Joe Manchin to skip White House event as he considers 2024 bid against Biden
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
When President Joe Biden marks the first anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act next week with a major celebration at the White House, one prominent invited guest is not expected to be in the crowd.
The decision by Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to skip the White House's campaign-style affair highlighting the climate and health spending law he helped write — and name — is just the latest sign of an increasingly fraught relationship between Manchin, a conservative Democrat, and the Biden administration.
Manchin is openly flirting with a third-party run for the presidency in 2024, a move that could upend Biden's prospects of winning re-election. Even if Manchin doesn't take that controversial step, he is already trying to demonstrate greater independence from the White House ahead of another possible Senate run in his deeply Republican state. And Thursday, he said he is "absolutely" considering changing his party affiliation from Democrat to independent.
"I've been thinking about that for quite some time," he told a West Virginia radio host.
How Manchin might create headaches for the president was a topic of discussion during a previously unreported dinner earlier this month between the senator and one of Biden's top aides, Steve Ricchetti. The two men dined after the Senate adjourned for its August break and discussed what the White House might expect from Manchin in the coming months once the Senate is back in session, two sources with knowledge of the relationship between them told NBC News.
Ricchetti remains the main conduit to Manchin as the West Wing nervously eyes the senator's every move. The goal of their dinner was similar to that of their other, fairly regular, discussions: to try to ensure the president is not caught off guard when Manchin publicly breaks with him, the sources added. They did not say if Manchin's consideration of a third-party presidential run or becoming an independent was discussed.
A senior White House official downplayed the significance of Manchin's absence at next week's Inflation Reduction Act event, noting it was taking place during a congressional recess. But his absence is a stark contrast to the White House bill signing ceremony last year, which also took place during a congressional recess. Manchin was featured prominently at that event, and in a gesture acknowledging how central he was to the legislation's passage, Biden gave him the pen he used to put his signature on it.
"We will keep finding ways to work together," the senior White House official said of Manchin. The official said the president's team still has a close working relationship with Manchin and noted the senator "helped us find a way to thread the needle and get things done."
Still, Manchin underscored the tension between his political ambitions and the president's in a statement about the Inflation Reduction Act's anniversary. He praised the law as "one of the most historic pieces of legislation passed in decades" and said it's having an impact in his state. But he also vowed to "continue to fight the Biden administration's unrelenting efforts to manipulate the law to push their radical climate agenda at the expense of both our energy and fiscal security."
President Joe Biden hands a pen to Sen. Joe Manchin at a signing ceremony for H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, in the State Dining Room of the White House on Aug. 16, 2022. Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images file
Biden on Tuesday kicked off a two-week, administrationwide effort to promote the Inflation Reduction Act with an event in Arizona that featured another senator with an independent streak who has at times complicated White House legislative efforts: Kyrsten Sinema. The former Democrat, who changed her party affiliation to independent in December, spoke ahead of Biden as he designated a new national monument near the Grand Canyon. Biden and Sinema later appeared to have a friendly conversation as he was waiting to be introduced for his remarks.
Sinema, like Manchin, won't attend the White House commemoration next week because of "scheduling conflicts," an aide said, despite having voted for the legislation. Sinema, who continues to organize with Democrats in the Senate, similarly has not said if she'll seek a second term next year.
But it's Manchin's seat that Republicans are really eyeing as a top pick-up opportunity next year in a bid to flip the Senate from blue to red.
Manchin is the only remaining Democrat elected statewide in a state that then-President Donald Trump won in 2020. Trump won West Virginia by almost 40 percentage points over Biden.
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, who previously praised Manchin for being a thorn in the side of Democrats, has since turned on him. McConnell's super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, has rallied behind Manchin's would-be opponent, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, a former Democrat who turned Republican.
"It wasn't smart to do what I did if I'm doing strictly about politics," Manchin admitted Thursday regarding his eleventh-hour deal last year to push Democrats' signature legislative priority over the finish line. He blamed Biden for "catering to one side" in billing the Inflation Reduction Act as all "green and clean," rather than emphasizing the bill's investments in energy security.
As Manchin's political dynamics at home have grown more precarious, he's tried to further distance himself from Biden. That has made his relationship with Ricchetti all the more critical for the White House amid the president's 2024 campaign. But it's also generated some more public clashes.
Perhaps most notably, Manchin has repeatedly torched how the Biden administration has implemented certain aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act, including several climate-related initiatives. He's vowed to block Biden nominees for Environmental Protection Agency posts. He's even threatened to support Republicans' push to repeal the legislation if the Biden administration doesn't prioritize its fossil fuel investments.
