Uncle Joe

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

A can of tuna would be so much better than the Trump Project 2025 Epstein Lives tour.

Yes, it would. Unfortunately Biden is no can of Tuna.

[jfish26]

Good amount of truth here.

What’s The Story With Joe Biden?

https://defector.com/whats-the-story-with-joe-biden

The political crisis about Joe Biden is two weeks old now, an unbroken frenzy of pronouncements and speculation about whether or not the incumbent Democratic president should be replaced with someone else as the Democratic presidential nominee. So far, none of it has changed anything. On June 28, the New York Times editorial board, panicked by Biden bombing his debate against Donald Trump the night before, declared "To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race"; on July 8, with Biden still having failed to comply, the board tried again with "The Democratic Party Must Speak the Plain Truth to the President"—upping the urgency from "should" to "must," and pleading for someone else to help them.

Behind the bold position-taking, though, was a subtle evasiveness. What was the "plain truth" that Joe Biden needed to hear? It was, the editorial board wrote, that "his defiance threatens to hand victory to Mr. Trump," and that "he is embarrassing himself and endangering his legacy," and that "he is no longer an effective spokesman for his own priorities."

None of these things were truths about Joe Biden, though, exactly. They were claims—fairly plausible claims!—about how people may perceive Joe Biden, and what the effects of those perceptions may be.

"This is about age," the actor George Clooney wrote in his own piece for the Times, speaking on his authority as a major Democratic donor. "Nothing more ... We are not going to win in November with this president." But why would age, nothing more than age, make Biden lose in November to an opponent who is barely any younger than he is?

What does "age" mean, specifically? Or "age and infirmity," as the editorial board put it in its first piece urging Biden to abandon the nomination? How diminished are the president's capacities, actually?

This is a rude and dangerous question. Right now, Biden is the most powerful person in the world. Our political machinery, with however much democratic input it can absorb, has made him one of the two currently available choices to be elected president in November. The other choice, as the Times editorial board belatedly got around to declaring, is entirely unacceptable, a mentally and emotionally unstable criminal running on a platform of destruction, corruption, and violence. Even the board's initial anti-Biden piece conceded, "If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick."

And so a set of very different ideas about Biden's fitness are collapsed into vague generalities, to prevent anyone from having to examine them too closely. Is the president decrepit, or is he senile? Does he speak haltingly because his speech isn't fluent anymore, or because his mind can't hold coherent thoughts together? Are people afraid he can't convince voters to make him president again, or are they afraid he's not capable of being president again? Do they think he's not capable of being president right now? Does Biden understand his own limits?

The closest the editorial board got to taking a real position was this:

At times, Mr. Biden has seemed to hover on the verge of self-awareness, as when he reportedly told Democratic governors last week that he needs to sleep more, work less and avoid public events after 8 p.m. But he has resisted the obvious conclusion that a man who needs to clock out at 8 should not attempt to perform simultaneously two of the world’s most difficult and all-consuming jobs—serving as president and running for president.

But there, still, was a dodge: the idea that Biden is struggling because he can't handle the effort of a presidential campaign on top of the effort of being president. It's the setup for a polite, no-hard-feelings scenario in which Biden admits the campaign is too much for him, embraces his legacy as a successful one-term president, and lets someone else run on his administration's record and take the fight to Donald Trump.

This is a fundamentally cynical message: The idea isn't that Biden is unfit to be president, but that he's unfit to convince other people he's fit to be president. And what is there in it to convince Biden to quit? He's an effective president, and he has to give it up because his lifelong stutter finally got the best of him on live TV?

Alternatively, there's the premise that something new has gone wrong with Biden's health. Chasing the fumes of the right-wing press, major media outlets just had a news cycle about whether a Parkinson's expert was paying special visits to the White House—when the expert in question was the longstanding neurologist to the whole White House staff, and he turned out to be visiting the White House no more often than usual. With a Parkinson's diagnosis, it could be impartial fate that gracefully put an end to Biden's campaign, with no guilt or blame for anyone involved.

Unfortunately for that scenario, the only degenerative condition anyone can clearly assign to Biden is the human condition. He's too old and he's only getting older. Everybody knew that about him before he even entered the 2020 presidential race.

Does Biden have a worse problem than that? I have no idea. And, fairly blatantly, none of the people reporting and arguing about getting rid of him do either. None of them came up with any revelations that prevented him from winning in 2020, or from becoming the presumptive nominee in the 2024 primary season. No matter how they dress up their claims about the emergency, it only became an emergency when he blew the debate.

