The Biden Presidency Thread

[Unagi]

Ok, so let's put a "wheel o' terrorist responses" into place, with slides that say "ignore attack", "respond with missile attack", "engage with regional allies", "respond with ground troops", etc. Then we'll just spin it whenever there's terrorist activity.

Problem solved! Maybe we don't even need a Secretary of State.

Unfortunately, Pat Sajak is -massively- conservative, else I'd suggest he'd make a great SoS for this idea.

[NickAragua]

Trump was unpredictable in how he would respond.
Biden is not. He has shown he has no problem engaging in long drawn out conflicts that accomplish little to nothing except cost lives and money.

Ok, so let's put a "wheel o' terrorist responses" into place, with slides that say "ignore attack", "respond with missile attack", "engage with regional allies", "respond with ground troops", etc. Then we'll just spin it whenever there's terrorist activity.

Problem solved! Maybe we don't even need a Secretary of State.

"Impose unrelated immigration restrictions"

"Brag about stock market"

"Incoherently rant about size of last presidential rally"

"Fascist advisor surprise response!"

"Praise authoritarian government carrying out genocide against minorities"

[LordMortis]

Ok, so let's put a "wheel o' terrorist responses" into place, with slides that say "ignore attack", "respond with missile attack", "engage with regional allies", "respond with ground troops", etc. Then we'll just spin it whenever there's terrorist activity.

Problem solved! Maybe we don't even need a Secretary of State.

Unfortunately, Pat Sajak is -massively- conservative, else I'd suggest he'd make a great SoS for this idea.

I thee

[Paingod]

Then we'll just spin it whenever there's terrorist activity.

My favorite tile on that wheel from the last 4 years was "Pull out our troops and hang our allies out to dry"

[Holman]

Don't forget "Invite them to Camp David for a 9/11 celebration."

[stimpy]

I love how all you guys have to talk about in a thread about Biden is Trump.
He's gone. You won. Focus on the task at hand.
This thread is woefully short on pages because apparently Biden is doing an absolutely fabulous job.
I'm just trying to keep it relevant and somewhere near the top of the page so you guys dont have to look too far to find it and fawn all over Biden and the great strides he has made in making this country what it used to be.......

[Unagi]

I love how all you guys have to talk about in a thread about Biden is Trump.
He's gone. You won. Focus on the task at hand.

Hilarious.

I think I showed that YOU were the one who took this into a conversation about Trump. You came in here and said "This would never happen to Trump" - and now you are shocked to see that generated a whole bunch of "Oh yeah, this is what we got from Trump" replies?

[Unagi]

This thread is woefully short on pages because apparently Biden is doing an absolutely fabulous job.

I asked you, and you didn't really go into any reply - - What is your critique of the Biden administration over this reaction to the attack exactly. I don't think "This would never have happened to my strong man, Trump" - is really saying anything.

[stimpy]

This thread is woefully short on pages because apparently Biden is doing an absolutely fabulous job.

I asked you, and you didn't really go into any reply - - What is your critique of the Biden administration over this reaction to the attack exactly. I don't think "This would never have happened to my strong man, Trump" - is really saying anything.

My critique isnt so much over the reaction, but from the fact that somehow we've managed to avoid having to engage in these types of defensive responses in the past few years.

It's up to smarter people than me to figure out why, but I do know the blame or credit to every single thing that happened over the past few years cant and shouldnt be Trump.
A lesson maybe some of you guys can learn.

[Carpet_pissr]

I'm just trying to keep it relevant and somewhere near the top of the page so you guys dont have to look too far to find it and fawn all over Biden and the great strides he has made in making this country what it used to be.......

There you go talking about Trump AGAIN! "making this country what it used to be" was your guy's mantra. New guy's mantra is trying to make this country what it SHOULD be. That's a big ask, let's see how he does.