Another White House official said in a statement that "we are implementing the Inflation Reduction Act as written, which is achieving many goals we share with Senator Manchin."
The shift started just months after, in the summer of 2022, Ricchetti helped navigate the legislative ups and downs of the bill with Manchin. In the end, it was Manchin who revived Biden's dormant Build Back Better agenda by striking a quiet deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to pass a watered-down measure he could support. He so embraced the bill that he took credit for the new moniker.
"The name that I came up with was the Inflation Reduction Act," Manchin told reporters at the time.
During Thursday's radio interview, Manchin once again defended the law's title.
"I knew it would not enhance inflation; it would reduce inflation. ... The effect of the bill [on inflation], you can't disagree with that," Manchin said in an attempt to counter the host's criticism.
Later in the day, Biden appeared to burst Manchin's bubble.
"I wish I hadn't called it that," he said at a fundraiser in Utah, "because it has less to do with reducing inflation than it has to do with providing alternatives that generate economic growth."
Aug. 11, 2023, 9:00 AM UTCBy Mike Memoli and Julie Tsirkin
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
If Joe Manchin were to ever win the DNC nomination, I could finally rest easy over the 2024 election.
It would put the D nomination back into the 'responsible' category. Hopefully that would also trigger the GOP to break free of Trump for the nomination but that is admittedly mere wishful thinking on my part.
Yes, it would. I'm sure the left wouldn't give up control of the party without a fight. Manchin could win that battle.
The Ds no doubt recognize that Biden is way past his prime and that he is far from the ideal candidate (even if he were younger). But, as with the Rs, political parties go with momentum rather than make sensible moves to deliver the best candidates and the best nominee. It takes a disruptive element to break free of that pattern.
The democrat party is a big party. Many might think Biden too old or Manchin more reasonable. There is that other wing to the party - the radical left and Joe Biden has fulfilled their every wish. I think you are underestimating their hold on the party.
Don't read things into what I wrote. Where did I suggest Biden was not a decent man? Where do I disregard him?
I stated that Biden is too old and that he is not (and never was) an ideal candidate for the presidency.
You are leaning too far to the right. There is a reason Manchin has never been a presidential candidate within the Democratic Party. He's not really a Democrat.
I do not care if Manchin is a D or an R, John.
So, [deleted] or they aren't democrats?
Got it.
Joe Manchin will never be the Democratic nominee. You implied you would like to see that happen. Its not gonna happen.
Yes, I would like to see Manchin rather than Biden. Yes, I doubt the Ds would rally around Manchin. That does not change my opinion.
And per your prior comment, I do not care if Manchin is considered a good Democrat.
I have to disagree here. He's corrupt. He's just slick about it.
Of course he is. He's just one of the sensible ones, so you don't want to acknowledge him.
Hmmmm. So if the choices are Manchin and Trump and you say you would never vote for Manchin.............
This, of course, would be disastrous as it is a path where Trump could actually be elected PotUS.
I think Gen Custer was once asked where the 7th Cavalry was heading. He answered to hell or to Glory, you see, it depends upon one's point of view.
I am not going to give a full response to your comment since that would derail your article, but the essence of what I would write is that voting for Trump is irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
I suspect millions of Americans would view the reelection of Biden as irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
How in the world can you overlook and ignore the damage and disgrace that Biden's actions, corruption, and incompetence has brought to our country?
Yet the steaming pile of shit got 80 million votes.
Have we figured that out yet?
I'm saying that having Joe Manchin as the democrat nominee would relieve us all of that burden.
What do you mean by burden? The burden of voting for Trump? Are you implying that if Manchin vs. Trump that you would vote for Manchin?
Nope. I don't expect Trump to beat Manchin. Manchin should get the vast majority of independent votes. That election might just find me sitting at home.
First of all, your view of Biden is extreme. He is not, IMO, a good president but you paint him with language that is more appropriate for Trump and you do so in a defense of Trump.
Second, I am not overlooking anything. What I do is weigh all the factors without emotion. Rational analysis is different from what you just presented.
I vehemently disagree.
We have a lack of public safety that is unprecedented, a needless energy problem and a very wide-open border. If that isn't extreme, I don't know what is.
What a surprise.
You take Biden's failures/faults to the extreme and downplay those of Trump.
Show me where?
You exaggerate the flaws of Biden and downplay those of Trump. Typical partisan crap. Partisanship disrupts objectivity.
The problem with that is that you cannot see it. All one need do is read your posts. I would suggest you try to read your own posts objectively.
The problem is that you may not want to go down that path.
Let us start the journey:
Is the southern border open??
I explained the problem to you. Your view of reality is tainted by extreme partisanship. IMO, of course.
