Rough Week

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
I actually had high hopes for Joe. My hopes were based on him being a relatively moderate Senator, and decent VP. His cognitive decline is worse than I thought, and his demeanor isn't anything close to what it was 5 years ago.

I accept that Joe is no longer capable of thinking quickly on his feet. He will undoubtedly be well prepped, just as any POTUS would, and reporters will have to provide their questions in advance.
Well, to be fair, he has been mostly moderate. I mean on the final infrastructure bill (which was 90% things Rs also wanted during the Trump era) hardly any Conservatives voted for it.

Maybe some of this is that the GOP needs to come back to center right.
 

Nole Lou

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2002
4,272
9,451
113
Cognitive decline? Is it REALLY that poor? Do you REALLY know he doesn't have a handle on what's going on or are you just following the IMMEDIATE narrative put forth by the right wing. Is he what he used to be? I doubt it. But he's still a helluva lot smarter than the majority of us. Stupid people - not saying you - are questioning his cognitive ability. Constantly. People that are obviously lacking intelligence are questioning him...because they are told to.

He thinks fast enough on his feet too. I'm not going to judge him at all for the same things that many presidents have done.

A lot of us believe in the cognitive decline because that's the most generous explanation.

The alternative is that he's less intelligent, more divisive, has less command of his caucus, more temperamental, and a worse manager than even most Republicans gave him credit for.

Nobody but the hardened Democratic partisans would assert that he's been an effective manager, a strong communicator, has exhibited good political judgement, has been available to the press, even remotely truthful, even tempered, etc. You can still be for every single thing that Biden is for, and admit that he has been quite poor.

It's possible that he was ALWAYS incredibly ill-equipped to be president, and there was a reason that he had to wait until he was 100 to be elected against arguably the worst president of all time. A lot of people do believe that.

I think he always exhibited some of his negatives, but they are so much more problematic and dramatic, I think that cognitive decline has to be a factor. I don't think it's even a question of raw intelligence, which he might still have, I think it's the ability to manage a message, command a team, etc. I think a lot of the failure is a result of a team of people with varying interests and opinions trying to cobble together an administration without any actual effective leadership. I think being president is a really difficult job that requires balancing a lot of things and a lot of tough decisions and requires an element of leadership and personal power that he's incapable of wielding.

I think he's being used by battling interests. He has expanded his meager political capital over MONTHS, first on BBB and now federalizing voting rights, that...to be honest...the public doesn't give a shit about. Everyone's already forgotten about the BBB plan. And NOBODY cares about the election bill, because it's not relevant to anybody's actual life. Mass voter suppression is as much a myth as mass voter fraud.

You could take everybody who has found themselves continuously thwarted from being able to vote and be lucky to fill up an city bus. Statistically, every person who has wanted to vote has been able to do so, and they simply aren't animated by the fact that someone couldn't come out an give them a sandwich in line.

Don't get me wrong, I very much get why Democrats want it...but no even remotely competent president would have staked himself to a bill that means so little to so few people, requires him to be absolutely scathingly over the top partisan and divisive when he was specifically elected to be the opposite, and has been so doomed from the start in requiring the removal of a filibuster.

Worst of all, it will inflict exactly zero political damage on Republicans for blocking it, because voters literally don't care. He doesn't even have the most basic political lesson from Clinton and Obama, in that when you don't have the votes to get what you want and the Republicans are going to block you, make them block something that you can absolutely murder them for on the campaign trail. Now democrats are going to have to trot out on the campaign trail and have to energize moderates and independents about whether or not you should have to sign your absentee ballot or if ballot drop boxes should be indoors or outdoors.

I can't believe a fully competent Biden would allow this to happen, his political instincts have sometimes been shaky, but he's hasn't established himself as a complete incompetent prior to this. I think he's severely diminished, there's a battle of interests in his administration with nobody to captain the ship, and the more pragmatic ones are being outmaneuvered by the more extreme ones who see and extremely, extremely narrow window to shove through their favorite projects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkFan1298

Nole Lou

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2002
4,272
9,451
113
Well, to be fair, he has been mostly moderate. I mean on the final infrastructure bill (which was 90% things Rs also wanted during the Trump era) hardly any Conservatives voted for it.

Maybe some of this is that the GOP needs to come back to center right.

