat at all.

What people DO consider as threats are things like:
- suggesting his supporters can rough up protesters and Trump would pay their legal bills
- Suggesting 2nd amendment people could "do something" about Clinton

The reason the latter are considered threats is because a significant portion of Trump's base are quite impressionable, and comments like those could be seen as inciting the more feeble-minded to act.
 
Okay I just, and somehow I am just learning this, found out that Joe Bidens middle name is "Robinette."

I take back everything, this man cannot lead our country with a name like that. I mean "Hussein" is one thing but "Robinette?"
 
ALL OF THIS:

So what we're pearl clutching because Biden starts his own fights instead of encouraging his followers to do it?

Please. "Whatever you do, don't be a pussy" has been a lesson the Democrats have been failing to learn for a while.

The worst thing Biden could do, and what he probably will do, is issue some wishy-washy no stance "I wish I had handled the situation better" mumble-pology. He should goddamn own it.

It's why Hillary couldn't get away with calling people "deplorables" but Trump could get away with standing in front of a sell out crowd in Iowa on National Television, saying "How stupid are the people people of Iowa?" and then win Iowa in a landslide.

Because Trump never apologized or walked it back.
 
It's why Hillary couldn't get away with calling people "deplorables" but Trump could get away with standing in front of a sell out crowd in Iowa on National Television, saying "How stupid are the people people of Iowa?" and then win Iowa in a landslide.

Because Trump never apologized or walked it back.

Well, there is also the enduring double standard that Democrats are - for some reason - expected to act and speak like adults. While the Republicans literally are frothing bat excrement crazies and barely anyone notices. Go figure.
 
Of course not. After all, getting as many people on board with your policies is pointless, right?

What on earth are you on about? I don't have any policies.



A platitude and a dodge all at once. Impressive.

I'm very interested in how you propose fixing any problem without being aware of the source of the problem. That you dismiss my accurate comment with a pointless handwave isn't going to help your argument. If you want to fix it, find out where it went wrong. It's not difficult, it certainly isn't a dodge and it is by no means a platitude. But, other than that you're right.


"It"s your fault!" isn't figuring out how things went wrong and how to solve them as a society.

No, I didn't suggest telling anyone it was their fault. The conversation was about who is blamed and why. That doesn't have to come with confrontation. What makes you think it does?
 
Okay I just, and somehow I am just learning this, found out that Joe Bidens middle name is "Robinette."

I take back everything, this man cannot lead our country with a name like that. I mean "Hussein" is one thing but "Robinette?"

"Robinette" sounds like a brand name for some kind of hair clip for young girls. Something sold on TV, with the blue screen that shows the address, like in the olden days. "You can get Robinette in six playful colors!" then shows it in use to make "quick and easy ponytails" and "stylish French braids" and "adorable buns". Then any little girl who gets one and wears it to school is mercilessly mocked until she "loses" it on the way home, pissing off her parents who went to the effort of ordering the damn thing and waiting "6 to 8 weeks for delivery".
 
Like I'm legit surprised at no point during the Golden Age of Comics did a female Robin named Robinette appear in Batman.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom