The Education of Joe Biden
A few days ago the President elect was reminded that those who helped him secure the DNC nomination are not happy about the idea of leaving local police departments fully funded. Andrea Ritchie was the bearer of the bad news:
"What we’ve heard so far from the Democratic Party is what they’re not going to do," defund advocate Andrea Ritchie told Mother Jones . "I don’t expect they will be supportive of the main demand from the streets ... It's gonna be a fight. We're not going away."
"The demand is still to defund the police,” Ritchie said. “And it’s gonna get louder and louder. And I don’t know that we even need to be the inside. They’re gonna hear it either way.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/defund-police-supporters-biden-going-away
And I'll bet a good many of those who voted for Joe Biden thought we were returning to normalcy. I don't know how to break it to them, but we can't have "normalcy" as long as we have a radical element among us. There is no time machine to take us back to pre-1968 America. The question here is what will Joe Biden do? He was packaged by the forces within the democratic party as the moderate alternative - the end to all the "chaos." So far Joe has been naming the people he wants in his cabinet. They appear to be genuinely his. The man he served under, Barak Obama, recently made it publicly known that he would have liked Joe to nominate Susan Rice as Secretary of State. Obama was reluctant to support Joe in the primaries and it was only when Bloomberg imploded and the contest was down to Biden vs the unelectable Sanders did Obama & others effectively coalesce around Biden. Biden stuck to his guns on the Secretary of State nomination. Good for him.
Then there is the key sponsor of the Biden campaign, James Clyburn. Clyburn also thinks Biden has some debts to be settled and has expressed some concerns - specifically, a lack of Black appointees:
"While the most senior Black lawmaker in Congress welcomed the selection of Linda Thomas-Greenfield, a Black diplomat who served in the Obama administration, to serve as ambassador to the United Nations, Clyburn also said that Biden is falling short when it comes to naming Black people to cabinet seats and other top." "From all I hear, Black people have been given fair consideration," Clyburn told The Hill on Wednesday. "But there is only one Black woman so far." "I want to see where the process leads to, what it produces," he said. "But so far it's not good."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/james-clyburn-key-to-biden-victory-slams-lack-of-black-appointees-in-new-admin/ar-BB1bo5UJ
Is this really what the Black voters who supported Biden really care about? Black appointments?
Things may go from bad to worse if democrats win those two Georgia Senate races. Then there would be enormous pressure on Biden to do things that even he would be uncomfortable with.
Then there is the world that Joe Biden is going to have to deal with. It appears that Israel is not longing for a return to the Obama years and apparently they have already taken action against Iran's nuclear program. A few days ago Iran's top nuclear scientist was assassinated. That may only be act one if it looks like Biden wants to get cozy with Iran again. Then there is China. Xi Jinping is finally rid of Donald Trump.
Can he manipulate Biden to loosen up trade restrictions and the recent safeguards on intellectual properties?
What about the Europeans?
He will at least have a fawning media to cover whatever happens.
Like Toro Moreno in "The Harder They Fall", Biden has a lot of people holding markers on him.
In the end all Toro wanted was to go home.
The fun has already begun. Let's see what the president-elect does.
The man people thought would end the chaos!
The other problem will be getting the more radical elements appointed:
http:// hill.cm/dTYc2XX
That should be the key here. Biden is still in the early days of transition. I would think it appropriate to wait until he has been PotUS for at least three months before the large-scale presumption and conspiracy machinery is turned on.
Right now, it seems like other Democrats aren't being very helpful.
Then he has the AOC faction to contend with
He sure does! Remember the Sinatra song "That's life?"
"Right now, it seems like other Democrats aren't being very helpful."
Yes, and republicans are ALWAYS so helpful to Democrats!
And also there is this:
Health officials warn pandemic is "going to get worse"
http:// hill.cm/twPggXE
Yet no plan from Joe yet. Wonder what he is waiting for. Could it be he doesn't want to be responsible for tanking the economy? Or is he getting conflicting views of how to proceed from all of his so called "experts"?