[Jaymann]

Biden is a career politician, by definition not perfect. He seems to genuinely care about the well being of all Americans, not just white ones, and critically, not just the ones who voted for him. So far his administration has:

Taken Covid very seriously and moved quickly to combat it.
Fought for a relief package and an increase in minimum wage.
Helped restore our allies' faith in the US.
Worked to reduce the frenzy about immigration.
Strived to increase diversity in his cabinet selections.

Again, not perfect, but not too shabby for his first month in office.

[YellowKing]

Biden also doesn't run his mouth ALL THE GODDAMN TIME so naturally we don't hear him tooting his own horn AT EVERY FREAKING OPPORTUNITY. The surest sign that he's actually getting stuff done is that I don't hear about it in a tweet every 5 minutes.

[Unagi]

My critique isnt so much over the reaction, but from the fact that somehow we've managed to avoid having to engage in these types of defensive responses in the past few years.

I'm sorry, but what a joke. Less than 1 month into the Biden presidency, and you come here and blame them for the attack. You admit you have nothing - but you insist it is clearly Biden's fault. Simply by not being Trump....

It's empty. You have made no argument.... You are just here talking about Trump - and then ironically trying to blame that on us.




You have no critique, and so you point to this attack as being a sign that he's weak.

It's up to smarter people than me to figure out why, but

No, please don't pretend that didn't just start this whole thing off by laying the attack squarely at Biden's feet....

I do know the blame or credit to every single thing that happened over the past few years cant and shouldnt be Trump.
A lesson maybe some of you guys can learn.

Ohh - I see. You are the one pointing out the lessons to be learned here? Not that you didn't just actually commit the crime - but that you were just showing us what it was like ???

lol - you are a squirmy little intellectually dishonest fella - aren't ya.


Can you mention something that we actually blamed Trump for, that like this attack, had no connection to his administrations actions or inactions ? Curious if you could give us an example of where we are guilty of that.

[Carpet_pissr]

Biden also doesn't run his mouth ALL THE GODDAMN TIME so naturally we don't hear him tooting his own horn AT EVERY FREAKING OPPORTUNITY. The surest sign that he's actually getting stuff done is that I don't hear about it in a tweet every 5 minutes.

This. 1,000x this.

[Carpet_pissr]

Biden also doesn't run his mouth ALL THE GODDAMN TIME so naturally we don't hear him tooting his own horn AT EVERY FREAKING OPPORTUNITY. The surest sign that he's actually getting stuff done is that I don't hear about it in a tweet every 5 minutes.

This. 1,000x this.

Working>whining

[stimpy]

lol - you are a squirmy little intellectually dishonest fella - aren't ya.

You'll have to do better than that to try and insult me.
Try something without the word intellectually in it.

[Unagi]

lol - you are a squirmy little intellectually dishonest fella - aren't ya.

You'll have to do better than that to try and insult me.
Try something without the word intellectually in it.

I’m not trying to insult you.
I’m trying to understand your point and engage you in conversation that isn’t disingenuous.

[Alefroth]

lol - you are a squirmy little intellectually dishonest fella - aren't ya.

You'll have to do better than that to try and insult me.

I disagree. As far as insults go, it was pretty good.

[stimpy]

lol - you are a squirmy little intellectually dishonest fella - aren't ya.

You'll have to do better than that to try and insult me.
Try something without the word intellectually in it.

I’m not trying to insult you.
I’m trying to understand your point and engage you in conversation that isn’t disingenuous.

Honestly, sometimes I post to kick the nest a bit and other times not.
Even I have a hard time knowing which is which, probably due to the way I word it or something.

And when I do post something that is (what is the opposite of disingenuous, genous?), I usually try and explain myself.
Is it always clear what I'm trying to get across? Apparently not.
My wife and I have been fighting over this for way too many years.
I ask her on a weekly basis if she even knows me at all......lol

[malchior]

Come on, man! This is a really dumb idea.

