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

Well, this is the argument, isn't it. These people decided a push for M4A or even a public option was going to fail so there was little to no cost for the democratic politicians that had taken a stand against it.

As to the whole 'the whole thing might have failed', it might not have as well and, bluntly, it probably wouldn't.

Also, when you say it didn't have the democratic votes, that might have also been because people like Favreau were actively working against it according to some of the information out there...



I don't actually agree with that guy's conclusion. I think that a public option is precisely the thing that democratic politicians should go for.

But it also seems likely that the undermining of M4A as an aim meant you didn't even get the public option,

 

BTW this guy was also on the founding council of united states of care...



Presumably he wasn't pushing any crypto-bro stuff at that point.

 

In most cases here people don’t choose their insurance, as it’s basically whatever plan(s) their employer offers. I’ve had jobs where you have a choice between maybe 3 different options at different price points, but that’s it.

And I’m one of those people who’s happy with my insurance company, but then I work for a healthcare company that offers its own brand of insurance to employees, and it’s low cost and fairly comprehensive. It’s literally the number one reason I and most of my coworkers are sticking with this company, and it boosts my total compensation by about 50%. My wife has an autoimmune condition so it’s been a godsend. But she hears horror stories from people with similar conditions who suddenly have their insurance companies deny the medication that’s working for no apparent reason.

 

According to those talking head guys it's roughly 50% of people get it through their employers now. I was under the impression it used to be higher but there we are.

Logically that implies means the other half get it themselves or don't have any.

But my point was that everyone that has health insurance has at least some agency in choosing their plan or, at least, where they work so, obviously, they'll tend to like it. Also that most people aren't ill so, again, that question isn't very telling.

 

Has anyone read the Wall street article on Biden?

The information I am seeing is claiming that his mind was gone since 2021 and had some bad days once in a while.

But I have not read the article, so people may be exaggerating.

 

This kind of thing has happened many times in America's presidency (the end of Reagan's second term, the end of Wilson's second term, Trump's entire first term, others). And if Biden was only doing the big picture stuff, that's fine. Most things ended up positive and the things that didn't (how much we supported Ukraine) didn't really change from before his decline so I don't see the effect on America if the article is true.

But if this was the case and they still went with Biden running for a second term, they are a big part of the blame for Trump winning.

 

Dear Joe

Only thirty odd more days. You need to publicly demand Garland release Smith’s report. Fire him if he refuses.

 

If you're pinning your hopes on Joe Biden, prepare to be disappointed.

 

My expectations for Biden, or democrats in general, have been so low for so long it is exceedingly difficult for me to get disappointed.

 

Buck up. We may actually get the Gaetz pedo report

 

No, the voters' stupidity paired with a complacent media gave you fascism.

Anybody that is not a complete moron and/or woefully misinformed should have voted for a dead possum over what the GQP offered.

 

To be fair, it's kind of easy to fall into that trap if you are part of an insular group. The decline happens slowly so you get used to it and a small concession here and another small concession there don't look like they are adding up to something big unless you are on the outside looking in.

 

It's fair to say that his hubris didn't help in the fight against fascism, though.

 

I had some time to think about it and would like to amend my statement a bit.

There are also those who opted for fascism just because they're selfish and/or unrepentant dicks.

Sorry for the omission.

 

There's a part in this discussion where Heather Lofthouse and Robert Reich are talking about, (among other things), the next DNC chair, (the vote for which which has already happened I believe), and he says that the DNC has morphed into a body that purely raises money and has almost no input into policy.



If true, (and I've no way of knowing but I'm guessing Reich does), that system is perfectly designed to protect an oligarchy which mainly protects itself. Not the interests of the groups as a whole.

So they might do a good job... but they might not.

For me, this is the problem in the argument that Biden or Hilary Clinton 'won the nomination', which portrays everything as a fair fight between ideas and candidates and NOT an oligarchy protecting it's own interests. If you control the money in politics it's very hard for others to get a look in.

The only explanation for allowing Biden to continue in office, other than just not being brave, (cruel?), enough is that he was supported by people 'protecting their own patch' and that anyone who wanted to challenge him was afraid of the forces ranged against them.

 

I don't know what's going on in the heads of those people, but I think those of us with aging parents can recognize another reason. Biden is more than a President, he's an icon of the Democratic Party. They (I feel) want him to succeed, to continue his life work for his own sake. You don't want to think that there are some things they are never going to do again. It's painful.

There's something called "Goodhart's Law" which goes "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". Raising money is really important for a political party (obviously), but that eventually morphs into people who raise lots of money are good people and ideas that bring in lots of money are good ideas and they lose the concept that a political party should be first and foremost a representation of an ideology. It's kind of inevitable for humans to do that because it's easy mode for thinking. To avoid it the party needs to listen to outsiders and have a mechanism for introspection and it has really failed on that.

 

Hey everyone!!! I know your eyes glaze over when you see Naughty on a rant…

But HEED that last paragraph!

 

Don't make me shake my fist at you, whippersnapper

 

Well that's why I said 'cruel' because there's an element of that.

We had a similar thing over here with Thatcher and it had been predicted by Harold Wilson back in the day, while she as at the height of her power...

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/nov/17/archive-tories-rid-of-thatcher

The Conservative Party will get rid of Mrs Thatcher in about three years' time and Lord Carrington will probably become party leader, according to Sir Harold Wilson in a television interview to be screened tonight.

Speaking on the BBC Panorama programme, Sir Harold says that Mrs Thatcher will be consigned to Tory mythology. "If they (the Tories) decide they're going to lose the next election with her there, she'll be ditched and it will be as though she's never been. She'll become a non-person."
​

Of course, the 3 year projection, (that was in 1980), was wrong because Wilson had no way of knowing the Argentinian fascist Junta were going to invade the Falklands making her stubbornness appear as her being 'resolute'.

One thing I remember is that, in the interview the article discusses, he said the tories would ditch her because she was too pig-headed to be a successful leader and that 'they're a very cruel party'... which is true. They'll kick people out if they don't think they'll be electorally successful, regardless of how much people may have liked them before.

That's why I use the word 'cruel' in relation to Biden.

As you say, it would have been tough on the guy but, in the situation you were in, (of facing a fascist threat), what about the population of the country.

Also, bluntly, the fact is that Biden had been president and had presided over an administration that had had years to throw the book at everyone involved in the Jan 6 coup attempt and had spectacularly failed, other than the small fry.

 

It was too weak because it had lost a lot of it's democratic controls and that was partly down to the right of the party, (the 'oligarchs'), taking a large measure of control of the finances...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41850797
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411

 

This was an article I read some years back about the whole area of the democratic party and the DNC, in particular, and the situation had developed...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged

That makes the point that Sanders also benefited from Clinton's actions but, IMO, that's slightly missing the point.

Frankly, there's a hell of a difference between someone being placed into prime position by the actions of themselves and their friends behind the scene and a guy who, while he might benefit from it, is arguably there simply to provide an opponent to be knocked down.

As that says, it appears that all of the other people had little to no chance of getting anywhere in that situation.

I don't know how accurate that or the Donna Brazille stuff is but what I DO know is that what happened with the DNC or the democratic party is problematic in many ways and not how a democracy is meant to work.