The Joe Biden Presidency II : He's too old...or something like that!

I'm guilty of going a little nuts when I got my first career job, but I am trying to rectify that. I iwll say that my parents up to my great-grandparents were more

Thankfully, I have a small place in a nice part of Detroit and have no desire to leave soon.

As for the recession, maybe if Trump's policies take hold, but honestly, might be a few years. Hard to predict these things really.

 

Do your own homework. I already told you where to find the answer you are asking for.

Tariffs make goods more expensive. Suddenly many people were either unemployed or not getting paid for their work, and many people's life savings were in banks that closed without paying out. Unemployment reached 25.6%.

Making goods more expensive with that going on just accelerates the problems; the goods don't sell, the merchant can't pay his loan as a consequence, his bank fails too, putting yet more people out of work-- is that so hard to visualize or understand?

 

I've seen a lot of this in here. You're making the claims, why can't you actually summarize your sources?

Which goods?

 

We'll see and that's not quite a debunk unless you're saying people were less concerned about this being their "last election" to vote in according to Democrat media, shouldn't there be more turnout?

 

I'm aware of that debate and tend toward the side of "not much difference in the end, but adding straw to the load of a dying camel is foolish practice."

And tariffs don't "start trade wars," they are trade wars. And they can start real wars, too.

And I just didn't want to encourage that poster in trying to make me his research assistant or parent answering "why? why? why?" endlessly.

 

"A contributing factor" and being an accelerant are not contradictory statements.

 

I understand what you're saying and, tbh, I agree about people that waste their money on frippery and nonsense.

But I think you're underestimating the level of disdain the poorest members of society have for people on the left and their concerns and that comes out, NOT in voting for Trump... but in not voting.

There's a line in the new piece from John Harris today about the election...

From Trump’s victory, a simple, inescapable message: many people despise the left
The tumult of social media and rightwing propaganda has successfully cast progressives as one judgmental, ‘woke’ mass

...​

At the same time, our online discourse hardens good intentions into an all-or-nothing style of activism that will not tolerate nuance or compromise. A message about the left then travels from one part of society to another: there is a transmission belt between clarion calls that do the rounds on college campuses, the Democratic mainstream, and unsettled voters in, say, suburban and rural Pennsylvania. And the right can therefore make hay, as evidenced by a Trump ad that was crass and cruel, but grimly effective: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”

In its own ugly way, that line highlights what might have been Trump and his supporters’ strongest asset: the idea that, because they are so distant and privileged, modern progressives would rather ignore questions about everyday economics. Nearly 40% of all Americans say they have skipped meals in order to meet their housing payments, and more than 70% admit to living with economic anxiety. A second Trump term, of course, is hardly going to make that any better: the point is that he was able to successfully pretend that it would.
​

The phrase that I noticed was the highlighted part about 'economic anxiety' and the thing that people are missing is NOT the people that are buying $80k trucks and then complaining about the repayments and petrol prices... it's the people that, (to repeat myself), DON'T VOTE.

If the phrase 'economic anxiety' is a punchline in a 'think piece' for the NYT or WP... if it's a mocking jibe... how do we think that lands with people who might have voted for us if only they could get their arses off the couch.

There was a piece in that Robert Reich piece as well about the guys he spoke to in 'Missourah' and other parts of fly-over country and the midwest. He said that the two names people mentioned of guys they wanted to see in the white house back in 2015, (so, before Trump's first run), were either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. He said it was often the same person mentioning those names in a positive manner.

You'd think that wouldn't make any sense but, actually, I think it makes perfect sense. People want change. They wanted it when they voted for it, (literally!), when they voted for Hope and Change with Obama and when they were offered 'more of the same' with Hilary Clinton, (so, no change), they rejected it, even with DTH as the alternative as a threat.

There was another interesting discussion, (which I can't seem to find unfortunately ), between Mehdi Hassan and Owen Jones. It's covered here by somebody else...



As Hassan says there, arguing in favour of how well Bidenenomics did for many americans, there are 'systemic problems in the US economy that transcends presidencies'.

Well, yeah... that's kinda the point then. That's what democratic politicians are meant to do and even if they're not always successful, they should be trying and, bluntly, they haven't been trying hard enough.