Blaming Trump will be the way he goes no matter what he decides to do.
[Deleted]
Even if he does exactly what Trump did. Of course, the good news for Biden is a vaccine is on the way.
No personal attacks. If you have a counter argument to what Ronin posted, let's hear it!
Do you think it is fair to criticize Biden's policies on Nov 30, 2020 when he will not take office until Jan 20, 2021?
Do you think it appropriate to allow a newly elected PotUS some grace period while in office to flesh out, communicate and execute his policies before condemning them?
I am on guard as to what might manifest, but I am going to give the man time to execute.
You don't really think Trump cheerleaders give a fart about what's "appropriate" do you? Of course they will attack and malign Joe well before day 1 because they don't care about what he does, they have to view anything he suggests as the worst possible thing no matter what it is just like they did with Obama. That's the difference between the two parties, Trump earned the derision and hate coming from the left for all his inept and callous actions starting with the attempted Muslim ban and demonization of immigrants while those on the right simply hate Democrats for who they are, and sometime for who they aren't.
Am I criticizing policies? I thought I was pointing out the pressure special interests are applying. I listed 3 examples of people who helped Biden get elected, now telling Biden who he should nominate.
Do you think it appropriate to allow a newly elected PotUS some grace period while in office to flesh out, communicate and execute his policies before condemning them?
Biden's policies are another issue - one I did not cover in this article. He has announced executive orders that he intends to use right away. If you want to raise those issues, that's fine. Those measures such as scrapping the travel ban, I am totally against. I don't have to wait and see how they work. In my opinion they are not in the interests of the nation. Economic policies, I agree - we wait and see.
I believe Forbes listed 5:
I am on guard as to what might manifest, but I am going to give the man time to execute.
That's fine. The article is about what those who helped Biden get elected now want from him. They are calling for it right out in the open.
I expect partisans to behave as such. I will just react to what they write. I fully expect to constantly hear the 'what is good for the goose …' bullshit that expresses the juvenile notion that if 'they' do it then it is proper for 'us' to do likewise.
I hope we will get past that but do not expect it will work out that way.
Trump never got a honeymoon, did he? It's funny when you think about him as a candidate. I don't think I ever heard the John McCain, Mitt Romney or any of the candidates that faced Trump in the RNC use the words "our workers" or "our farmers."
I asked you in context of Ronin's comment @4. I was asking you to weigh in on preemptive criticism. Will you weigh in or just ignore my questions?
Are you implicitly arguing that Biden should therefore NOT get a honeymoon? If it was wrong to not give Trump a grace period then it is wrong to not give Biden one. Do you disagree?
No personal attacks, covert or otherwise.
Trump did not have a grace period. That was wrong. Denying Biden a grace period is also wrong.
It seems to me that Ronin is anxious to see what Biden's policy will be on the pandemic. I can't speak for him, but I wonder if you noticed my response to him? Let me elaborate: by the time Biden is sworn in a first round of vaccinations will have taken place and a greater one will be on the way, so Joe Biden may not face much in the way of the pandemic. Does that make sense?
No and neither was Kat. Just stating the obvious, one that gets ignored a lot here.
If it was wrong to not give Trump a grace period then it is wrong to not give Biden one. Do you disagree?
I feel the same way George W Bush did when the Clinton's gave him a rough transition. He made sure that Barak Obama got plenty of co-operation. I think that's the way it should be.
I have a serious question for you. Donald Trump was never, for one second, qualified for or fit to hold the office of president of the United States. Why on earth would he be given a "grace period" ?
The people who opposed Trump from day one are the only people who should have a clean conscience about the past four years.
In order for someone to be given a chance they have to deserve a chance. Before the election in 2016 Trump was a KNOWN pathological liar, crook, bigot, moron and cheat. In and of itself his birtherism conspiracy against President Obama should have knocked him out of ANY consideration to be president. In and of itself his fraudulent Trump University should have knocked him out of any consideration to be president. And on and on.