The infrastructure bill was a win, and should have been a good template.

What else centrist has he put forward to tempt center-right Rebublicans though? The BBB bill was way too big to pull even centrist Republicans, and the election bill is similarly a non-starter.

The Republicans have offered him a win on a more narrow electoral count reform, and he's refused to take it.

I don't see where he's given moderate or centrist Senators anything to take here.

He's fought bipartisan China sanctions that would have easily passed, and just helped kill anti-Putin sanctions that had 54 votes in the Senate.

Let me know if I'm wrong...what has he offered that could pass in a senate with 50 Mitt Romneys?

I'm with you on the premise, I just don't see why he's put his eggs in the baskets he has, from a political perspective.

Obviously, I don't know, but what I believe is that his administration is being dominated by voices that are all or nothing on transformative progressive reform or bust, and ultimately, a Democratic administration that can't deliver those things is no better than a Republican administration. So it's worth trying to get these things even if they are a long shot and a political liability, because they don't really care if Ds get elected if they can only effect marginal change around the edges.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
17,707
20,588
113
It looks like the White House staff will be letting Joe take questions from the press next week. I wonder how much of it will be scripted. Tune in on Wednesday at 4:00 ET.
You mean Wednesday from 4:00 to 4:05. Could be shorter if Squint Eyes can't read the answer on the teleprompter correctly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 23 so far

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
The infrastructure bill was a win, and should have been a good template.

What else centrist has he put forward to tempt center-right Rebublicans though? The BBB bill was way too big to pull even centrist Republicans, and the election bill is similarly a non-starter.

The Republicans have offered him a win on a more narrow electoral count reform, and he's refused to take it.

I don't see where he's given moderate or centrist Senators anything to take here.

He's fought bipartisan China sanctions that would have easily passed, and just helped kill anti-Putin sanctions that had 54 votes in the Senate.

Let me know if I'm wrong...what has he offered that could pass in a senate with 50 Mitt Romneys?

I'm with you on the premise, I just don't see why he's put his eggs in the baskets he has, from a political perspective.

Obviously, I don't know, but what I believe is that his administration is being dominated by voices that are all or nothing on transformative progressive reform or bust, and ultimately, a Democratic administration that can't deliver those things is no better than a Republican administration. So it's worth trying to get these things even if they are a long shot and a political liability, because they don't really care if Ds get elected if they can only effect marginal change around the edges.
You bring up good points and like I've said before, I don't agree with everything Biden had done. I think he's misplayed some opportunities. However, infrastructure was the one BIG bi-partisan bill and for the Rs to basically turn that down meant they really had no interest in getting anything done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
107,262
79,802
113
You bring up good points and like I've said before, I don't agree with everything Biden had done. I think he's misplayed some opportunities. However, infrastructure was the one BIG bi-partisan bill and for the Rs to basically turn that down meant they really had no interest in getting anything done.

BECAUSE the dems insisted on all sorts of BS in the bill that had nothing to do with infrastructure. If it was all about roads and bridges, the bill would have been a done deal.
 

Nole Lou

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2002
4,272
9,451
113
You bring up good points and like I've said before, I don't agree with everything Biden had done. I think he's misplayed some opportunities. However, infrastructure was the one BIG bi-partisan bill and for the Rs to basically turn that down meant they really had no interest in getting anything done.

But they didn't turn that down. They passed it. I don't think there's any political hay to be made in the direction of "Well, yes the Republicans agreed to pass infrastructure, but not by as much as they could have."

As for the Republicans, Senators can now tout "Republicans passed infrastructure" and the Republicans in redder districts can say "I voted against it but oh well."

That's super common forever by both parties, that's an established way that politics work. It's a win for Biden and a moderate win for Republicans, who spent more than they're really comfortable but get to signal their willingness to vote FOR stuff and that they're willing to work with the President.

And then Biden gave the moderate Republicans...nothing. And I get it, in the sense that maybe you're afraid you'll make Republicans look more reasonable than you want them to (but seriously...f--- you because that's what most of the voters voted for). BUT if you're not willing to give them something else they can share credit for, why not propose something that might actually hurt Republicans to oppose?

