Biden - Approval

[*pally*]

I suppose Biden is responsible for the utter economic failure of the Conservative government of the UK too. I mean they have only held the Prime Minister job for 12 years, so it has the be the responsibility of the liberal American President for the collapse of their economy not their tried and always fails cut taxes for the rich and deregulate policies that did it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2022, 12:38 PM)pally Wrote: I suppose Biden is responsible for the utter economic failure of the Conservative government of the UK too.  I mean they have only held the Prime Minister job for 12 years, so it has the be the responsibility of the liberal American President for the collapse of their economy not their tried and always fails cut taxes for the rich and deregulate policies that did it.

Exactly who made that claim and how is UK politics relevant to this thread?

[CJD]

This may be my bias talking (and I'm responding to the OP because I don't have time to read 8 pages of posts so if this post appears to be 100% off topic, that would be why), but one thing I've noticed is that a democratic presidential candidate basically needs to be charismatic and likeable in order to win the general election.

Jimmy Carter (heart of gold, peanut farm, didn't mind if you said **** around him), Bill Clinton (played saxophone on talk shows) and Barack Obama (black people are generally considered cool in our society) were all considered "cool" or otherwise relatable politicians, whereas John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Hillary Clinton and Walter Mondale were decidedly not "cool."

This doesn't seem to apply to Republicans who, in the same time frame, got GHWB, GWB and Trump elected despite none of them being considered cool or relatable by the general public (Ronald Reagan being the major exception).

My concern for the Democratic party is that there is no one within the party that I would consider relatable or "cool" in the way that B. Clinton, Obama and Carter were (Carter may be a stretch because he became much cooler after he was president, building houses for the homeless into his 90s). Biden may have been cool when he was vice president and was just pointing goofily and calling people jack, but he has seemed to age several millennia in the last 4 years and is more cringe now, especially with all the images and videos of him being creepy around children.

Like, who is there? Definitely not Kamala Harris, definitely not Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Michael Bloomberg, Sherrod Brown, Tim Ryan, Amy Klobuchar, Gavin Newsom, or Elizabeth Warren.

Maybe Pete Buttigieg, who has thrown some solid daggers at Republicans during interviews, but being gay is still a huge electability concern in this country, sadly.

The coolest democrat, who isn't even a democrat, is probably Bernie Sanders, but many consider him too left to be electable.

I think there needs to be an Obama level ascension of a relative unknown in 2024 if we want to keep the Democrats in the White House. And that's pretty intimidating.

Unless the Republicans nominate Trump, of course, in which case Biden could probably win again. But if they nominate pretty much anyone else, I'm concerned about the Democrats' ability to retain the presidency.

[BigPapaKain]

(10-20-2022, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly who made that claim and how is UK politics relevant to this thread?

I do believe he's mocking the folks who claim that the US economy being in the dumps is somehow Biden's fault as opposed to unfettered corporate greed and the breakdown of global supply chains that the US relies on more than most are comfortable acknowledging. 

At least, that's what I think pally is doing.

[*Nately120*]

(10-20-2022, 01:38 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: This may be my bias talking (and I'm responding to the OP because I don't have time to read 8 pages of posts so if this post appears to be 100% off topic, that would be why), but one thing I've noticed is that a democratic presidential candidate basically needs to be charismatic and likeable in order to win the general election.

Jimmy Carter (heart of gold, peanut farm, didn't mind if you said **** around him), Bill Clinton (played saxophone on talk shows) and Barack Obama (black people are generally considered cool in our society) were all considered "cool" or otherwise relatable politicians, whereas John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Hillary Clinton and Walter Mondale were decidedly not "cool."

This doesn't seem to apply to Republicans who, in the same time frame, got GHWB, GWB and Trump elected despite none of them being considered cool or relatable by the general public (Ronald Reagan being the major exception).

My concern for the Democratic party is that there is no one within the party that I would consider relatable or "cool" in the way that B. Clinton, Obama and Carter were (Carter may be a stretch because he became much cooler after he was president, building houses for the homeless into his 90s). Biden may have been cool when he was vice president and was just pointing goofily and calling people jack, but he has seemed to age several millennia in the last 4 years and is more cringe now, especially with all the images and videos of him being creepy around children.

Like, who is there? Definitely not Kamala Harris, definitely not Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Michael Bloomberg, Sherrod Brown, Tim Ryan, Amy Klobuchar, Gavin Newsom, or Elizabeth Warren.

Maybe Pete Buttigieg, who has thrown some solid daggers at Republicans during interviews, but being gay is still a huge electability concern in this country, sadly.