Give Trump a grace period? He was elected in 2016 on a wave of white racism. And you want to give that a chance? I know you don't really believe that.
Sure. It does not answer my questions though.
Biden's challenge with COVID-19 is to ensure the distribution remains effective and that we establish herd immunity. That will require a communication campaign and complex logistic coordination. We are off to a great start so Biden's job is to keep that going.
I think he will be able to manage that.
Your eternal conclusion that everyone who constantly opposed Trump did so out of partisanship is just bizarre.
You have a one-track mind JR. As noted, you do not seem to comprehend anything about Trump unless it is bad. I cannot help you work that out.
Every elected PotUS should have a grace period. No matter how unfit or how much an asshole he is, once elected the PotUS will be in office for four years (unless incapacitated or impeached and convicted). Thus we are stuck with the decision of the electorate. Elections have consequences.
One can give the new PotUS a grace period to let him reify his policies before criticizing them or one can preemptively criticize. You know my position.
Once elected into office, the elected official deserves a chance. That was granted to him/her by the people. Your emotional issues with an elected individual do not outweigh the democratic will of the people. Sorry.
One should wait until one's expectations are confirmed. Wait until you have information before engaging in criticism. Now, you certainly are free to criticize what you know. For example, you could have criticized Trump as being a narcissistic asshole the instant he announced his candidacy in 2016. But when it comes to how he reifies his policies as PotUS then, yes, you wait until you have sufficient information before going batshit crazy. My recommendation.
That is not my conclusion. You should stop trying to characterize my positions; you truly suck at it.
My conclusion is that you have zero objectivity when it comes to Trump. It that incorrect?
What does Kathleen have to do with this?
So you hold that Biden should have a grace period.
I fully agree with you.
She was asked the same question, based on her statement that Trump never got a grace period. I'm sure that statement does not extend to what should happen with Biden.
So you hold that Biden should have a grace period.
Not only do I think it is right, but Biden will get a grace period. We don't control the media - the left does. I expect he will have a grace period, at the very least.
The word I'd use is fawning. He will get the grace period, whether he gets as much as Obama got remains to be seen.
"The media will be much more easy on him, they were brutal with Trump. That I will never forget."
How is reporting accurately regarding tRumps' words and actions, or inactions, brutal????
Two distinct points here:
Fawning? LOL!
Asking what flavor ice cream Biden bought is fawning.
I got news for you. Obama didn't get a grace period either. How quickly after his election did the Teaparty form and there were questions about him being an American... and think who lead the way on that one. Btw... if you look back, bitterness by the losing team is not particularly uncommon.
If you say so, not.
He got an 8 year honeymoon. A Love-fest!
Not from his opposition Vic. It is the opposition that allows or disallows the grace period.
No from the media.
It is the opposition that allows or disallows the grace period.
I disagree. It is the media IMO.
Opposition is a much more direct feature than media when speaking of a grace period. But given how you choose to define grace period, we are not talking about the same thing.
I don't think we are. It might be a good idea to weigh both. So you could say there was political opposition to Obama, I would say it showed up around the time of his health care proposal, which is fair game. On the other hand, there was never any media opposition to Obama. The media treated him with reverence. (You know, like wanting to get in bed with him)
That COMMENT is galactically obtuse.
Okay
Correct. It took the right wing about 8 days to blame him for the collapse of the economy that happened 2 years before he took office.
But you choose to forget that the media was "brutal" with Trump because he was (and still is) an accused sexual predator, accused by more than two dozen women, he paid nearly half a million in hush money during the 2016 campaign to porn stars he'd had affairs with, he was continuing the racist lie that Obama wasn't born in this country which was condemned by everyone but his deeply racist base, he was a known liar who had to have nearly every statement fact checked, he was openly calling for an illegal Muslim ban, he was calling Mexicans rapists, his pick for National security advisor was caught lying to the FBI and the VP, his campaign advisor was caught selling voter data to the Russians and the Russians were caught spending $1.25 million a month on campaign ads that falsely appeared to come from within the US to help Trump win the 2016 election. If anything, the media was not brutal enough because they aired most of the false narratives coming from the right in defense of this monumental disgrace to the oval office.