I'm not even passing any judgement on values or like "Biden is a bad president because he wants different things than me." I don't feel that way about Obama...you win some you lose some in elections and you don't always get your team in charge.

But the politcal strategy/game theory part of the way the Biden administration...that's what I don't get, and I wouldn't get it any more if I was a Democrat. That's what I just can't see any argument that Biden has been "good". He's only possibly been good from the perspective of "literally any Democratic president is good because he's not a Republican."
 

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
BECAUSE the dems insisted on all sorts of BS in the bill that had nothing to do with infrastructure. If it was all about roads and bridges, the bill would have been a done deal.
The initial bill included Build Back Better (which was a stupid idea). I'm talking about the final infrastucture bill dipshit. It's literally exactly what Rs supposedly wanted under Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
But they didn't turn that down. They passed it. I don't think there's any political hay to be made in the direction of "Well, yes the Republicans agreed to pass infrastructure, but not by as much as they could have."
Umm, you might want to look at the vote total for that bill. The large majority of Rs voted no for it. Like 94%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
And then Biden gave the moderate Republicans...nothing. And I get it, in the sense that maybe you're afraid you'll make Republicans look more reasonable than you want them to (but seriously...f--- you because that's what most of the voters voted for). BUT if you're not willing to give them something else they can share credit for, why not propose something that might actually hurt Republicans to oppose?

I'm not even passing any judgement on values or like "Biden is a bad president because he wants different things than me." I don't feel that way about Obama...you win some you lose some in elections and you don't always get your team in charge.

But the politcal strategy/game theory part of the way the Biden administration...that's what I don't get,
If I was Biden I would have said, if you vote FOR the infrastructure bill, I will give you something you all want. I don't know if he did that or not. However, only have ~5% of them vote FOR does not mean I then give them something. It would have to have been a much higher percentage, maybe like 50%.

Where I disagree with Biden's strategy is trying to pass everything through all at once. The Build Back Better plan should be broken down into smaller parts and that way he can at least get some of it passed instead of nothing.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
17,707
20,588
113
You want people to spell DeSantis's name correctly (and I agree) yet you want to name call the President?

Get consistent with your expectations.
LOL. So POTUS doesn’t squint? And that’s just an observation-not an expectation.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
17,707
20,588
113
If I was Biden I would have said, if you vote FOR the infrastructure bill, I will give you something you all want. I don't know if he did that or not. However, only have ~5% of them vote FOR does not mean I then give them something. It would have to have been a much higher percentage, maybe like 50%.

Where I disagree with Biden's strategy is trying to pass everything through all at once. The Build Back Better plan should be broken down into smaller parts and that way he can at least get some of it passed instead of nothing.

Here’s a shocker- I don’t think that was Biden who put that BBB bill together. I think it was a very large wish list put together by the progressive wing. Biden of old as a Senator would have known it was a big mess that wouldn’t have made it through without some slicing and dicing.
 

HawkPT

HR MVP
Dec 13, 2002
1,373
875
113
Well, to be fair, he has been mostly moderate. I mean on the final infrastructure bill (which was 90% things Rs also wanted during the Trump era) hardly any Conservatives voted for it.

Maybe some of this is that the GOP needs to come back to center right.
One side has moved significantly the past decade or so, and the Overton Window has been pulled with it much farther to the left. The fact that conservatives don't want to get pulled left with it should be no surprise.

And, for the record, I don't equate Republicans and conservatives. Most politicians at the federal level wear the same jerseys. They may talk a strong talk to placate a vocal (or wealthy) segment of their base, but there is much more between Republicans and Democrats in common than not. The average Republican Senator or member of Congress says one thing but often does the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
Are they the leader of the free world who is just struggling to read what others have composed for him?
So? Trump had trouble walking up a ramp.

DeSantis squint too btw. Maybe you should be a little nicer.
 

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
One side has moved significantly the past decade or so, and the Overton Window has been pulled with it much farther to the left. The fact that conservatives don't want to get pulled left with it should be no surprise.

And, for the record, I don't equate Republicans and conservatives. Most politicians at the federal level wear the same jerseys. They may talk a strong talk to placate a vocal (or wealthy) segment of their base, but there is much more between Republicans and Democrats in common than not. The average Republican Senator or member of Congress says one thing but often does the other.
Lol.

The Right is so far gone, it's incredible.
 