If Joe Biden isn't senile, there's no real reason—from his own point of view—for him to drop out of the race. And if he is senile, he wouldn't be able to judge his own condition. Which one is it? And if it's the second one, who's going to do something about it?

Personally, I would prefer not to be guessing about these things. I would prefer not to have been stuck with Biden as the candidate. I do believe that if Biden could be magically replaced with a more energetic nominee—someone with the baseline agility to hear Trump boasting about his record stock market and point out that the market is much higher now—Trump's own decrepitude and general loathsomeness would drag the Republican campaign down to defeat.

But no one is offering any magic. All they're offering are various scenarios that would blow up the entire political structure less than four months before election day, in the hopes that the rubble comes down in a less depressing arrangement. Before announcing it's time to take emergency measures, though, people need to agree about exactly what the emergency is.

[Shirley]

Good amount of truth here.

What’s The Story With Joe Biden?

https://defector.com/whats-the-story-with-joe-biden

...Does Biden have a worse problem than that? I have no idea. And, fairly blatantly, none of the people reporting and arguing about getting rid of him do either. None of them came up with any revelations that prevented him from winning in 2020, or from becoming the presumptive nominee in the 2024 primary season. No matter how they dress up their claims about the emergency, it only became an emergency when he blew the debate...

There are plenty of truths, but it can be argued that if Biden's handlers hadn't so successfully sequestered him, e.g., not holding a news conference since Nov '23 until last night and inexplicably turning down an interview during the Super Bowl, of all things, there's a good chance the public either:

1. Wouldn't have been questioning his mental fitness to serve another 4 years provoking the Biden campaign to feel it necessary to confront the charge by holding a debate so early and by doing so confirming the public's fears, or

2. It would have revealed his limitations ~ 6 months ago and given the party time to deal with it before it became an "emergency".

[Sparko]

A can of tuna would be so much better than the Trump Project 2025 Epstein Lives tour.

Yes, it would. Unfortunately Biden is no can of Tuna.

The market hit new highs again. Support the policies, not the memes.

[Sparko]

Good amount of truth here.

What’s The Story With Joe Biden?

https://defector.com/whats-the-story-with-joe-biden

...Does Biden have a worse problem than that? I have no idea. And, fairly blatantly, none of the people reporting and arguing about getting rid of him do either. None of them came up with any revelations that prevented him from winning in 2020, or from becoming the presumptive nominee in the 2024 primary season. No matter how they dress up their claims about the emergency, it only became an emergency when he blew the debate...

There are plenty of truths, but it can be argued that if Biden's handlers hadn't so successfully sequestered him, e.g., not holding a news conference since Nov '23 until last night and inexplicably turning down an interview during the Super Bowl, of all things, there's a good chance the public either:

1. Wouldn't have been questioning his mental fitness to serve another 4 years provoking the Biden campaign to feel it necessary to confront the charge by holding a debate so early and by doing so confirming the public's fears, or

2. It would have revealed his limitations ~ 6 months ago and given the party time to deal with it before it became an "emergency".

Agreed. They give Americans too much credit for understanding policy and the media too much space to ignore it.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

A can of tuna would be so much better than the Trump Project 2025 Epstein Lives tour.

Yes, it would. Unfortunately Biden is no can of Tuna.

The market hit new highs again. Support the policies, not the memes.

Let me try and get this straight.
When "the market" does well, it's because of the President and his/her "policies" but if/when "the market" does poorly - the President has nothing to do with it. Or at least it's not his fault.
Is that depending on who the President is? Or, does who the President is not matter?

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with your statement ("support the policies" - if the policies are good for "the market") and the way I have understood it, yes - policies can/do have an affect on "the market/s".

Here is something to ponder. Seems "the market" is important to you - and many people. Heck, myself included.
If "the market" did significantly better under Trump than it's done under Biden, would would strongly consider voting for Trump because of it?

On a semi-related side note. We have intelligent people who post on this site claiming the President has nothing to do with (or at least doesn't have any control over) gas prices (at least not when they are high and the President is Biden). Is that true?

[KUTradition]

i’d argue the president has very little to do with gas prices…not enough to blame, or give credit

[Shirley]

Is, for example, inflation Biden's fault? Or, is it due to a multiplicity of factors, including supply chains breaking down and the supply of goods cratering while the demand for "things" skyrocketed during the Covid Pandemic, along with Trump increasing the national debt more than any other president in history in a four-year term, i.e., things Biden had nothing to do with?