Yes. As I have noted many times now, this is one of Biden's clear failures of policy. Now, my turn.
Did Trump violate his oath of office by attempting, for the first time in USA history, to steal a presidential election by discrediting the electoral system in order to rally his supporters against the system, attempting to coerce officials into unconstitutional and likely illegal acts and attempt to violate the orderly transfer of power through a scheme of Pence tabling certified votes coupled with false electors from seven states?
Failure? He obviously wanted it open!
Did Trump violate his oath of office by attempting, for the first time in USA history, to steal a presidential election by discrediting the electoral system in order to rally his supporters against the system, attempting to coerce officials into unconstitutional and likely illegal acts and attempt to violate the orderly transfer of power through a scheme of Pence tabling certified votes coupled with false electors from seven states?
I answered that months ago. Trump was wrong to do that, which btw has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICY!
Next question:
Did Joe Biden discourage American energy production?
This is bizarre. I just deemed Biden's open border policy a failure and you take objection to that. Do you consider his policy a failure or a success? What on Earth is your problem?
Yes he was. So we compare Biden's failure to properly address illegal immigration to Trump's attempt to steal a USA election. No contest.
Biden discouraged American fossil fuel energy production and encouraged American renewable energy production. You should know this already.
Now, my question:
Did Trump willingly and knowingly hold, attempt to hide, disclose to unauthorized individuals (in at least one case) and attempt to impede the return of classified documents?
My prediction is that Manchin running against both Biden and Trump would have a decent shot at winning. Those otherwise voting for Trump or Biden with their noses plugged would have a more palatable option. I wouldn’t be excited about it but depending on how his debates went I could see myself voting for Manchin if it became clear that he was sweeping away significant Biden and Trump votes. Then I’d be the one plugging my nose.
That is pure craziness. If one could be sure a third party candidate would win, or harm only Trump's chances, then one could make a semi reasonable case for voting third party. But neither of those are likelihoods. No third party candidate since the early days of the country has been a serious contender to win in a presidential election . Teddy Roosevelt got 27% of the popular vote in 1912 as a third party candidate and was still swamped in the electoral vote. And that is the high point for third party candidates.
A third party candidate will most likely help Trump , and there are any number of political analyst articles that explain this. Even if there is only a 50% chance a third party will help Trump (and I think the chance is quite a bit higher) it is far too much risk to take .
You’re always referencing the history of third party results and consequences. This is obviously like no time in history.
A third party candidate will most likely help Trump , and there are any number of political analyst articles that explain this.
Any number of political articles could also have explained how Trump couldn’t possibly win his first primary. I saw through that wishful thinking and stated right here on NT that I had a shocking and uneasy feeling that Trump could win that primary, and at that time you said I was nuts. It obviously only got worse from there. Trump’s baggage is so extreme right now that many of his initial supporters still prefer him but are ready to consider a different option. The only reason I would vote for Manchin would be to ensure Trump wouldn’t win because Biden has risks from an idiot son problem, old age, and a ubiquitous severe distaste for Kamala Harris. I would hope you would jump on that bandwagon if the writing gets written on the wall.
Possibly. A moderate would hurt the most extreme candidate.
Yup.
Do you think it would be just as disastrous if the same path leads to a Biden re election?
Do you ever pay attention to what I write? All I see from you lately is bullshit.
As I have stated numerous times in this forum, I do not want to see Biden as PotUS. Reason 1 is that he is too old. We need new, younger blood in the range (roughly) of 45-65 years of age.
But there is no comparing Biden, with all his negatives, to Trump. Trump has demonstrated that he is willing to compromise anyone and anything (including our nation) to get what he wants. He has the distinction of being the only PotUS (hell, only candidate) in US history who has conspired to steal a US election. He has no integrity and is basically a con-man. Anyone who can think clearly would not want a malignant narcissist, pathological liar con-man sitting in the most powerful office on the planet. That is irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
To wit:
Now bookmark this reply if you think you cannot remember it.
Why do you constantly defend Biden?
You only classified Biden as very undesirable, however, you classify Trump as unacceptable.
Do you not think Biden has compromised the US by "allegedly" accepting bribes from various unscrupulous countries that would like to see us buried?
To wit: Trump= he says mean things and he has done wrongdoing
Biden= He's old but it doesn't matter that there is obvious evidence of his corruption that could have put this country's security at risk. He is just better than Trump.
Stop being so naive.
You don't have to bookmark anything because you will constantly hound me about obtuse things, anyway.
Here you go again with pure bullshit. Funny how the Ds here object when I criticize Biden yet you somehow are blissfully ignorant of my criticisms. More bullshit from you.