HawkPT

HR MVP
Dec 13, 2002
1,373
875
113
Lol.

The Right is so far gone, it's incredible.
Care to share why you came to that conclusion from my post? Do you find it inaccurate from your viewpoint, or can you just not imagine that someone would see the world from a different perspective than you?

I'm not sure you can argue that the Overton Window hasn't moved significantly to the left in the last decade, yet you are telling us that the right needs come "back" to center. Back would imply moving to the right based upon the past decade's societal changes.
 

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
Care to share why you came to that conclusion from my post? Do you find it inaccurate from your viewpoint, or can you just not imagine that someone would see the world from a different perspective than you?

I'm not sure you can argue that the Overton Window hasn't moved significantly to the left in the last decade, yet you are telling us that the right needs come "back" to center. Back would imply moving to the right based upon the past decade's societal changes.
I could literally ask you the very same questions. That's my point.

Yet you didn't even get that very basic point.
 

HawkPT

HR MVP
Dec 13, 2002
1,373
875
113
I could literally ask you the very same questions. That's my point.

Yet you didn't even get that very basic point.
I didn't say the left is so far gone and LOL at you.

I completely understand that people see the world far differently than me, to answer the question you hinted at but didn't specifically ask.

I agree. I don't get your basic point.
 

LuteHawk

HR Legend
Nov 30, 2011
27,966
17,843
113
Joe Biden was a U.S. Senator for 36 years. He took a
common sense approach to his responsibilities in the
Senate. That time was probably the highlight of his
political career. Today, he is being used as a tool by
the progressive/extreme liberal group in the Democrat
party. At his age he has become inept and senile.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
17,707
20,588
113
So? Trump had trouble walking up a ramp.

DeSantis squint too btw. Maybe you should be a little nicer.
Trump stumbled one time on that ramp, IIRC, I agree.
De Santis isn't reading from a teleprompter at press conferences, and most of us who live in Florida squint outside because we're in the bright sun. And he's not the current POTUS, is he?
It's not my intention to be deliberately ugly about Biden's health or mental challenges. But honestly? It is not an insignificant thing to see that the leader of the free world is no longer on top of his game.
Lute's post is honestly on point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LuteHawk

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
De Santis isn't reading from a teleprompter at press conferences, and most of us who live in Florida squint outside because we're in the bright sun. And he's not the current POTUS, is he?
WTF does that have to do with being able to call someone squinty eyes?

You are weird.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
17,707
20,588
113
WTF does that have to do with being able to call someone squinty eyes?

You are weird.
Well the other name I often see applied to him is Vegetable in Chief. Not going there.
What I think is “weird” is you getting heated up over what I called him in the first place.
 

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
Well the other name I often see applied to him is Vegetable in Chief. Not going there.
What I think is “weird” is you getting heated up over what I called him in the first place.
It's not about "what" you called him. It's that you used an insult when you were upset about people misspelling DeSantis's name.

You are being a hypocrite. The fact that you didn't understand it is amazing.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
17,707
20,588
113
It's not about "what" you called him. It's that you used an insult when you were upset about people misspelling DeSantis's name.

You are being a hypocrite. The fact that you didn't understand it is amazing.
I wasn’t really upset over some spelling mistake - and you are creating something out of nothing. I DO see that.
For heavens sake chill out.
 

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
22,898
32,071
113
I wasn’t really upset over some spelling mistake - and you are creating something out of nothing. I DO see that.
For heavens sake chill out.
I am pretty chilled and yes, you were clearly upset. Your posting history has shown this time and again.

Right @Tom Paris
 

l.todd

HR MVP
Dec 21, 2004
1,219
1,320
113
It's not about "what" you called him. It's that you used an insult when you were upset about people misspelling DeSantis's name.

You are being a hypocrite. The fact that you didn't understand it is amazing.
Not the same thing. A poster called DeSantis dumb, but misspelled the name. Pointing out the irony. Calling Biden Squinty Eyes is just name calling. If she had chided him for calling him DeathSantis, and then used Squinty Eyes, you would have a point.
 

Hawk It Up

HR All-American
Sep 1, 2019
3,097
6,193
113
Oh, I see Little Miss I Hate Liberals is running the show in this thread.

You can have it, I'm out.