If you accept that premise, that the forces largely responsible for inflation were in effect prior to Biden taking over in 2021, do you think that prevents Republicans from blaming Biden and Democratic policies for inflation, nonetheless?

Not on your life. That being the case, and with homage to Nietzsche*, I think you can figure the rest of my answer out, yourself.




*“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

― Friedrich W. Nietzsche

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

i’d argue the president has very little to do with gas prices…not enough to blame, or give credit

I'd argue that too. Or, maybe I wouldn't argue that?
Are we discussing one person and their own ability to manipulate the price/s or are we discussing that person's "policies" and all the other people who come in to play because of those "policies"?

Either way, when people support a President they absolutely minimize the bearing the President has on something they feel isn't good and maximize the bearing the President has on something they feel is good. That's general human nature.

Meanwhile, I'll let others decide how much bearing a President and/or his/her "policies" have on gas prices...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... gas+prices

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Is, for example, inflation Biden's fault? Or, is it due to a multiplicity of factors, including supply chains breaking down and the supply of goods cratering while the demand for "things" skyrocketed during the Covid Pandemic, along with Trump increasing the national debt more than any other president in history in a four-year term, i.e., things Biden had nothing to do with?

If you accept that premise, that the forces largely responsible for inflation were in effect prior to Biden taking over in 2021, do you think that prevents Republicans from blaming Biden and Democratic policies for inflation, nonetheless?

Not on your life. That being the case, and with homage to Nietzsche*, I think you can figure the rest of my answer out, yourself.




*“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

― Friedrich W. Nietzsche

Your first two questions I will respond with definitive but vague (is that possible? - kind of an oxymoron?) answers.
1. Yes, to a degree. No matter how small or big that degree may be.
2. Yes, to a much larger degree. No matter how small or big that degree may be.
Your third question my answer is No. Obviously not.
But here lies the vicious circle. When things aren't good - I inherited this problem - Not my fault. There is absolute truth to that but then there is little to no accountability for the present situation.
When things are good - I fixed (or didn't "fix") this problem - Give me the credit. There is absolute truth to that too but then it becomes a lot to 100% accountability for the present situation.

I will repeat my response to KUTrad.
Either way, when people support a President they absolutely minimize the bearing the President has on something they feel isn't good and maximize the bearing the President has on something they feel is good. That's general human nature.

[ousdahl]

Yes, it would. Unfortunately Biden is no can of Tuna.

The market hit new highs again. Support the policies, not the memes.

Let me try and get this straight.
When "the market" does well, it's because of the President and his/her "policies" but if/when "the market" does poorly - the President has nothing to do with it. Or at least it's not his fault.
Is that depending on who the President is? Or, does who the President is not matter?

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with your statement ("support the policies" - if the policies are good for "the market") and the way I have understood it, yes - policies can/do have an affect on "the market/s".

Here is something to ponder. Seems "the market" is important to you - and many people. Heck, myself included.
If "the market" did significantly better under Trump than it's done under Biden, would would strongly consider voting for Trump because of it?

On a semi-related side note. We have intelligent people who post on this site claiming the President has nothing to do with (or at least doesn't have any control over) gas prices (at least not when they are high and the President is Biden). Is that true?

If we’re able to learn anything at all from the long sad history of the pols bored, it’s that the pols bored is overwhelmingly the art of self-fulfilling prophecy

and/or of only believing what you wanna believe

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

The market hit new highs again. Support the policies, not the memes.

Let me try and get this straight.
When "the market" does well, it's because of the President and his/her "policies" but if/when "the market" does poorly - the President has nothing to do with it. Or at least it's not his fault.
Is that depending on who the President is? Or, does who the President is not matter?

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with your statement ("support the policies" - if the policies are good for "the market") and the way I have understood it, yes - policies can/do have an affect on "the market/s".

Here is something to ponder. Seems "the market" is important to you - and many people. Heck, myself included.
If "the market" did significantly better under Trump than it's done under Biden, would would strongly consider voting for Trump because of it?

On a semi-related side note. We have intelligent people who post on this site claiming the President has nothing to do with (or at least doesn't have any control over) gas prices (at least not when they are high and the President is Biden). Is that true?