I think Hassan's right in thinking that the democrats will learn precisely the wrong lesson and Reich said something similar. They will always tend to tack to what they think is the 'centre',... although, as Reich says, 'what does that even mean now'. In a situation between a fascist and a non-fascist, what is the 'centre'?

Personally I think if the democrats had been pursuing the sorts of policies Biden has for the past several decades they'd have been a lot more successful in terms of those policies and it would have moved the Overton window to the left.

But that's a counterfactual, obviously so could well be wrong. But if they had I don't think we'd be having Donald Trump v. 2

I've posted this guy before and he's bloody irritating but the points he makes are mostly correct, (at about 24 mins),...

 

This reasoning would be valid if people had voted for Ron DeSantis, who does not have Trump's rap sheet. For instance, in Nevada Jacky Rosen (D) received less votes than Harris, but won because many Trump voters did not bother to vote for the Republican candidate. Let that sink in.
Here is the problem with all the hand wringing about how the democrats should have done this or that. Voting for Trump because of "economic anxiety" means basically prostituting your vote. There is no sugar coating it. I can understand the reasoning of someone who voted for Trump believing they, personally, would be better off: however, it was an absolutely immoral choice.
The degradation of morality in a society always leads to bad things. And the democrats cannot give voters a moral conscience: that is something people must acquire on their own (or not).
I will not make comparisons with Nazi Germany anymore, because they have been overused - and apparently "the common man" feels offended. But I would refer instead to a precedent some people would take pride in - and the Founding Fathers most certainly were inspired by.

The American Republic fancied himself as a modern Roman Republic. I think of a moment when the consul Gaius Fannius told the Roman plebs (the issue was the right of citizenship for the allied communities in Italy during the tribunate of Gaius Gracchus, around 123-121): “Do you think that if you gave the Latins the right of citizenship you could find in the future a place in the people’s assemblies and at the popular celebrations? Don’t you think that those men will occupy all places?” “Those men” (the Latins) had shed blood for Rome. The Latin communities and their loyalty was the reason why Rome managed to survive Hannibal's war, 90 years before. However, the plebs replied to Fannius’s words: “Hell, yeah, ******** them!”. This is the exact same mindset of the Trump voters, especially on the issue of the immigrants: why should the Latins (now the immigrants) get a slice of the pie? Much easier to use your political influence to tell them to go pound sand, regardless of their contributions to the well-being of the state.

The result of this behaviour from the Roman people was the social war 30 years later, which nearly destroyed the Roman state and was the main factor (on the foundation laid by the Marian reforms) which destroyed the discipline of the Roman armies and turned them into bands of mercenaries and their generals in condottieri. Which was accompanied by a similar degradation of Roman political life, with elections becoming, literally, bought. We know how that ended.

If a society reaches the point where it votes for anyone out of economic anxiety and there are no moral thresholds, not even the most basic ones, for access to office, well, such a society does not get out of such a funk by normal means. I do not know what it will be for the United States: Trump crashing the economy with his deportation and tariffs and ushering in another great depression; Trump triggering widespread violence by trying to go after his enemies Vladimir Putin-style; Trump collapsing US alliances with his foreign policy and destroying the US dollar as reserve currency or seeing major wars breaking out all over the world, in which the US could be dragged again.
But I think it is delusional to claim that the Democrats should try harder to reach out to the working class, etc. If the moral compass of the working class is shit, you cannot compete with an inveterate liar.

 

You cannot reason with the irrational. And therein lies the problem. The idiot didn't try to reason with them, he scared them. Fear is a great motivator and can lead people to vote against their interests.

If Democrats employ such tactics, then they cease to be a serious political party, just as the GOP has ceased to be.

If Democrats employ such tactics, then they cease to have moral constraints, just as the GOP has ceased to have.

If Democrats employ such tactics, then they cease to be working for the best interests of the people, just as the GOP has ceased to do.

It's a Catch-22.

 

And to sum this up if the Democrats reformulate themselves with more fearmongering and irrationality, why would voters go for a knockoff of this (Democrats) when they can go for the pure source (Republicans).

 

So Biden beating Cheeto when we really needed it and passing some great legislation. A solid "A"

Biden appointing Garland, not lighting a fire under his ass when J6 and other crimes dragged on & on and now it looks like the end of the American democracy experiment after 250 yrs. An F? So a C+ overall?