With Biden they have nothing but baseless conspiracy theories against him that don't hold a drop of water so it's rather hard for any media company with credibility to be "brutal". Only the lowest pond scum right wing media companies air that Qanon bullshit because they have no credibility to lose.
Yes you are giving him a chance. I have already acknowledged that you are. I voted up your comment when you made it.
I just want to hear Biden's plan. He's been saying for months that he's got a great plan, but we have yet to hear a peep about those great plans. I'm not criticizing anyone... I'm asking to hear about something that Biden claims he's had for a while.
I would say it showed up no later than the night of President Obama's first inauguration when the Republican congressional leaders met and decided that they would oppose everything President Obama proposed or supported, even if they were things Republicans had previously supported. That transformed Washington from Gingrich-poisonous to McConnell-metastatic.
I agree, you are one of the most level-headed members here.
I am very interested in Biden's plans. He was not vetted during the election; not by the media and not during the 'debates'. Mark it up to the dysfunctionality infused by the pandemic.
Thus we do not have a very good idea of what he, in reality, will set into motion as PotUS.
Just not putting out disinformation would be an improvement.
I know that McConnell opposed Obama's agenda in 2010. As I recall Obama entered the WH with a democrat controlled House and a super majority in the Senate. That's when Obama dismissed Republicans with "elections have consequences!"
So, why don't you give us a link to when you claim the Republican opposition began?
Trump is president until January 20th, 2021 and according to Trump Biden's victory is a fraud with millions of illegal votes and there are still lawsuits being reviewed by the courts. Until the presidency is settled why would Biden bring forth any plan? (actually, he has) Trump has no plans yet we are going to see them in two weeks, health care and voter fraud to name two.
If you look on Biden's website you might find what you're looking for.
I will take a look then. Thanks Kav. I just think that it would be nice for the American people to state what he's going to do that's different from what's been done already. I'm not judging. I'd just like to see / hear it.
On numerous occasions, Biden told people to check his website for detailed plans. If they didn't do it that would be on them.
Sure. No problem. There are many links. I'm very surprised that you are not aware of this history.
Out of the Woods: How did the anti-Obama gridlock begin? - Westport News (westport-news.com)
Quoting from the linked article:
Question: With the stalemate between both major parties in Congress seen by voters as the biggest obstacle to getting America back to the world's leadership position, when did the GOP launch its Machiavellian plan to paralyze the federal government?
Answer: The night of President Barack Obama 's first inauguration on Jan. 20, 2008!
...
While all of the nation's top officials were celebrating the inauguration, twelve senior Republican Congressmen held a secret meeting in a famous D.C. restaurant to plot a strategy to sabotage the president as he planned to improve the economy and the unemployment situation. Newt Gingrich , former speaker of the House and presidential candidate, along with Paul Ryan , who attended the meeting, confirmed the agenda. Their goal was to make sure President Obama was a one-term president no matter how badly it hurt the country and its people. (Emphasis added)
...
As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington at the high-end restaurant, "The Caucus Room ."
The event, which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured...
Although McConnell was not in attendance that night, he quickly adopted the strategy.
Your source seems confused.................................
I do remember that. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on one's point of view, they didn't have the power to stop the Obama agenda. As I already said - Obama entered the WH with democrat control of the House and a super majority in the Senate. That is why he was able to easily have legislation passed on the Fair Pay Act, The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act ($831 Billion) and The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act. Obama knew that this time was a rare open window and that is why he did what no other democrat could do - he pushed for national health care - the ACA. That last audacious move most likely cost 60 House democrats their seats and led to the launch of the Tea Party.
So you see, I do know the history. Regardless of that silly meeting that upsets Obama lovers, the real political opposition to Obama began in 2010. As for the media - they were with Obama all the way.
