The Biden Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
No true progressive?

I think it's like Christianity, if you think you're a progressive, follow some of the ideals, and claim to be a progressive then who's to say you're not?

:rolleyes:

I feel like what's actually in question here is almost the opposite. Certainly, some progressives criticize Biden unreasonably. That's really not in dispute. What is in dispute is how those like you and JoeMorgue keep on trying to treat it as if it were pretty much definitive.

What decisions, measures, policies, et al. are being made/implemented?

There is room in the discussion for the how's and why's of how we got here and all that. The problem is when that part of the discussion is predominant, some people start wondering if a solution is really even wanted.

This is a better take, either way.
 
I feel like what's actually in question here is almost the opposite. Certainly, some progressives criticize Biden unreasonably. That's really not in dispute. What is in dispute is how those like you and JoeMorgue keep on trying to treat it as if it were pretty much definitive.

When the majority of those claiming to be progressive are criticizing Biden unreasonably, so much so that even you (but out of the progressives only you, mind) are pointing out that they're being unreasonable, it pretty much is definitive. That you don't like being lumped in with the loudest, most visible, and most repeated talking points of those who share your political outlook doesn't change whether they represent progressives.
 
Please try to keep this thread focused on Biden. Whilst there will inevitably be some mentions of Trump (such as comparisons with Biden), substantial discussion of Trump and his presidency should go in the appropriate thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
When the majority of those claiming to be progressive are criticizing Biden unreasonably, so much so that even you (but out of the progressives only you, mind) are pointing out that they're being unreasonable, it pretty much is definitive.

Aridas said some. You said "majority" and the. Made it appear the aridas comment applies to that. That is quite a misstatement on your part.
 
When the majority of those claiming to be progressive are criticizing Biden unreasonably, so much so that even you (but out of the progressives only you, mind) are pointing out that they're being unreasonable, it pretty much is definitive. That you don't like being lumped in with the loudest, most visible, and most repeated talking points of those who share your political outlook doesn't change whether they represent progressives.
Aridas said some. You said "majority" and the. Made it appear the aridas comment applies to that. That is quite a misstatement on your part.

Thank you, Bob. Again, some progressives are being unreasonable. In *my* experience, most are not. wareyin, you've stated before that your experience differs and, of course, I can't really weigh in that without more information, much as your statements quite suggest to me that you are holding grudges and that's very much coloring your perceptions. That I agree that some are being unreasonable and object to such being treated as anywhere close to definitive is simply me stating the truth based on the evidence that I've seen, not some grudging concession as I try to disassociate myself with the portion that you love to bash on.

To poke back at DO, though, now that I have a bit more time -

What decisions, measures, policies, et al. are being made/implemented?

There is room in the discussion for the how's and why's of how we got here and all that. The problem is when that part of the discussion is predominant, some people start wondering if a solution is really even wanted.

Plus it centers the discussion from the perspective of the powerful, not the powerless. It is a political hot potato, anyone the topic gets lobbed at wants engage with it only enough to get it away from them again.

To delve a bit further, here, though... when what's being presenting is little more than that the current situation is terrible, it's certainly not wrong to go more in depth both about why and why it was completely to be expected and, while not welcomed, understood as being one of the best of the available options for the moment, much as all of the options have problems. For example, the Biden Administration working on ending the Remain in Mexico Trump policy and bringing the large backlog over to what is believed to be a much, much safer place as they await further processing, for example, was nigh guaranteed to lead to outright overcrowding in the already all too full facilities. It's certainly a terrible situation and worth keeping an eye on, but it's fairly certainly a better alternative than just having them stay in the much more dangerous situation that they had been in. Similarly, when it comes to kids remaining in custody for longer than the legal limit, in this situation, it's well worth finding out exactly why such is happening before passing any judgement. Malice? That would certainly be condemnation-worthy and very likely should be a firing offense. In this case, though, no evidence was presented that malice is actually in play for the current larger picture, much as CBP and ICE have quite the history when it comes to malice and flouting the law without any good cause. An overwhelmed system because of Trump Administration BS/sabotage and/or just not having enough manpower to handle the surge in work to do? That shouldn't even qualify as negligence when it comes to the Biden Administration, at least for as long as they're diligently working to rebuild the system and make the backlog disappear in an upright and moral way.