Well, good, you picked up on that. Yes, that is exactly correct.
You can show that Biden actually did this? If so, educate us all. In the meantime, I will state my position again since you obviously are confused:
IF Biden accepted foreign money for services delivered via his position then he should be held accountable.
Now, read the above carefully and maybe bookmark the comment so that you can remind yourself.
Trump is a traitor. He abused the power of his position in an attempt to steal a US election. Among other things (read my list).
It is pathetic that you downplay the significance of what Trump has done into merely "say mean things" and "done wrongdoing" as if Trump is being unfairly criticized. Back to defending Trump, bugsy?
That is not my position. More bullshit from you. The evidence against Trump is overwhelming. In addition, there are formal indictments issued. The Biden case is currently nothing more than allegations with the only evidence of wrongdoing being the fact that Hunter is Joe's son. But you leap to guilt. What a surprise.
There is no comparison in terms of evidence between the allegations against Trump and those against Biden. Take off your partisan blinders.
And now you whine. Ironically so, given the post you just wrote.
When you make stupid/dishonest posts, expect to be challenged. If that is a problem for you, don't make stupid/dishonest posts.
Have you read the Horowitz Report?
Biden has pretty much betrayed Manchin, who I think will at least become an independent by years end.
I think Manchin may have finally figured out that he has a better chance at becoming president as the DNC nominee rather than as an independent.
Biden would NEVER debate him. The way it is set up for Biden is perfect right now:
The media spends all its time on the Trump indictments, the DOJ covers up the Biden family corruption and Joe Biden spends his time sitting at a beach in Delaware.
It would take a lot of planning. Remember when he debated Trump? They had to get 50 former intelligence officials to ultimately ruin their reputations by signing onto that Russian disinformation letter regarding the Hunter Biden laptop. Just on the predictable possibility that Trump would bring up the laptop story being suppressed. It worked like a charm, remember?
I would post the debate where Biden was waiting for Trump to bring it up just so he could say it was "Russian disinformation," but guess what? That scene is not to be found any longer on the internet.
You think, and have said, that the only reason people would vote against Trump is because of his personality or his mean tweets. That claim is laughable.
[deleted]
That should be obvious; an independent winning the presidency today is a major long shot.
Just about anyone who is not a leftist ideologue would have to agree that the country was FAR BETTER under Trump than Biden.
The problem is that you give Trump all the credit for the circumstances during his first years (ignoring his last year) and thus presume that reelecting Trump will be good for the nation. That is naïve.
That is correct. I think the best thing for the country right now is for Manchin to enter the DNC primary.
Are you blaming him for the pandemic? He was golden from beginning to end.
Sure as hell wouldn't be his policies unless Obama's terms indeed made the country into a bunch of candy assed pussies.
I remember when Trump and Biden debated. Trump acted like a lunatic, interrupting Biden dozens of times, and at one point telling the Proud Boys to "stand by".
Trump's performance in that debate is considered to be the absolute low point in presidential debate history.
You remember?
All I want to know is if you remember when Joe Biden said intel officials have called the Hunter laptop story "Russian disinformation?"
Do you?
No, Vic, I blame him for his handling of the pandemic.
Good grief, Vic. Ignoring doctors, calling the pandemic a Democratic conspiracy, having the federal government get into a bidding war with state governments for PPE, vacillating on recommending the "Trump vaccine" after having received it himself - how in the world is that "golden"? To say that requires one be partisan in the extreme, to the point of denying reality.
It is clear that GOP partisans downplay the faults of Trump and exaggerate those of Biden. IMO, this failure of critical analysis is the root of most controversy and in today's politics the GOP partisans are far more adversely affected than the D partisans.
Please be specific. We had Dr Fauci making shit up as he went along, but Trump followed his recommendations.
having the federal government get into a bidding war with state governments for PPE, vacillating on recommending the "Trump vaccine" after having received it himself
Don't you mean putting the development of a vaccine on the fast track and getting it within 10 months, when Dr Fauci said it wasn't possible? And at the same time candidate Biden and his running mate were discouraging people to trust the new vaccine.
Crystal.
Trump did not follow his recommendations. Trump kept having campaign rallies when large gatherings were exactly NOT what Fauci recommended.
Your comments do not reflect reality.
Harris said she wouldn't take the vaccine on Trump's word of its safety. She said she'd trust medical experts. You know, the ones not considering injecting people with disinfectants.
For emphasis!
Throughout the last year, many people have looked to Anthony Fauci , MD, for perspective and guidance on the pandemic . As a result, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has been responsible for a handful of tough decisions over the past seven months. Recently, Fauci said that the most challenging decision he had to make during the pandemic was to advise Donald Trump to implement a nationwide shutdown.