Reporters who cover the White House may soon be paying what amounts to an admission fee to do their jobs.

Starting Monday, the White House’s press office said it will start charging journalists for coronavirus tests, which are required for anyone entering the White House grounds.

The proposed cost for each test: $170.

With dozens of journalists at the White House each day, the fees could add up to tens of thousands of dollars flowing from newsrooms, many of them small and cash-strapped, into government coffers.

Until now, the cost of testing has been borne by the White House. But officials there contend that the cost of maintaining the testing regime for nearly a year has strained its budget. So it wants to shift the burden onto news organizations: No test, no entry to the White House.

The plan has alarmed the White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents reporters in issues affecting the presidential press corps. The organization has objected to the proposal because of the financial burden it would impose on news organizations, especially smaller ones for whom a $170 daily fee would be onerous.

“It sets up a means test for White House coverage,” said one correspondents’ association member familiar with the proposal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the policy hasn’t been formally announced. No other federal agency charges journalists a test fee, this person said.

The fees would add up quickly for larger news organizations, too. The TV networks send as many as eight people a day to the White House grounds to report, produce and operate cameras and equipment. It would cost $1,360 a day to test an eight-person crew under the White House plan.

[LordMortis]

That actually sounds like a death of the 4th watch post.

[Jaymann]

Biden is supporting the unionization of Amazon, in Alabama of all places. This is a BFD.

At 8:01 p.m., President Joe Biden posted on Twitter a speech that took labor’s side in a union election. No president has done anything remotely like this in my lifetime. “This is new, nothing like it before,” observed the labor historian Nelson Lichtenstein on Twitter. “Politicians always give great speeches at union conventions and avoid union organizing campaigns because of possibility of failure. But Biden broke this norm.”

[Paingod]

Amazon workers need it, though.

One of my management textbooks claims Amazon runs tests to see just how far they can stress workers before they break, with one experiment having the workers going in 100+ degree heat with ambulances on standby to haul them off as they collapsed.

Companies like Amazon are the future of shopping, even if Amazon goes under. The workers absolutely need protection from corporate mega-giants. I wish Walmart employees could unionize, too - but Walmart's happy to bulldoze entire stores to avoid it.

[malchior]

Tanden is being withdrawn. This is dumb politics all around. Why did she get attacked for things that Trump did everyday? Who knows. Why did Biden persist when it was clear she wasn't going to cut it? Who knows.

Edit: Rumor is that with Manchin being obstinate, Biden tried to court moderate Republicans and Murkowski tried to trade opening ANWR back up to drilling in exchange for Tanden.

[El Guapo]

Tanden is being withdrawn. This is dumb politics all around. Why did she get attacked for things that Trump did everyday? Who knows. Why did Biden persist when it was clear she wasn't going to cut it? Who knows.

Edit: Rumor is that with Manchin being obstinate, Biden tried to court moderate Republicans and Murkowski tried to trade opening ANWR back up to drilling in exchange for Tanden.

I really think it just comes down to Manchin feeling like he needs to oppose at least one nominee for domestic WV politics, and the 'moderate' GOP wing be unwilling to stick their necks out to put a nominee over the top.

Really dumb though.

[Carpet_pissr]

I’m personally ok with her not being confirmed.

[Kurth]

Trump was unpredictable in how he would respond.
Biden is not. He has shown he has no problem engaging in long drawn out conflicts that accomplish little to nothing except cost lives and money.

Kruschev and his shoe love you, too, Stimpy.

[El Guapo]

I’m personally ok with her not being confirmed.

I think that she's eminently qualified, and seems like a general person of talent. I'm ok with her not getting confirmed too, and it's not like there aren't other talented people to fill the position with.

Mainly I just wish the 'official' reason for her getting rejected made at least a little sense.

[malchior]

I’m personally ok with her not being confirmed.

I think that she's eminently qualified, and seems like a general person of talent. I'm ok with her not getting confirmed too, and it's not like there aren't other talented people to fill the position with.