The United States Refugee Admissions Program, as a related example, was apparently pretty well gutted by the Trump Administration. It takes time to rebuild and get people to the point where they're experienced enough to make things work smoothly. That's really not the Biden Administration's fault, nor is it at all helpful to go after the people who are frequently being worked really hard to try to get the backlogs cleared up, even if it inevitably is going to be distinctly unpleasant all around while the Biden Administration tries to clean up the messes that the Trump Administration left behind while also having to face all the new work that would have been their normal workload on top of that.
 
Last edited:
An overwhelmed system because of Trump Administration BS/sabotage and/or just not having enough manpower to handle the surge in work to do? That shouldn't even qualify as negligence when it comes to the Biden Administration, at least for as long as they're diligently work to rebuild the system and make the backlog disappear.

The United States Refugee Admissions Program, as a related example, was apparently pretty well gutted by the Trump Administration. It takes time to rebuild and get people to the point where they're experienced enough to make things work smoothly.
That's fine if that's the case, and it's easily believable that it would/could be. The problem is the shortage of signs of what they're doing to improve the situation, or even that they are doing anything.

Are you building more buildings? Nifty, but tell us about it & maybe show us the progress on construction. Are you buying or re-assigning some other buildings that have already been built so you can shunt some of the traffic off to other sites? Nifty, but tell us the plan, show us those other properties, and tell us how many each one is expected to hold. Do you figure the physical facilities are sufficient and the problem is inadequate staff to handle the work load fast enough & get people out of there faster, so that's where you're focusing your efforts instead? Nifty, but point out the website with the job vacancy announcements and broadcast what qualifications you're looking for.

The more time passes with Biden's defenders needing to come up with stuff like this for him instead of seeing it spelled out in the news from Biden and/or his staff themselves, the less plausible "they must be doing the best they can somehow" becomes, and the more plausible "they're not doing anything, just counting on people thinking it's OK if you're a Democrat" becomes.
 
The more time passes? Biden's got the pandemic to worry about, civil unrest, he's stealing my schtick about infrastructure, and everyone, including you, have their own pet project that the President needs to be exclusively focusing on NOW NOW NOW. He's not failing as a president if he doesn't immediately jump to what you want him to. Not even if he doesn't jump to what his political opponents want him to. The border's been a total mess for literal years, and Biden was supposed to solve it entirely in the less than three months he's been in office?
 
That's fine if that's the case, and it's easily believable that it would/could be. The problem is the shortage of signs of what they're doing to improve the situation, or even that they are doing anything.

Are you building more buildings? Nifty, but tell us about it & maybe show us the progress on construction. Are you buying or re-assigning some other buildings that have already been built so you can shunt some of the traffic off to other sites? Nifty, but tell us the plan, show us those other properties, and tell us how many each one is expected to hold. Do you figure the physical facilities are sufficient and the problem is inadequate staff to handle the work load fast enough & get people out of there faster, so that's where you're focusing your efforts instead? Nifty, but point out the website with the job vacancy announcements and broadcast what qualifications you're looking for.

The more time passes with Biden's defenders needing to come up with stuff like this for him instead of seeing it spelled out in the news from Biden and/or his staff themselves, the less plausible "they must be doing the best they can somehow" becomes, and the more plausible "they're not doing anything, just counting on people thinking it's OK if you're a Democrat" becomes.

I'd call those fair concerns and suggestions.

Somewhat in keeping with that, Biden's DHS selection made a fairly recent announcement detailing much in the current state of things with regards to the SW border.

It doesn't answer everything that you've asked, but I'd call it a good overview to cover much of what's going on and give direction on where to dig further, if so desired.
 
Last edited:
Governor Noem of S Dakota on Fox complaining that the Infrastructure Bill is just another 'far left spending spree' as contains money for housing, pipes and energy.
 
Thank you, Bob. Again, some progressives are being unreasonable. In *my* experience, most are not. wareyin, you've stated before that your experience differs and, of course, I can't really weigh in that without more information, much as your statements quite suggest to me that you are holding grudges and that's very much coloring your perceptions. That I agree that some are being unreasonable and object to such being treated as anywhere close to definitive is simply me stating the truth based on the evidence that I've seen, not some grudging concession as I try to disassociate myself with the portion that you love to bash on.