"It was a decision to make a recommendation to the president," Fauci answered. "It wasn't my decision that I could implement." That recommendation was to shut down the U.S. to drastically slow the spread of coronavirus.
Dr. Fauci Says He Recommended a Nationwide Shutdown to Trump Early On (yahoo.com)
Fauci recommended it and Trump suffered the consequences. Neither Dr Fauci, nor any other leading health official knew much about that virus.
Harris said she wouldn't take the vaccine on Trump's word of its safety.
That was her save line after sowing doubt in case the vaccine was distributed before the election. There was no danger of that. Big Pharma waited until about a week after the election to say "we got it!" And Joe & Kamala were among the first to use the Trump vaccine.
How's this for reality?
Trump did not follow Fauci's recommendations, and opposed them fairly early on.
You conveniently left out the part where she'd trust people who weren't considering injecting disinfectant.
Good grief Vic, you just will never get it.
Yes, Harris said that she would take the vaccine if medically recommended but that she would not take it on Trump's word alone.
What is the problem with that? I would not take the vaccine on Trump's word alone either. Trump demonstrated that he did not know what he was talking about and clearly he has no expertise in biology.
I dont agree with your premise, but even if I did Trump will be unfit for all eternity.
People don't want a TRAITOR as their president.
Joe is the traitor [deleted]
Sandy, I know all about the push to pretend that Trump didn't follow Fauci's recommendations. The truth is that he did. We all lived through it despite Politico and mother Jones trying to rewrite history, A robust economy weas shut down because Dr Fauci recommended it.
No, you don't.
Harris and Biden don't get to pull their punches. The vaccine was not to be trusted if it became available when it should have but was suddenly as good as gold under Biden. The people are not as feeble minded as our illustrious college students tend to be. We got it!
[deleted]
vic, why dont you join heated debate and we can discuss who is or isnt a traitor or an extremist. I am not allowed to discuss that with you here.
Believe t or not John, the idea of you and I calling each other names doesn't appeal to me.
Where is Bruce these days?
I dont know where Bruce is, but I know he would run rings around you when it came to "debating".
I get that impression too.
Sorry I missed him. I must have arrived shortly after he left.
Good fucking grief, Vic.
Trump compared to Biden in terms of being a traitor and you deny Trump as a traitor and just declare that the true traitor is Biden.
You continue to ignore that Harris said she would not take the vaccine on Trump's recommendation but rather on the recommendations of qualified professionals.
Why do you continue to blot this fact out of your mind? To what end?
We lived through a half-assed shutdown.
Trump's position on lockdowns (and masks, and vaccination...) tend to vary with the political winds. He tells people what they want to hear. When he thinks people want him to be tough on the virus to protect the public health, he acts tough. When he thinks they're getting sick of staying home and might want to come donate money to a billionaire at a political rally, he holds a rally during a pandemic.
TDS is an incurable disease.
If Manchin could derail Biden that would be great for America. It might help Dems discover he is not a viable candidate and back someone else, be it Manchin or some other centrist Dem.
Now if someone would step up on the other side of the aisle we might not get an election of the lesser of two evils.
Manchin will never be the Democratic nominee for president. Most Democrats consider him to be a turncoat.
No doubt.
You don't mind if I copy that for future use?
You are probably right but I would not totally count him out. It seems more and more people are getting sick of choosing between a narcissistic ass hole and a dementia ridden incompetent asshole. A darkhorse may be exactly what this country needs.
There is no evidence Biden is incompetent. He fumbles with words sometimes and turns the wrong way on a stage. Big deal when you consider the alternative.
I have also witnessed countless times when Biden rattles off historically accurate and detailed information for minutes on end without a teleprompter. Compared to Trump he’s a fucking genius. Unfortunately, like every human on earth he is a mortal man, and he’s clearly in his twilight. Like it or not, Harris is an anchor in this respect.
Harris would be 100 x more of an appropriate president for America than Donald Trump.
I cant believe people are even posing this as an issue.
Of course she would, so would Nicki Minaj for that matter. But if Manchin were to run as a third party candidate it becomes a very different game.
Why? Manchin is a calm presence I will grant you, but he is a tool of the fossil fuel industry and has become rich as a corrupt politician. I'd rather have Biden give it a go for four more years.
Now if Dan Goldman wants to run in 2024 that would be a different story for me.
Every D in the country would rather have Biden for another four years, but the chances of old age interrupting that isn’t small. I’m no Manchin fan, but I haven’t heard of anyone else taking advantage of this unique reality yet. If any third party candidate can diplomatically clean up on the debate stage and handle Trump like the little bitch he is, then I could possibly be persuaded.