The coolest democrat, who isn't even a democrat, is probably Bernie Sanders, but many consider him too left to be electable.

I think there needs to be an Obama level ascension of a relative unknown in 2024 if we want to keep the Democrats in the White House. And that's pretty intimidating.

Unless the Republicans nominate Trump, of course, in which case Biden could probably win again. But if they nominate pretty much anyone else, I'm concerned about the Democrats' ability to retain the presidency.

Hard to say...I get what you are saying but Al Gore and Hillary Clinton for all their uncoolness and general "Bleh...same old" vibes did win the popular votes, so they had enough appeal to get more votes than the other side.

Mondale was in a hopeless election, but could have won in 88.  Still not terribly cool, and being the VP to Carter wasn't exactly as beneficial as being the VP to Eisenhower/Reagan/Obama was to Nixon/Bush/Biden, for sure.

I still think the 2024 election hinges upon Trump and Trump alone.  He's either getting the 2024 republican bid or he's going to cause enough of a ruckus to "Ross Perot" things.

[Goalpost]

(10-20-2022, 02:07 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I do believe he's mocking the folks who claim that the US economy being in the dumps is somehow Biden's fault as opposed to unfettered corporate greed and the breakdown of global supply chains that the US relies on more than most are comfortable acknowledging. 

At least, that's what I think pally is doing.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TGT/target/gross-margin

So if you look at Target's gross margin, as an example, the third graph in the charts, you can see that they are not playing corporate greed.  You can see the sharp decline.  They are not doing it by price.  The graphs above this, mainly the revenue one, show that they are doing it by volume.  The CEO has been on TV many times during their quarterly reports saying they are trying to keep prices down.  And this makes sense.  Their report shows it.  

And it goes along with the monthly PPI and CPI reports that gauge inflation monthly in the economy.  The costs of goods when it enters the market, the PPI, has raised consistently at a higher level than the CPI, the cost of goods when it exits to the consumer.  If there was corporate greed, the opposite would be happening. Gross margins would be higher or at least remained the same.  It's just hasn't.  And I'm only using Target as an example because they are a major established retailer with a wide variety of products.

Where Biden is at fault, to me, is with his narrative, and how people buy into this corporate greed hook, where profit reports, such as Target's, don't actually reflect that.    

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly who made that claim and how is UK politics relevant to this thread?

Not to explain other people's thoughts, but I feel there's a point to be made that inflation and economic downturns are a global phenomenon. Eg. Europe suffers inflation and a possible recession as well and hardly anyone here blames Biden for it.

[BigPapaKain]

(10-20-2022, 03:34 PM)Goalpost Wrote: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TGT/target/gross-margin

So if you look at Target's gross margin, as an example, the third graph in the charts, you can see that they are not playing corporate greed.  You can see the sharp decline.  They are not doing it by price.  The graphs above this, mainly the revenue one, show that they are doing it by volume.  The CEO has been on TV many times during their quarterly reports saying they are trying to keep prices down.  And this makes sense.  Their report shows it.  

And it goes along with the monthly PPI and CPI reports that gauge inflation monthly in the economy.  The costs of goods when it enters the market, the PPI, has raised consistently at a higher level than the CPI, the cost of goods when it exits to the consumer.  If there was corporate greed, the opposite would be happening. Gross margins would be higher or at least remained the same.  It's just hasn't.  And I'm only using Target as an example because they are a major established retailer with a wide variety of products.

Where Biden is at fault, to me, is with his narrative, and how people buy into this corporate greed hook, where profit reports, such as Target's, don't actually reflect that.    

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-25/us-corporate-profits-soar-taking-margins-to-widest-since-1950

Target is an outlier.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2022, 03:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Not to explain other people's thoughts, but I feel there's a point to be made that inflation and economic downturns are a global phenomenon. Eg. Europe suffers inflation and a possible recession as well and hardly anyone here blames Biden for it.

That's possible, but it's not a very good argument.  Inflation in the US was certainly exacerbated by massive government spending, just as Manchin specifically warned.

I will say the Torie government is really setting records for incompetence, I've never seen such an implosion in such a short time.  I quite liked what I saw of Kemi Badenoch, but she was then removed from PM consideration early.  Again, I'm not coming close to claiming I know everything there is to know about her, but I was impressed by what I did see.

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's possible, but it's not a very good argument.  Inflation in the US was certainly exacerbated by massive government spending, just as Manchin specifically warned.