I'm discussing the participants here, on this forum, in this thread. Are you seriously claiming that the majority of self-proclaimed progressives are not?
I'm open to the possibility of some sort of silent majority of progressives and all, but I consider that about as likely as the silent majority evangelical Christians claim. So, if the majority of progressives participating in this discussion seem to have a set of views it is certainly not unreasonable to claim those views are definitive to the progressives one is talking to.
 
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You don't have a favorite MD.

You don't trust medical professionals, so how could you have a favorite one?

This is just a control-release exercise, we're all supposed to beg for your next q-drop style cryptic hint.

No dice.

"People are saying" got old years ago.

My dad had Parkinson's.

Biden is nothing like that. At all. No similarity in any way.

So now we can counter the assertion that he had Parkinson's with my assertion that he doesn't.
 
I see absolutely no evidence of Parkinson's. I had a older relative that came down with it and a roommate who was diagnosed with early onset Parkinson's in his thirties. I've been around this disease far too much. I don't see the telltale trimmers in his hand and in his speech. And some people deal with Parkinson's quite successfully for decades. Also, older people sometimes develop tremors during aging, but aren't coming down with Parkinson's.
.

Then again, there are people with Parkinson's that don't develop tremors.

My Dad was having hand tremors back in his 70s, but they were not considered Parkinson's related. Oddly he was was diagnosed with Parkinson's in his 80s, but that was like 5 years after the tremors, and by the time he was diagnosed, the tremors had stopped. The Parkinson's was manifested in other physical behaviors, though, particularly in terms of walking.
 
The major early symptoms of Parkinson's are: tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia (slow movement) and postural instability (balance problems).

Yep, some combination of these symptoms, but not necessarily all. Moreover, the "tremor" aspect can be varied. SG mentioned head tremors, and we are all familiar with hand tremors, but my Dad had issues where, for example, his legs would just take off out of control. Mom would say, "Why are you walking so fast?" and he'd respond, "I can't help it"

Rigidity was another issue, and that shows up as a characteristic "shuffle" instead of walking. This is where Dad was initially diagnosed, as the neurologist watched him walk. When she pointed it out, it was pretty obvious.

Bradykinesia - sure, but there is always the question of whether it is because of disease or just that they are getting older, so it can be deceptive. However, this was a big issue for my uncle, whose movements got really slow.

And with postural instability, again, old people have balance issues, but it happens. My Dad had an incident before he was diagnosed where he was bringing the boat in from the lake by himself. We don't know what happened, all we know is that he fell and broke his sternum. He may have passed out, or he may have just fallen.

While there is certainly cognitive decline that can come with Parkinson's, I generally figure that is later onset. It certainly is not Alzheimers. Look at Michael J Fox, for example. Serious Parkinson's physical symptoms, but no sign of cognitive decline. Moreover, the cognitive decline that comes often manifests as "sundowners" syndrome, where symptoms are worse at night. My Dad was textbook. He would be pretty normal during the day, but at night he would just lose all sense of reality (you will see commercials on TV for medicines for hallucinations associated with Parkinson's - that happens too). You wouldn't be seeing any sundowner's issues with Biden. Even if they were occurring, they'd just keep him out of view. But there is no reason to think they are occurring.
 
The more time passes? Biden's got the pandemic to worry about, civil unrest, he's stealing my schtick about infrastructure, and everyone, including you, have their own pet project that the President needs to be exclusively focusing on NOW NOW NOW. He's not failing as a president if he doesn't immediately jump to what you want him to. Not even if he doesn't jump to what his political opponents want him to. The border's been a total mess for literal years, and Biden was supposed to solve it entirely in the less than three months he's been in office?

Back when Obama was elected, I was listening a lot to OutQ radio on SiriusXM. There was a lot of optimism when he was elected, but after a year, it was waning. They did a call in about how do you grade Obama's first year? In general, the response was severe disappointment that he hadn't done enough for gay people. No one was giving him more than a C, and most were giving him an F.

All because he hadn't solved all the problems in the first year.

I think, in the end, that the Obama presidency turned out pretty good for gay rights.

BTW, just a reminder, it was Biden who triggered the process to get gay marriage.
 
Governor Noem of S Dakota on Fox complaining that the Infrastructure Bill is just another 'far left spending spree' as contains money for housing, pipes and energy.

When Pete talked about taxing truck drivers to pay for road maintenance, I heard the accusation that he was taxing the small people to "pay for his socialist programs."

Say what you want about the tax plan, but road infrastructure is socialist!?!?!?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom