Cont: The Biden Presidency (4)

[dudalb]

Who is "you" in this post?

Biden has done and is doing an excellent job.

One problem Americans have is not recognizing what the oldest generation has to offer.

Biden is doing a good job under the cricumtances.
Right now he has an incredible balancing act to do with the Gaza Crisis; Satisfy the Progressive wing of the party while not losing the Pro Israel wing.
Thought the I think the threats of Muslim voters sitting out the election I am seeing all over the net are overblown whne the Alternative is Trump, who has shown his hatred for Muslims time and time again (unless you are a rich Saudi).
I repeat; The get rid of BIden posts are based ona false premise; There is some vast hidden Left wing vote in the US.

 

[dirtywick]

Who is "you" in this post?

Biden has done and is doing an excellent job.

One problem Americans have is not recognizing what the oldest generation has to offer.

the oldest generation has been in charge the whole time. what they have to offer is all we've ever seen

 

[Stacyhs]

In the general election: he was the only way to block Trump.

In the primaries, when his opponents were other Democrats: the voters actually clearly wanted somebody else but were scared into settling for Biden instead because the party has been so successful at pushing its myth that the least electable people it can find are the most electable.

If the voters 'clearly wanted somebody else' then they'd have chosen one of the other dozen plus primary candidates. Funny how the 'least electable' person was elected.

You are missing my point. If you voted for Biden once, it's not like you would have your pick of Democrats in 2024. The voters knew that.

In 2020, few were thinking about 2024. We were too busy worrying about Trump getting a second disastrous term and who could prevent that.

here come the Bernie Bros.
There is no vast hidden Left wing vote in the US.
I also note the hatred for centrists and moderates that is becoming so common in these Forums from the Left Wing Tea Party.

Someone who is not as far right as a MAGITE/right-winger thinks they should be is a "RINO" and someone who is not as far left as a BernieBro/left-winger (i.e. a moderate/centrist) is really a conservative. Both ends of the spectrum see things in black and white.

Who is "you" in this post?

Biden has done and is doing an excellent job.

One problem Americans have is not recognizing what the oldest generation has to offer.

I agree that Biden is doing a very good job but some people can't...or won't...see it.

 

[Delvo]

Why did you pick Biden in 2020? This "Biden" is entirely your fault.

If you voted for Biden once, it's not like you would have your pick of Democrats in 2024. The voters knew that.

People were concerned about his likelihood of running for a second term.

• Some might have overestimated how "democratic" the party's internal machinery is and thought/hoped the voters would be free to pick someone else if he ran again.
• Some might have overestimated how tactically competent the party's internal machinery is and thought/hoped the party would block or persuade him if he did want to try running again.
• Some interpreted his Vice-President selection as his appointment of the person who'd run next after him, which was why there was so much concern & speculation about who that would be for so long before he picked her.
• Some might have thought/hoped he'd probably choose to quit after one term. He was even asked about it precisely because there were people thinking it & talking about it, and he didn't say back then that he'd run again. (I know some have said that he actually said he wouldn't, but I think he really just didn't answer, which was enough for some to keep hope alive that he might not.)

But the bottom line is that none of that mattered because people in panic mode don't really think ahead much, or don't care what conclusions they come to about something that far out, because panic mode makes only what's right in front of your face right now matter. Trump was such a dire emergency that all anybody could think of was "OMG WE MUST STOP TRUMP NOW" and any price that meant paying later would just need to be paid. And the party's media outlets spent the whole primary process going on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on with their myth that he was just soooooo "ELECTABLE!" and nominating anybody else was nothing but a sure suicide mission, that lots of people fell for it.

 

[Stacyhs]

People were concerned about his likelihood of running for a second term.

• Some might have overestimated how "democratic" the party's internal machinery is and thought/hoped the voters would be free to pick someone else if he ran again.
• Some might have overestimated how tactically competent the party's internal machinery is and thought/hoped the party would block or persuade him if he did want to try running again.
• Some interpreted his Vice-President selection as his appointment of the person who'd run next after him, which was why there was so much concern & speculation about who that would be for so long before he picked her.
• Some might have thought/hoped he'd probably choose to quit after one term. He was even asked about it precisely because there were people thinking it & talking about it, and he didn't say back then that he'd run again. (I know some have said that he actually said he wouldn't, but I think he really just didn't answer, which was enough for some to keep hope alive that he might not.)

But the bottom line is that none of that mattered because people in panic mode don't really think ahead much, or don't care what conclusions they come to about something that far out, because panic mode makes only what's right in front of your face right now matter. Trump was such a dire emergency that all anybody could think of was "OMG WE MUST STOP TRUMP NOW" and any price that meant paying later would just need to be paid. And the party's media outlets spent the whole primary process going on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on with their myth that he was just soooooo "ELECTABLE!" and nominating anybody else was nothing but a sure suicide mission, that lots of people fell for it.

So who was elected?

Do you have examples of the media "going on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on" claiming that "nominating anybody else was nothing but a sure suicide mission"?

 

[thaiboxerken]

This Biden hate by the Bernie bros is ridiculous. C'mon. I voted for Bernie, but Biden won the primaries fair and square. He won because he was more electable. Unelectable people do not win elections unless they cheat.

 

[angrysoba]

Delvo knows who the most electable is and who the electorate wanted. But the stupid electorate disagreed and elected the least electable.

 

[Stacyhs]

This Biden hate by the Bernie bros is ridiculous. C'mon. I voted for Bernie, but Biden won the primaries fair and square. He won because he was more electable. Unelectable people do not win elections unless they cheat.

I couldn't agree more. This and the continued blaming of centrists/moderates for just about everything is equally tiresome and ridiculous.

 

[Delvo]

This Biden hate by the Bernie bros is ridiculous.

Not nearly as much so as the propensity for his defenders to claim there's "hate" where there isn't.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not nearly as much so as the propensity for his defenders to claim there's "hate" where there isn't.

Would animosity, resentment, disparagement, sour grapes describe it better?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

He won because he was more electable. Unelectable people do not win elections unless they cheat.

While we're on the subject, can I object to the use of the term "electable" in general? It's entirely circular. If you're elected, then you're electable. If you weren't, you aren't. Hillary Clinton was eminently electable until she lost, then she wasn't and never had been. It means nothing. It's a garbage term. Talk about politicians being charismatic or popular or intelligent or driven. "Electable" only means "I can't think of anything actually good to say about this person but I feel I need to argue." Like rooting for a sports team because it's the "winningest one."

 

[Delvo]

While we're on the subject, can I object to the use of the term "electable" in general?

You can object, but I'm overruling. The problem you describe only arises if it's taken as an absolute all-or-nothing conclusion, not if it's taken as a sliding scale prediction. It's perfectly reasonable to compare a current or hypothetical future candidate to previous candidates and note whether they are more like the ones who've lost or the ones who've won. For example, for Democrats, those who fit more in the mold of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore are clearly more likely to win than those who fit more in the mold of how Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama portrayed themselves while campaigning, according to Bidenista "logic". But the fact that they always state it exactly backward from reality isn't a problem with the word itself; it's just a problem with their abuse of it.

 

[Stacyhs]

You can object, but I'm overruling. The problem you describe only arises if it's taken as an absolute all-or-nothing conclusion, not if it's taken as a sliding scale prediction. It's perfectly reasonable to compare a current or hypothetical future candidate to previous candidates and note whether they are more like the ones who've lost or the ones who've won. For example, for Democrats, those who fit more in the mold of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore are clearly more likely to win than those who fit more in the mold of how Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama portrayed themselves while campaigning, according to Bidenista "logic". But the fact that they always state it exactly backward from reality isn't a problem with the word itself; it's just a problem with their abuse of it.

What exactly is that mold?

 

[angrysoba]

What exactly is that mold?

Well according to Delvo-ista logic, Biden fits into the mold of unelectables as opposed to electables. This is despite Biden getting elected. Not sure what his model is based on.

 

[acbytesla]

You can object, but I'm overruling. The problem you describe only arises if it's taken as an absolute all-or-nothing conclusion, not if it's taken as a sliding scale prediction. It's perfectly reasonable to compare a current or hypothetical future candidate to previous candidates and note whether they are more like the ones who've lost or the ones who've won. For example, for Democrats, those who fit more in the mold of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore are clearly more likely to win than those who fit more in the mold of how Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama portrayed themselves while campaigning, according to Bidenista "logic". But the fact that they always state it exactly backward from reality isn't a problem with the word itself; it's just a problem with their abuse of it.

I don't have a clue how you developed this idea. But I'm convinced you pulled it out of your ass. I've tried my entire life to understand what makes a candidate electable. What I do know is that I don't know. I also feel quite confident in saying that you don't know either.

Far too many variables come into play. The economy, wars, and who their opponent is.

Biden doesn't have the charisma of a JFK, Clinton or Obama, but he won by a larger margin than Bill Clinton did in his first election or JFK. There's a lot of uncertainty, but unless you can offer a charismatic alternative, I'll take my chances with Joe.

 

[dudalb]

Biden might have the greaterst challenge of his presidency ahead; the chances that the war will expand beyond Gaza are incresing.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

So you're advocating the nazi solution for Israel's self-created problems.

The Nazis had a big hand in it,
History of Israel

Between 1929 and 1938, 250,000 Jews arrived in Palestine (Fifth Aliyah). In 1933, the Jewish Agency and the Nazis negotiated the Ha'avara Agreement (transfer agreement), under which 50,000 German Jews would be transferred to Palestine...

Jewish immigration and Nazi propaganda contributed to the large-scale 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, a largely nationalist uprising directed at ending British rule...

Between 1939 and 1945, the Nazis, aided by local forces, led systematic efforts to kill every person of Jewish extraction in Europe (The Holocaust), causing the deaths of approximately 6 million Jews... Those Jews who survived in central Europe, were displaced persons (refugees); an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, established to examine the Palestine issue, surveyed their ambitions and found that over 95% wanted to migrate to Palestine.

The British too,

On 2 April 1947, the United Kingdom requested that the question of Palestine be handled by the [UN] General Assembly... The majority report of UNSCOP proposed "an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem", the last to be under "an International Trusteeship System". On 29 November 1947, in Resolution 181 (II), the General Assembly adopted the majority report of UNSCOP, but with slight modifications. The Plan also called for the British to allow "substantial" Jewish migration by 1 February 1948... Neither Britain nor the UN Security Council took any action to implement the recommendation made by the resolution and Britain continued detaining Jews attempting to enter Palestine.
The General Assembly's vote caused joy in the Jewish community and anger in the Arab community. Violence broke out between the sides, escalating into civil war... Up to 100,000 Arabs, from the urban upper and middle classes in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, or Jewish-dominated areas, evacuated abroad or to Arab centres eastwards. This situation caused the US to withdraw their support for the Partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinian Arabs, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the plan for partition. The British, on the other hand, decided on 7 February 1948 to support the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine...

Every Jewish man and woman in the country had to receive military training. Thanks to funds raised by Golda Meir from sympathisers in the United States, and Stalin's decision to support the Zionist cause, the Jewish representatives of Palestine were able to purchase important arms in Eastern Europe.

Ben-Gurion gave Yigael Yadin the responsibility to plan for the announced intervention of the Arab states. The result of his analysis was Plan Dalet, in which Haganah passed from the defensive to the offensive. The plan sought to establish Jewish territorial continuity by conquering mixed zones. Tiberias, Haifa, Safed, Beisan, Jaffa and Acre fell, resulting in the flight of more than 250,000 Palestinian Arabs. The situation was one of the catalysts for the intervention of neighbouring Arab states.

Israel's problems were only partially self-created. The Nazis probably played the biggest part, followed by Britain, Poland and the USSR. All contributed one way or another to the influx of Jews into Palestine that created the conflict, but the Nazis added the final ingredient by eliminating 6 million moderate Jews and radicalizing those that escaped. Hitler believed in a global war which would result in the 'survival of the fittest' races. Of course he thought the Ayran 'race' would win, but his policy of weeding out the weaker ones by 'unnatural selection' actually made the remaining Jews stronger and more militant.

I hate to say it, but this idea of separate Jewish and Arab states in Palestine was never going to work. All the intervention by other countries - whether well-meaning or not - has only made it worse. That's why I say we should sit back and let Israel finish the job - take over the whole of Palestine so it doesn't exist anymore. Then there will be no Palestinians, just Israelis.

 

[Tero]

Do Gazans and West Bank resident speak Hebrew? The state would need to be bilingual for any resemblance to a democracy.

 

[Stacyhs]

Biden might have the greaterst challenge of his presidency ahead; the chances that the war will expand beyond Gaza are incresing.

I shudder to think that Trump could have been POTUS during this crisis.

Oh, I forgot; this never would have happened if he were POTUS.

 

[Solitaire]

Candidate running as Democrat: "Because America
wants a president whose name is not Biden."
Out with the old, in with the new.

It was bad. Oh, it was so very bad. After fifteen minutes I gave up.

Kristen Welker: "Former congressman Dean Philips, big picture here.
You voted to impeach former President Trump twice. After January 6th
you posted, "History will judge every one of us in the a position to end
this nightmare." So how do you justify your presidential run which could
effectively help Mr. Trump get back into the Oval Office."

"I am not running against President Biden in the general election unlike
the No Labels Party candidate. If I get the nomination at the Democratic
Party Convention, then I will run for the office of President of the United
States. If I do not win the nomination then I will support the Democratic
candidate that did. My running during the primaries to become the nominee
will not in any way help Mr. Trump become president. Instead history has
shown that challengers improve the eventual nominee performance in the
general election..."

How hard is it to say that?

Infinitely hard, if you're fueled by fear and desperation.

He's going to burn himself out in a couple of months to no effect.

I have a message for America: This "Biden" is entirely your fault.
Why did you pick Biden in 2020?

Largely based up name recognition. He's a known quantity and he earned
recognition through years of service.

If your running for the office then you need to do the ground work of finding
policies that resonate with the public and can function in the real world.
It takes years of planning, organizing, and who knows what else before
you can make a semi-successful run for the presidency. Three weeks of
talking to the public ain't going to cut it.