Oh I agree, it most certainly was, and it's similar in Europe probably. Especially the massive Corona aid packages. It makes sense they fueled inflation.
But even so, I still don't know if not handing out massive aid would have been a viable alternative, it might have been the end for a lot of businesses, potentially causing an even more severe recession. I sure don't know, but I know that most if not all governments put massive amounts of money into the economic system after Corona and therefore I'm inclined to believe there wasn't really any other option. But I don't know. An economist is one of the many many things that I am not.

(10-20-2022, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will say the Torie government is really setting records for incompetence, I've never seen such an implosion in such a short time.  I quite liked what I saw of Kemi Badenoch, but she was then removed from PM consideration early.  Again, I'm not coming close to claiming I know everything there is to know about her, but I was impressed by what I did see.

You know more about her than I do. I kind of lost track of all the figures after Boris left.
And I know that what I will add might sound like an ideological talking point, but to an extent I blame the new say alt-rightesque approach many conservative parties took ("Berlusconiesque might be the more european version of that). Being populistic and bombastic, exaggerating and non-factual, stir up emotions, play with people's resentments and lowest instincts and being pretty much out of substance beyond that. I'd say I see that in the US, the UK and quite some other countries, very much including my own. Our conservative party imploded as well (or is in the process to), and we sported the guy that was called the future of conservatism all over the continent. Turns out it's just all talk and appearances, or I guess smoke and mirrors is the word?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2022, 04:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh I agree, it most certainly was, and it's similar in Europe probably. Especially the massive Corona aid packages. It makes sense they fueled inflation.
But even so, I still don't know if not handing out massive aid would have been a viable alternative, it might have been the end for a lot of businesses, potentially causing an even more severe recession. I sure don't know, but I know that most if not all governments put massive amounts of money into the economic system after Corona and therefore I'm inclined to believe there wasn't really any other option. But I don't know. An economist is one of the many many things that I am not.

Yes, it's certainly a damned if you damned if you don't situation.  Of course, an argument could be made that lockdowns were extended far too long, which if not the case would have made some of that aid unnecessary.  But that' a topic for another thread.

Quote:You know more about her than I do. I kind of lost track of all the figures after Boris left.

I only heard about her after Boris was dust.  Again, I don't know a great deal about her, but I did like what I saw.

Quote:And I know that what I will add might sound like an ideological talking point, but to an extent I blame the new say alt-rightesque approach many conservative parties took ("Berlusconiesque might be the more european version of that). Being populistic and bombastic, exaggerating and non-factual, stir up emotions, play with people's resentments and lowest instincts and being pretty much out of substance beyond that. I'd say I see that in the US, the UK and quite some other countries, very much including my own. Our conservative party imploded as well (or is in the process to), and we sported the guy that was called the future of conservatism all over the continent. Turns out it's just all talk and appearances, or I guess smoke and mirrors is the word?

There's certainly something to this.  It's honestly amazing to me that such incompetent people can worm their way so high up the political ladder.  We certainly have our own version, Harris for example, but to fail so utterly and so quickly is really one for the record books.

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, it's certainly a damned if you damned if you don't situation.  Of course, an argument could be made that lockdowns were extended far too long, which if not the case would have made some of that aid unnecessary.  But that' a topic for another thread.

Yeah it is, fortunately I can still sum up my take on this: I really can not evaluate the necessity or meaningfulness of lockdowns one way or another.
Here's what I'd say, I don't feel inclined to blame Biden all that much. Blame him some, that is negotiable in theory, but I suggest not to :)

(10-20-2022, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I only heard about her after Boris was dust.  Again, I don't know a great deal about her, but I did like what I saw.

You will understand that I have a different hope, regime change.
But that's a thing my analysis left out, the Labour party was an unmitigated disaster. Beating this hot mess was maybe not that much of an accomplishment.

(10-20-2022, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's certainly something to this.  It's honestly amazing to me that such incompetent people can worm their way so high up the political ladder.  We certainly have our own version, Harris for example, but to fail so utterly and so quickly is really one for the record books.

Yeah here's why I actually answer. I should let it slide, it's semi-important, but something nags me. I don't particularly like Kamala Harris, I would say I perceive her negatively overall even. For several reasons, but in short, not a fan. But your opinion of her really is remarkably, exceptionally low. And at that point, I have to say that I think she is highly competent in her profession and quite possibly a very intelligent person. Her career path is, I dare say objectively, impressive. I can not quite put her in the same drawer as Boris or Donald, who accomplished way less in their lifespans and actually present a list of tricks and failures, who are just impressive in their talent for showmanship and shamelessness. I do not go along with your extremely negative perception of Harris and somehow I wanted to state that for the record.

Gabbard, she and her accomplishments also are impressive in her own ways. I sure give her that.