 

That was very interesting, particularly the stuff about ancient Rome, some of which I sorta knew but some I didn't so, thanks for that

Unfortunately it had almost nothing to do with what I was talking about which was that poorer people do NOT vote as they now don't believe the democrats will help them... even though the last guy generally DID.

As to the 'prostituting your vote' thing... people will generally vote for someone they believe, rightly or wrongly, will help them and has regard for them. Also they will have a tendency NOT to vote for someone who says they won't help them, has proven it in the past in some ways and, in passing, acts as if they actively dislike them.

To describe THAT basic premise of democracy as 'prostituting your vote', seems a bit, well... odd!

 

To simplify what's being posted the gist of everything is that the lumpenproletariat is unusually large and prosperous in the United States.

 

Again, I think this is a basic misunderstanding.

Without reproducing all the graphs and data regarding rising inequality and other matters, it's not irrational to be put off voting for someone about whom this can be written...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...of-hillary-clintons-political-realism/486449/

...

Welfare reform has been different. Clinton’s support for it hasn’t wavered over the 20 years since her husband signed the bill into law, and she’s reaffirmed it numerous times since then. Many policymakers who once supported welfare reform have repudiated it, though—even academics who once praised the law have changed their minds.

Now, it’s running headlong into some of the main messages of Clinton’s campaign. The people it most harmed—economically vulnerable women, particularly single mothers and their children—are those for whom Clinton says she is fighting. Welfare reform dropped many single mothers and their children from the rolls, some of whom now have no source of income, yet she says she’s “playing the gender card” for women’s economic rights and wants to give every child the opportunity to “live up to his or her God-given potential.” Welfare reform has been linked to a surge in extreme poverty, yet she has detailed plans to address income inequality. Welfare reform was fueled by ugly stereotypes about women of color, yet she grounded issues of racial and gender justice in the early messages of her campaign.​

Like I said, it's not that they'll vote for the GOP but whether they WILL turn out and vote for you, (particularly if it takes 6-7 hours to stand in line and do it), is another matter.

 

Well, that's another matter. Whether you can gee up people for whom it probably doesn't matter is an open question.

 

It has very much to do with that, namely that it seems the majority of American voters have only one standard for selecting a candidate: how it will personally benefit them and nothing else.
It has not come to open buying of votes, like in Cicero's Rome, but give it time.

Well, an escort will give (temporary) power over their body to all kind of unpleasant men whom they have no affection or respect for in exchange for material benefits.

Trump voters will give power over their lives to an unpleasant man whom they openly admit he is scumbag in exchange for a perceived benefit.
Think of it like this: if you ask someone whether he will vote for a rapist as his mayor/senator/president and that person says "Yes, as long as he gives me a job", how would you call it?
As for "people will generally vote for someone they believe, rightly or wrongly, will help them and has regard for them", I would like to know if there is actually a level the Republican electorate won't stoop to.
Conventional wisdom said Trump should be a bridge too far. I mean, ********ing Republicans believed that: see that lickspittle Elise Stefanik's reaction after 6 January, how "everyone should be prosecuted, bla, bla, bla". Stefanik made the common sense assumption that the Republican electorate was not insane enough to overlook an assault on Congress. But, apparently, that is actually the case. But, then, what is a bridge too far?

Would they vote for Pablo Escobar?
Hassan Nasrallah?
Ted Bundy?
After all, Pablo Escobar was voted in the Columbian Congress and was all family man and for traditional values. He even did some charity. How would you call his voters?

 

They voted for somebody who was openly quoting Hitler when talking about marginal people in society as well as his political opposition. There is no bridge too far.

 

Celito, why do you keep missing the point? Have you seen the words "only one standard" and "nothing else"?

There is nothing wrong with people voting "for someone they believe, rightly or wrongly, will help them and has regard for them", per se, if that someone is a normal person. However, voting for someone you wouldn't even shake hands with otherwise, in the hope of personal gain, it is purely mercenary.
That is like the difference between going on a date with a person you are attracted to, because that person bought you a nice gift, and going on a date with a person you wouldn't even look at, just because the latter person paid you 10,000 $.
If the word "prostitute" bothered you somehow, then you can replace it with "mercenary". The significance and the consequences are roughly the same, in this regard.

 

Complete with Wall-E floating lounge chairs and slurpees