Mainly I just wish the 'official' reason for her getting rejected made at least a little sense.

This is my problem. I don't blame Biden for nominating her. She is qualified. I don't think anyone could have anticipated this nonsense line or that it'd actually stick. I also don't blame Biden from reaching out to moderate Republicans since he said he'd do that.

I think however that mid-last week it was clear this nomination was dead. This stretched on and somehow got to the point that Murkowski thought to try to see if ANWR was in play? That sounds like the Republicans judged that Biden was really stretching to get her in the door. It would have been a disaster if that succeeded so I'm glad it didn't. My only real hope out of this is that maybe Biden is starting to realize how bad the situation in Congress is. His rose-colored glasses ought to be coming off soon.

[El Guapo]

I’m personally ok with her not being confirmed.

I think that she's eminently qualified, and seems like a general person of talent. I'm ok with her not getting confirmed too, and it's not like there aren't other talented people to fill the position with.

Mainly I just wish the 'official' reason for her getting rejected made at least a little sense.

This is my problem. I don't blame Biden for nominating her. She is qualified. I don't think anyone could have anticipated this nonsense line or that it'd actually stick. I also don't blame Biden from reaching out to moderate Republicans since he said he'd do that.

I think however that mid-last week it was clear this nomination was dead. This stretched on and somehow got to the point that Murkowski thought to try to see if ANWR was in play? That sounds like the Republicans judged that Biden was really stretching to get her in the door. It would have been a disaster if that succeeded so I'm glad it didn't. My only real hope out of this is that maybe Biden is starting to realize how bad the situation in Congress is. His rose-colored glasses ought to be coming off soon.

It's also a little weird because it seems like OMB Director is one of the stronger cabinet positions for deferring to the President's pick, especially since the OMB Director isn't promulgating regulations or the like. Honestly I'm not 100% sure why OMB Director is a position that has to be Senate confirmed.

As for why he kept it going that long...I'm sure part of it is they probably felt if they pulled her too soon that they would look weak. Part of it is why not kick the tires and see if there's anyone that they can get to go along. And to see (for example) does Murkowski want something minor and face-saving, or does she want something big and substantive?

Honestly overall I'm pretty satisfied with how Biden and Democratic leadership has responded to GOP intransigence...not too much tilting at windmills at this point. The big test is going to be how they respond to the GOP filibustering the essential HR1 / voting rights bills - that's the stuff that it's essential that they play full hardball on.

[hepcat]

lol - you are a squirmy little intellectually dishonest fella - aren't ya.

You'll have to do better than that to try and insult me.
Try something without the word intellectually in it.

I’m not trying to insult you.
I’m trying to understand your point and engage you in conversation that isn’t disingenuous.

Honestly, sometimes I post to kick the nest a bit and other times not.
Even I have a hard time knowing which is which, probably due to the way I word it or something.

[Carpet_pissr]

The big test is going to be how they respond to the GOP filibustering the essential HR1 / voting rights bills - that's the stuff that it's essential that they play full hardball on.

Agree. But Manchin just said, AGAIN, within past couple days, that he will never ever ever evarrrrrrrrr vote to end the filibuster:

To quote: "Jesus Christ, what don't you understand about 'never'?" (that is an actual quote in case you're wondering, in response to a reporter asking the same question he's been pummeled with for probably the last month or so)

Unless he's suddenly turned into Lindsey Fucking Graham, I tend to believe that he will likely not vote to end the filibuster (within the next 12 months at least).

Also, "filibuster" should be spelled with TWO "l's" dammit!

[stimpy]

lol - you are a squirmy little intellectually dishonest fella - aren't ya.

You'll have to do better than that to try and insult me.
Try something without the word intellectually in it.

I’m not trying to insult you.
I’m trying to understand your point and engage you in conversation that isn’t disingenuous.