[samhain]

(10-20-2022, 01:38 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: This may be my bias talking (and I'm responding to the OP because I don't have time to read 8 pages of posts so if this post appears to be 100% off topic, that would be why), but one thing I've noticed is that a democratic presidential candidate basically needs to be charismatic and likeable in order to win the general election.

Jimmy Carter (heart of gold, peanut farm, didn't mind if you said **** around him), Bill Clinton (played saxophone on talk shows) and Barack Obama (black people are generally considered cool in our society) were all considered "cool" or otherwise relatable politicians, whereas John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Hillary Clinton and Walter Mondale were decidedly not "cool."

This doesn't seem to apply to Republicans who, in the same time frame, got GHWB, GWB and Trump elected despite none of them being considered cool or relatable by the general public (Ronald Reagan being the major exception).

My concern for the Democratic party is that there is no one within the party that I would consider relatable or "cool" in the way that B. Clinton, Obama and Carter were (Carter may be a stretch because he became much cooler after he was president, building houses for the homeless into his 90s). Biden may have been cool when he was vice president and was just pointing goofily and calling people jack, but he has seemed to age several millennia in the last 4 years and is more cringe now, especially with all the images and videos of him being creepy around children.

Like, who is there? Definitely not Kamala Harris, definitely not Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Michael Bloomberg, Sherrod Brown, Tim Ryan, Amy Klobuchar, Gavin Newsom, or Elizabeth Warren.

Maybe Pete Buttigieg, who has thrown some solid daggers at Republicans during interviews, but being gay is still a huge electability concern in this country, sadly.

The coolest democrat, who isn't even a democrat, is probably Bernie Sanders, but many consider him too left to be electable.

I think there needs to be an Obama level ascension of a relative unknown in 2024 if we want to keep the Democrats in the White House. And that's pretty intimidating.

Unless the Republicans nominate Trump, of course, in which case Biden could probably win again. But if they nominate pretty much anyone else, I'm concerned about the Democrats' ability to retain the presidency.

I think Warnock has a shot if he's inclined and can eek out a win in Georgia.  Buttegieg is a solid TV politician, but he's going to rub a lot of blue collar voters the wrong way with some of his ideas.  I don't think he's viable, and being gay isn't the main reason.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2022, 05:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah it is, fortunately I can still sum up my take on this: I really can not evaluate the necessity or meaningfulness of lockdowns one way or another.
Here's what I'd say, I don't feel inclined to blame Biden all that much. Blame him some, that is negotiable in theory, but I suggest not to :)

We have often said here that the POTUS gets blame, and receives credit, for many things they have little to no control over.  This is certainly one of those time, but not, IMO, to the usual extent.

Quote:You will understand that I have a different hope, regime change.
But that's a thing my analysis left out, the Labour party was an unmitigated disaster. Beating this hot mess was maybe not that much of an accomplishment.

Yeah, Jeremy Corbyn was way too far left to really be an effective leader or PM.  You add his rather unimpressive response to antisemitism in the Labour (I spelled it like a Brit!) Party and you have a recipe for a Torie victory.

Quote:Yeah here's why I actually answer. I should let it slide, it's semi-important, but something nags me. I don't particularly like Kamala Harris, I would say I perceive her negatively overall even. For several reasons, but in short, not a fan. But your opinion of her really is remarkably, exceptionally low. And at that point, I have to say that I think she is highly competent in her profession and quite possibly a very intelligent person. Her career path is, I dare say objectively, impressive. I can not quite put her in the same drawer as Boris or Donald, who accomplished way less in their lifespans and actually present a list of tricks and failures, who are just impressive in their talent for showmanship and shamelessness. I do not go along with your extremely negative perception of Harris and somehow I wanted to state that for the record.

Very fair, I will elaborate.  First off, she got her original position as DA of San Francisco by having an affair with the married mayor, Willie Brown, who had previously hooked her up with a job when they were dating in the mid nineties.  I will clarify that she obviously didn't get appointed to the job by Brown outright, she was elected.  But Brown was so powerful in bay area politics at that time that anyone he endorsed would get the job.  Essentially, she is a climber.  She will say or do anything to get to the next rung of the ladder, including being VP for a man she attacked as a bigoted racist.  Of course this is not exactly unusual in politics, just look at Ted Cruz and Trump, but just because it is commonplace doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked down upon or considered immoral.  I could honestly go into a lot more detail, but it would require you to accept anecdotal evidence that I know to be true but you obviously have no way of vetting.  Suffice to say, I don't know how anyone can watch her press conferences/interviews, attempt to digest the word salad she routinely serves and view her as anything other than an empty suit.  I find her profoundly uninformed and ignorant, and I've seen no examples that would dissuade me from that position.  