If we’re able to learn anything at all from the long sad history of the pols bored, it’s that the pols bored is overwhelmingly the art of self-fulfilling prophecy

and/or of only believing what you wanna believe

Yes, there definitely is an air of self-fulfilling prophecy, and yes, there is an air of only believing what you want to believe, but that's true in regards to pretty much anything/everything else in life.

We live in a society that I feel is as divided as I have ever seen it.
I truly believe 90% of that is due to ignorance and acceptance. When I say acceptance, I mean people accepting things they shouldn't and not accepting things they should - to harmful extremes.
Just two days ago I had a conversation with 3 people that I consider to be friends of mine.
These were a few things said during the conversation that they truly believed.
* Climate change is a hoax.
* Our Government controls the weather.
* Covid was a hoax.

My questions in response were.....
* What do you feel is a hoax about Climate change?
Answer - It's not real. (No elaborating on that) End of answer.
* How does our government control the weather and why does our Government control the weather?
Answer - Look at Dubai. (NO elaborating on that) I then asked, what about Dubai? She responded, look what happened over there. I then asked, what does what happened in Dubai have to do with OUR government and again, how and why does OUR government control the weather. She didn't respond.
* What about Covid was a hoax? Do you feel it wasn't real?
Answer - Did you have Covid? (Realize the person asking me if I had Covid, had Covid at least 3 times and felt the need to go to the hospital one of those times - and I am convinced has long Covid). I responded, not that I know of. She then said Covid wasn't anything more than a strain of the flu. Ok, even if true, how was that a "hoax"?

This is the world I live in. Don't get me wrong, I am 100% guilty of being ignorant and have my acceptance extremes but hey, at least I am aware of it, acknowledge it, and admit it.

[Sparko]

Trump met with Orban and exchanged secrets and pleasantries for Putin. We better put an end to this. If I were president, Trump would be in Gitmo.

[Shirley]

I'm not the biggest Michael Smerconish fan, but Costas' appearance on his show back in Feb was prescient on steroids, and his appearance again this morning says what needs to be said:

BOB COSTAS: "THIS IS THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES"

[twocoach]

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2458

"Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that a new initiative to collect past-due tax debt from high-income, high-wealth individuals has reached a major milestone, with more than $1 billion recovered. This new initiative was made possible by resources from President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

The IRS in 2023 launched a new initiative to pursue high-income, high-wealth individuals who have failed to pay recognized tax debt, with dozens of senior employees assigned to these cases. This campaign is concentrated among taxpayers with more than $1 million in income and more than $250,000 in recognized tax debt.

“President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is increasing tax fairness and ensuring that all wealthy taxpayers pay the taxes they owe, just like working families do,” said U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen. “A new initiative to collect overdue taxes from a small group of wealthy taxpayers is already a major success, yielding more than $1 billion in revenue so far.”"

Sounds like they are doing exactly what they said they wanted to do and not "going after everyday Americans" like the GOP swore was going to happen. Shocking.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

"This campaign is concentrated among taxpayers with more than $1 million in income and more than $250,000 in recognized tax debt".

"Sounds like they are doing exactly what they said they wanted to do and not "going after everyday Americans".

------------

When I read the first sentence I thought about "income" AND net worth. Then I thought about the differences and how many Americans "make" a million a year and how many "have" a million dollars. Those numbers are vastly different.

Then I read in this article ( https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/irs ... -111837774 ) - "Other initiatives announced in the past year have included pursuing people and businesses that improperly deduct personal flights on corporate jets and collecting back taxes FROM DELINQUENT MILLIONAIRES".

My uneducated guess is there are about 175 million Americans who work.
My uneducated guess is around 1% of Americans make 1 million a year in "income".
My uneducated guess is there are at least 25 million INDIVIDUALS who are millionaires in this country.

I don't know how many businesses there are in the USA but my uneducated guess is 1 in 4 businesses in this country are "worth" a million dollars.
My uneducated guess is 1 in 10 businesses make 1 million a year in "income".

Point of my sharing all that is/was - your second sentence made me think, are they really "not "going after everyday Americans"?
Seems somewhat debatable.

[Sparko]

Collecting the slop. If you weren't going to be audited, everything is deductible.

[Shirley]

Classic:

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Classic:

Should I have said "semi educated"? Or maybe just "guess"?

[ousdahl]

In today’s edition of “ThE RaDiCaL LeFt:”


Bernie goes all in on endorsing Biden, tells Dems to “stop the bickering”