It is merely a typo. Obviously.
However, I imagine Republicans would be amused and supportive no matter how badly it hurt the country and its people, as the article states. Just like they have acted during the Trump regime continuing to today.
The paticipants in that meeting certainly did not consider it "silly". How convenient of you to dismiss it in that way.
You can promote all of the historical revision you want. It is worth repeating the maxim of today's political discourse from Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Well Kav, I went, I read, and I saw only a few bullet points that are a little different from what's occurring in Michigan. I can't speak for the rest of the country, because I'm not in those other states. Moreover, those few bullet points that are unique, there's no explanation of HOW those things will occur... or even if they're possible. Plans tend to have more than wishes; plans usually include the how as well.
What I didn't like is that the moment I went to his site, I was bombarded by requests for money. Then, I see a lot of bashing. I just want factual information about his plans.
For the record... no, I don't think our current president is any better.
It had no effect, did it?
It is worth repeating the maxim of today's political discourse from Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Ah yes, the Liberal intellectual who was condemned by the left for publishing the Moynihan Report.
It cracks me up to watch all these people who have never given a crap about Trump's plans all of the sudden be so concerned about Biden's. "Both sides-ism" is a sickness.
Get a grip. Manufacturing one’s own little alternate reality just to attack people in a forum is not healthy.
This evidences pure-partisan, one-sided thinking. If one can only see one side of an issue as ever being correct then naturally one would (sadly) find objective consideration of the issue (factoring in all info regardless of 'side') to be flawed reasoning ('sickness' is a bit overly emotive).
The true 'both sides' scenario occurs when one simply tries to find middle-ground by averaging the opposing views. That is flawed since it does not lead one to truth, but simply identifies a point of potential compromise (50% and 50%). To wit, simply moderating a compromise does not yield truth.
The truth may be that one side is 100% correct (the other then is 100% wrong) or anything in-between. It is the range of possibilities in-between that you need to learn to recognize JR. Objective analysis of a situation between the extremes (where one might find 57% correct on one side and 43% correct on the other side) is healthy and proper. Following the evidence to where it leads even if you do not like the endpoint is healthy. Always resorting to an extreme is, in contrast, entirely flawed reasoning that excludes available information. It will cause one to be wrong far more often than be correct.
Both sides ism is a presumption that both sides in a debate argument or conflict have something worthwhile to say. While undoubtedly this is sometimes true, in no way is it always true.
For example, as we all know, there are no two legitimate sides to the question of whether or not Donald Trump is fit to hold office in the United States of America. There is only one legitimate side - he is not.
When there are two sides I will discuss their pros and cons. When there are not two legitimate sides I will say that too.
You presume way too much about people.
Exactly! It is not always true. But it is true far more often than the view that one side is 100% correct.
Let's try a better example that might have a chance in your head. There are two legitimate sides to the question of whether or not Trump's policies were good. Is it possible for you to recognize that?
The problem is that you rarely (maybe never) see two sides when it comes to Trump. It always seems to be one-sided and extreme.
That coming ( out of nowhere and entirely gratuitous ) from the King of presumption.
Of course, it had an effect.
Despite your contention that "the real political opposition" to President Obama didn't arise until 2010, you conveniently over look the fact that the so-called Tea Party movement began as early as January 24, 2009 with a local protest in Bingham, NY, and was greatly expanded in February 2009, with national protests following.
" A "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" protest was coordinated across more than 40 different cities for February 27, 2009, thus establishing the first national modern Tea Party protest."
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
What sort of revisionism is this? There was no "stalemate." Obama and the democrats enjoyed more control of the federal government than any President since LBJ upon his inauguration.. The idea that Republicans could "paralyze" the federal government is a lie.
In fact, when Republicans tried to participate in stimulus negotiations in January 2009, they were told by Obama that "elections have consequences" just three days after his inauguration and cut out .
Joe Biden is President Elect. He has no power until 1/20/20.