Quote:Gabbard, she and her accomplishments also are impressive in her own ways. I sure give her that.

Gabbard is a self made person who served in the military and excelled.  She didn't sleep with anyone to get where she is and she certainly didn't bootlick or kowtow to the higher ups to advance her career.  Again, I can absolutely understand not liking her positions, some or all of them, but Harris is not in the same league as Gabbard, intellectually or integrity wise, not even close.

[GMDino]

The "Harris slept her way to the top" trope is a shame.  Its the kind of gutter politics that both sides should hate.  Obviously she had some ability and qualities that allowed to be ELECTED to her position...unless they want to say she slept with every voter too.

We can disagree with political views (and her being TOO TOUGH on criminals/crimes being one is something I find hilarious) but I find the above disgusting.

something...something...sexism...something...

No one has said Gabbard did anything other than switch her positions to more align with the current republican views and that she hasn't been a Democrat for a long time.

To me, many of the policies she now supports makes her a bad candidate...and that's on her.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-21-2022, 09:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: The "Harris slept her way to the top" trope is a shame.  Its the kind of gutter politics that both sides should hate.  Obviously she had some ability and qualities that allowed to be ELECTED to her position...unless they want to say she slept with every voter too.

You are correct, she absolutely did not sleep her way to the top.  She slept her way to getting elected DA in San Francisco and then used the usual route to climb the ladder from there.  Sadly, it's not a a trope if it's true and in Harris' case it's all there in black and white for anyone who bothers to check to see.

Quote:We can disagree with political views (and her being TOO TOUGH on criminals/crimes being one is something I find hilarious) but I find the above disgusting.

No, the criticism was of her locking people up for engaging in the same marijuana use she was engaging in herself.  It's the hypocrisy of it that people criticize.  I would think that would be patently obvious.

Quote:something...something...sexism...something...

  Glad to see you still like to slap labels on people, I guess sexism is the new one now that the racism accusation has lost steam.

Quote:No one has said Gabbard did anything other than switch her positions to more align with the current republican views and that she hasn't been a Democrat for a long time.  

Oh, and that she's the most unintelligent Democrat at the national level.  Let's not forget that!

Quote:To me, many of the policies she now supports makes her a bad candidate...and that's on her.

In your opinion.  Much like Dill all you're spouting is your personal opinion.  At least you're not belittling her intelligence like your buddy, so that's progress of a kind. 

[CKwi88]

(10-21-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are correct, she absolutely did not sleep her way to the top.  She slept her way to getting elected DA in San Francisco and then used the usual route to climb the ladder from there.  Sadly, it's not a a trope if it's true and in Harris' case it's all there in black and white for anyone who bothers to check to see.

How does one sleep their way to an election win?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-21-2022, 12:35 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: How does one sleep their way to an election win?

I've already addressed this in a prior post, but I understand people tend to not read the entire thread before commenting.  She was sleeping with Willie Brown, who earlier in the mid nineties hooked her up with two state level appointments.  He then, as mayor of San Francisco, endorsed her bid for DA.  Willie Brown was so big in bay area politics than anyone receiving his endorsement was guaranteed to win.  As I also said earlier, I have a lot more I could share, but it's all anecdotal, hence I won't bother.  But everything I've said here is verifiable fact.

[GMDino]

(10-21-2022, 12:35 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: How does one sleep their way to an election win?

Bingo.

And she also had the educational background for the job.  (This isn't Ivanka getting a job as WH advisor, and clearances, because daddy is POTUS.)

And she continued to work her way into other jobs...apparently without sleeping with powerful people.

Of all the things to complain about people will make stuff up due to their own biases and then claim they are stone cold facts.

something...sexism...something...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-21-2022, 12:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: Bingo.

And she also had the educational background for the job.  (This isn't Ivanka getting a job as WH advisor, and clearances, because daddy is POTUS.)

And she continued to work her way into other jobs...apparently without sleeping with powerful people.

Of all the things to complain about people will make stuff up due to their own biases and then claim they are stone cold facts.

something...sexism...something...

Seeing as how I can't think of a single other female politician that would deserve the same accusation I'm going to have to say no to your sexism allegation and simply label it a Harris related issue only.  I mean, who cares if the man you're sleeping with hooks you up with two state level appointments and then throws his considerable political clout behind your attempt to run for office?  You do correctly point out that she then "earned" (as much as most people earn political opportunities) her later positions without having to sleep with anyone, so congratulations are in order there, I guess.