I dont think there is a chance in the world that Joe Manchin would attack Trump in the way you would like.
Let's ask our readers:
Biden or Manchin?
"Give us Manchin."
Ok
I don’t think there’s a chance he’s going to stand there and let Trump be Trump on him either.
Here is the issue as I see it.
Assume we are stuck with Biden vs. Trump. I would have much less concern voting for Biden if his V.P. were a solid person who could properly assume the presidency. The idea of a president Harris bothers me greatly.
Of course I would pick Harris over Trump (almost anyone over Trump) but Harris as president sickens me.
Or Tim Walz.
Doesnt bother me at all. What is she going to do, blow up the world?
Kamala Harris was the attorney general of the largest state in the Union, with a population larger than the majority of the world's countries. She was elected U.S. senator from the same state. She's no more unqualified than many vice presidents have been in the past. That is right wing propaganda.
I do not listen to right wing propaganda. I go by what I have observed. She is, IMO, incompetent for the office of PotUS. In addition, she is not serious and is far too liberal for me.
So her as the V.P. for an 82-86 year old PotUS is not comforting to me.
Based on what ?
My observations. She does not show talent for diplomacy, charisma, leadership and, importantly, getting things done.
Just contrast her with the example I gave: Tim Walz.
I dont have any trouble identifying idiots. [Deleted]
She is not an idiot. Stop with the ridiculous hyperbole and make a comment grounded in reality.
[deleted]
His policies suck. So either he is incompetent or just a terrible president. My vote is for both.
Which word salad would you like served to you. There are literally dozens to choose from.
“Which word salad would you like served to you.”
Which stale crouton would you like to add?
Which stale crouton would you like to add?
Thanks to bidenomics I can't afford croutons, not even stale ones.
Her word salads illustrate, to me, that she lacks the skills to be a competent leader. Not that she is literally stupid (aka an idiot).
She is not stupid. Surely you know that intelligent people can be poor leaders, lack the drive/ability to secure solid accomplishments, etc. You and Texan are (big surprise) leaping to extremes.
Yeah, probably so ... nothing like watching modern 'news and stuff' to get fed with partisan nonsense.
Really? The current economy has hit you that hard? Your financial planning is so abysmal that you cannot afford basic items when:
.
This is not a bad economy.
That's a tough decision. There are so many. Maybe a motiviational poster will help.
Obviously. Harris is an unappealing candidate for PotUS but she is clearly NOT an idiot.
But you would know that from watching your "news and stuff" (@4.1.27).
This is not a bad economy
Now if you can only convince the American public joe would be a shoe in. I also noticed you didn't have the graph that is the most important to Americans.
She can't communicate simple ideas. She can't differentiate fact from fiction when she says stuff like there are polls that think she is well liked and doing a good job. She breaks out in laughter for no reason. If it walks and talks like an idiot......Of course partisans will make excuses for her.
Yea, she is not an idiot.
I told you it is my opinion.
But did you get your opinion approved?
What else would it be other than your opinion?
This is amazing. The whole concept of discussion / debate is about arguing what another believes is true.
A perfect example of your intellectual dishonesty. I have been critical of Harris (right here in this article). But because I object to the hyperbole of deeming her an idiot (when she clearly is not) you pretend (your implication is obvious) that I am engaging in a partisan defense of her. (By the way, I am not and have never been a D. You have no clue what you are talking about.)
I include a set of graphs and links supporting my position and you complain (vaguely) that this is not enough. What a surprise.
Looks like you forget to include your argument.
Hell I have seen her communicate complicated ideas such as AI. She did a decent job of providing a high-level view of the subject matter. Yet a few Rs here deemed her discussion a word salad (probably because they do not understand the subject matter even at her level).
Harris does ramble on, no doubt, but just because one does not understand certain words and/or concepts does not mean the speaker is necessarily engaging in a word salad.
What point are you trying to make here?
I really dont know whether Kamala Harris would make a good president or not. Is the "qualified" by historic standards ? Yes.
Her talk went downhill from there.
Nice graphs and links. But my original comment had to do with not being able to afford croutons. It should not be too much to understand I was talking about inflation yet your comment and graphs were not about that making your comment nothing more than a diversion and trolling. Please go troll someone else.
I just referred you to that very video. You did not understand that?
Yes, she is qualified to be PotUS. That is not in question. And I am not claiming she would be the worst PotUS by historical standards.
Yes it did. You claimed that you could not afford even stale croutons due to the state of the economy. I addressed that factually.
Your replies have been superficial nonsense and you have the temerity to label my comments 'trolling'.
And I included a chart on the inflation rate. Hello?