Honestly, sometimes I post to kick the nest a bit and other times not.
Even I have a hard time knowing which is which, probably due to the way I word it or something.

How original......

[El Guapo]

The big test is going to be how they respond to the GOP filibustering the essential HR1 / voting rights bills - that's the stuff that it's essential that they play full hardball on.

Agree. But Manchin just said, AGAIN, within past couple days, that he will never ever ever evarrrrrrrrr vote to end the filibuster:

To quote: "Jesus Christ, what don't you understand about 'never'?" (that is an actual quote in case you're wondering, in response to a reporter asking the same question he's been pummeled with for probably the last month or so)

Unless he's suddenly turned into Lindsey Fucking Graham, I tend to believe that he will likely not vote to end the filibuster (within the next 12 months at least).

Also, "filibuster" should be spelled with TWO "l's" dammit!

Yeah, I don't think ending the filibuster full stop is going to happen this year. Which is unfortunate, but there's always been a case that gutting it instead of abolishing it made more sense anyway due to the politics. So I think the most plausible path is to carve out another filibuster exception, like how judicial nominees can no longer be filibustered. Probably an exception for civil rights / voting legislation. Which makes some sense, and Manchin has decent incentives to go along with that - he can say that he held the line on maintaining the filibuster, plus these voting bills would I imagine help him get reelected (since I have to imagine that WV Republicans will be trying to carve the electorate down to "people who hate Joe Manchin" as much as possible over the next couple years).

Of course, another problem is that I imagine that there will be five SCOTUS votes to gut any voting bills that the Democrats do manage to scrape together this year. BUT you have to at least try, right?

[Zarathud]

It’s about taxes and reconciliation that bypasses the filibuster. It’s a signal no Republican is going to cooperate. The OMB sets and implements budget priorities.

It’s also gaslighting about Trump’s tweets. Cancel a conservative for gross behavior, and they’ll go after you for minor infractions.

Same with Gov. Cuomo and women — being creepy at a wedding is common behavior and nothing compared to paying off porn stars with campaign funds. But go after the hypocritical GOP on anything will become an invitation for retaliation.

[stimpy]

Same with Gov. Cuomo and women — being creepy at a wedding is common behavior and nothing

Wow. Nice to know sexual harassment is "common" and "nothing" to you.
Tell that to the women who it affected and came forward.
I'm sure you speak for them.

[malchior]

Same with Gov. Cuomo and women — being creepy at a wedding is common behavior

Wow. Nice to know sexual harassment is "common" to you.
Tell that to the women who it affected and came forward.
I'm sure you speak for them.

If you have the time, I recommend checking out the NY Times piece on this. Many, many women actually said something along these lines. Essentially that getting hit on at a wedding is a far cry from some of the worst behavior we've seen. However, big however, his conduct with the 2 subordinates merits a real investigation which is in the process of being conducted by NY's AG. Even then it doesn't rise anywhere close to Trump levels but we live in a whatabout world.

[Blackhawk]

Same with Gov. Cuomo and women — being creepy at a wedding is common behavior and nothing

Wow. Nice to know sexual harassment is "common" and "nothing" to you.
Tell that to the women who it affected and came forward.
I'm sure you speak for them.

That's not even remotely what he said.

[Zarathud]

I don't believe for a minute that stimpy is being honest with his criticism.

[Paingod]

Same with Gov. Cuomo and women — being creepy at a wedding is common behavior and nothing

Wow. Nice to know sexual harassment is "common" and "nothing" to you.
Tell that to the women who it affected and came forward.
I'm sure you speak for them.

That's not even remotely what he said.

Agreed. The original statement was more akin to "Burning down a house is bad, but that's nothing compared to 9/11" ... that doesn't make the individual arson irrelevant, just much much smaller in scale.

Sometimes people work hard to take things as far out of context as possible so they can be offended. I've seen it happen mostly with people who are expecting to be offended. Self-fulfilling prophecy.