Inflation cannot be taken in isolation either. As prices rise you need to consider the means by which people make money too (wages and investments). By any measure, out current economy is NOT a 'bad economy' and you should not be in the financial dire straits you indicate.
AI is a subject matter of which I am well informed (even at the software level ... developing AI). As I stated, I listened to her video when you and other GOP partisans were deeming it a word salad. I expected to hear a word salad (especially given the topic) but to my surprise she actually delivered an accurate overview of the subject matter. I am sure she was repeating what she was told in a briefing, but her overview was reasonable and was absolutely not a word salad.
You did not understand what she said so you deemed it a word salad. The problem lies with you in this case, not her.
[deleted]
Many Americans disagree, her current approval rating is 39.8% and disapproval is 52.1%.
The AI description by Harris was not a word salad; it was an okay overview that was technically accurate. You did not understand her words because you do not understand the subject matter. In this case, the failure is yours.
The question is what are the 39.3 percent thinking. Or drinking. Or smoking.
[Deleted]
My wife of over 38 years doesn't presume to know me that well. Well, usually not.
“I think the first part of this issue that should be articulated is AI is kind of a fancy thing. “First of all, it’s two letters. It means artificial intelligence”
She got that last part right. I’m not sure if fancy is better than exquisite, though.
What is your point?
That she was right, AI is two letters that stand for Artificial Intelligence. Not sure about the fancy part thing. Do you think it’s a fancy thing?
She said quite a bit more than that in her overview.
fancy ≡ "elaborate in structure or decoration."
I think it is fair to say that modern AI is elaborate in structure. The number of AI methods available today is substantial and they enable the development of many varied models for all sorts of applications. The underlying technologies are elegant but not simple. In terms of decoration, if we view elements such as oral and written natural language interfaces as decoration (we typically call these presentation) then yes these are elaborate too.
'Fancy' works. Not a word I would use, but it is accurate.
What is your complaint?
My argument is that her presentation was NOT a word salad in that it was technically accurate albeit at a very high level.
I also stated that I presume she was simply repeating what she was told in a briefing.
You either are not paying attention to what I write or are moving the goal post (what a surprise).
I didn’t loge a complaint but I can.
Some what a distinction withoutdifference.
I guess that she is repeating the old adage: Garbage in, Garbage Out.
I think that the day before the informative AI roundtable, she attended a transport meeting: "This issue of transportation is fundamentally about just making sure that people have the ability to get where they need to go!"
Again, she nailed it.
No. Contemporary AI is centered around machine learning. But there is much more to AI (e.g. natural language, robotics, vision, cognition, etc.) than simply machine learning; practical machine learning is a relatively new (< 20 years) discovery in a field that dates back to the 1950s. Given the predominance of machine learning today, her simple summary is accurate.
Correct. If you pick a training corpus that encapsulates a bunch of misinformation, the AI will be trained to be wrong.
That is not an accurate comparison. You offered: the issue of {x} is simply {definition of x}. Stating that (modern) AI is ultimately about machine learning is identifying a subset of the field of AI as the dominant subset today. Very different.
You seem to be trying to find a word salad. Thus far, I hope you realize why you are failing to do so.
Well then she widely missed the mark.
No, I’m trying to find her point, what message did she want to convey.
No, did you not read what I wrote? Contemporary AI is predominantly machine learning (not exclusively machine learning).
That contemporary AI is predominantly machine learning and that machine learning is only as good (in the sense of quality and responsible functionality) as the models and training. Thus it is important that we have sensible safeguards on the use of AI (and, implicitly, similar technologies).
So contemporary the distinction is without much difference.
of course, no one wants nonsensical safeguards. I didn’t see where she alluded to the Orr the process to develop them.
You seem determined to find a way to interpret her comments so that they make no sense. I am done giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, you are just trolling.
You’re probably right, she had a succinct, yet comprehensive message clearly delivered. I’m sure that she went a long way on assuaging those community leaders who have AI concerns that the WH has it under control and on the right path.
I made no claim that her presentation accomplished anything. I claimed that her overview was technically accurate and was not a 'word salad'.
Maybe she was just killing time.
If only that was the total job description for a VP, she would be doing great.
An ironically witless retort.
Don't put words in my mouth. I made no claim either way about what her presentation accomplished. I have not researched this so I do not know.
Back up your position. It gets old watching you post witless, vacuous one-liners and contribute absolutely nothing to this forum in terms of underlying evidence and logic. Especially when you direct your pointless utterings to me.
So what, specifically, do you know about the effect her presentation had on her audience and why you 'know' it accomplished nothing?
Tell that to the millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.
That is an emotional comment devoid of facts. Show me facts that indicate we have a bad economy. I delivered economic facts and based on how we measure economies, we are currently NOT in a bad economy.
That is exactly what the administration and people buying their bullshit are trying to do. Convince people that they are just not smart enough to understand why things are wonderful in Bidenville. They are hoping people are dumber than is seems they actually are since the message seems to be rejected by the majority of people.
Harris, the former Attorney General of the State of California, former United States Senator from California and currently The Vice President the United States of America, is credited by Biden with giving him his winning edge among women and minorities. One must be about "Half-a-MAGA" to still underestimate Harris!
I wonder why Biden thinks that Trump would have gotten a lot more women and minorities if Harris didn't run with him? What kind of deplorable woman or minority switched their vote because of Harris?
As usual you take a comment and exaggerate it into a falsehood.
My comment was that the economy is not bad in terms of how we measure economies. I made no indication that "everything is wonderful". You continue to invent strawmen in lieu of an actual argument. The practice is intellectually dishonest and rather pathetic.
Do you see any difference in composure, competence, experience between governor Tim Walz and V.P. Harris?
If not, then there is no way for me to explain my position to you. If so, then you have the essence of my concern.
Don't insult me JBB.
Tim Walz is my exemplar D candidate for PotUS.
Chris Sununu is my exemplar R candidate for PotUS.
Both are experienced political executives, have mature presence and perspectives, are in the 45-65 year range, take practical positions, are practiced leaders, are cogent communicators and strike me as statesmen who seriously want to do what is best for the nation.
That is what I am looking for. The further one fails in those dimensions the less likely I will be pleased to see them as PotUS.
Also, it is simply coincidence that both are male. A younger Condoleeza Rice is also one I would put as an R exemplar.
Yeah, I say so. All one need do is read what I wrote and compare it to the bullshit you wrote in response to see that I am correct.
Uh huh, sure.
As you know, a devoted partisan is blind to any alternative information.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Of course you run away when asked a direct question.
You have no argument; nothing but mindless talking points and easy-to-parrot one-liners.
Likewise???
Opinions will vary.
Based on the panicked comments and deflections here, Manchin is a true threat to the liberal agenda.
Painfully obvious isn't it?
Very painful.
I think that is a fair assessment. Manchin is clearly not a liberal.
Why is it remarkable to you that liberals would not find him as a desirable nominee?
Exactly, neither today’s liberals or “conservatives” want a moderate.
Look at who liberals supported in the 2020 election. A pair of blundering idiots. It's almost like liberals ordered the POTUS and VP from Wish.
Biden and Harris are far from a dream team, no doubt. But you have no room to talk since you would have Trump as PotUS. You would put into office a traitor who is willing to compromise anyone and anything (including our nation) to get what he wants. Trump has the distinction of being the only PotUS (hell, only candidate) in US history who has conspired to steal a US election. He has no integrity and is basically a con-man. Anyone who can think clearly would not want a malignant narcissist, pathological liar con-man sitting in the most powerful office on the planet. That is irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
That's the understatement of the day.
Only if you ignore the Democrats Big Lie from 2016. But, hey, I know you have to keep in good standings with the hive. You have fun with that now.
Nowhere in history has a PotUS conspired to produce fake electors, table certified state votes, coerce officials and legislators to submit false documentation, etc. in order to steal a US presidential election.
You are confused.
And you have no room to talk given you would vote to put someone who tried to steal a US election into the presidency.
[deleted]
Manchin will either switch parties (as he has indicated) to an independent or run for President. If he remains a dem in WV he will lose. He is simply protecting his ass.
He is 75 years old, just what is needed more oldies in the race.
Looks like he has no path to the presidency as a D or via 3rd party.
I think that he will run in WV as an Independent for the senate.
Oh shit, I did not realize he is that old. Where are the 45-65 year olds?
The boomers of both stripes are ready to let go.
Yup, he is that old and needs to stay in office to pay for the 3/4 million dollar yacht of his.
The field get thinner every election cycle, TG.
Is that high for Senator housing in DC. I read that he got it for $250,000.
Ageism is another prejudice to be overcome. Oddly, the old folks round here who think they know everything and express their opinions on all things are the first to denigrate Biden for his age!
Exactly, ageism is the only explanation for people that think that maybe these folks are to old to continue serving:
Yes!!!
I think a PotUS should be (roughly) 45-65 years old. That range enables wisdom but leaves the person still in their prime.
The job of PotUS is stressful and demanding and not suitable for people well past the normal age of retirement. Certainly not those in their late 70s and beyond.
Biden is too old, by far, to be PotUS.
Are you applying your comment to me?