The team he is building are all highly regarded experts in their fields.
Obama had a supermajority in the Senate for about three MONTHS in 2009.
The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act got 72 votes for cloture. After that, all it needed for passage was a 51 vote majority.
FAIL.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act got 3 Republican votes for cloture and same 60 votes for passage including those 3 Republicans, one of whom was Brown of MA so by then there wasn't a Democratic supermajority.
FAIL.
The Tea Party was 'launched' in February 2009, before one word of the ACA was written.
Though not accurately.
False, the Tea Party launched in Feb. 2009.
Fox and RT and Breitbart and Washington Examiner and Townhall and American Thinker and Daily Caller and NY Post and and and would take umbrage to that.
It showed up on election night when somebody (hmmmmm I wonder who that was) sais that the republicans would do everything in their power to make him a one term president.
Clyburn represents SC and is in the House leadership. He does not represent just 'Black voters'.
If you had read all of what Clyburn said instead of the truncated version, he cited multiple recommendations that were NOT black.
What lead you to that conclusion?
Was Xi manipulating when Trump loosened trade restrictions?
Seriously, they signed a Trade agreement. Biden will uphold it and negotiate Phase 2.
Maybe Biden will go over there and have a dance like Trump did with the Saudis.
Then maybe Clyburn should have run for president. Joe ran as a moderate - and he said he would serve all Americans - even those who didn't vote for him!
What lead you to that conclusion?
The various interests who helped get Biden elected, which I listed in the article.
Was Xi manipulating when Trump loosened trade restrictions?
It was a tough war for both sides, but tariffs are what persuaded China to sign a Phase One Trade Agreement and along the way the entry into the United States of high-risk students and researchers from China was finally stopped and the Department of Justice’s China Initiative directing resources to identify and prosecute trade secrets theft, hacking, and economic espionage went into effect.
Biden will uphold it and negotiate Phase 2.
A stark difference from the foreign policy of Obama, Bush & Clinton.
Why? You heralded Cornyn's opinion.
What does that have to do with Clyburn's comments?
That's vague. How will Democratic wins in Georgia put 'enormous pressure' on Biden and how will those 'various interests' make it go from bad to worse?
Irrelevant. Answer?
Really Vic? Care to cite the Treaties that Obama and Clinton didn't uphold? I know that Bush violated the Geneva Convention...
If he wants to make the appointments, he should run for the job.
What does that have to do with Clyburn's comments?
Everything. Clyburn is calling for only certain Americans to be appointed.
How will Democratic wins in Georgia put 'enormous pressure' on Biden
If democrats win the Senate they will be able to pass radical legislation, end the filibuster, end the 9 member Supreme Court and add at least one new state. Biden would be under enormous pressure to sign off on all of that. I'm not sure he would want to.
how will those 'various interests' make it go from bad to worse?
They would effectively be wagging the dog.
Answer?
You got it - I posted the positive results of the trade war.
Care to cite the Treaties that Obama and Clinton didn't uphold?
Is that how you judge foreign policy?
How about all the American jobs those presidents gave away?
How about all the trade imbalances?
How about putting the Palestinians at the center of all middle east peace negotiations?
I hope you finally got it.
Where does it state that Clyburn wants to make the appointments Vic?
Huh? Do you think that Agencies should be run by a large group of Deputies? How many Deputies in each agency to insure that ALL Americans can be appointed Vic?
Pffft.
Biden will be the POTUS and a Democratic Congress WILL follow his lead.
Oh bullshit. Biden has been a consensus builder his entire political career. He knows how the Senate works and he knows how to work with the Congress to get shit done. Schumer and Pelosi will get their caucuses to compromise and come together.
Nope, my question was:
Answer?
Since my comment was in the context of upholding agreements, YES.
How about the American jobs that Trump gave away? Offshoring has continued under Trump.
The trade imbalance is WORSE now than it was in 2016
Who did that Vic?
I've HAD it and nothing you have ever posted taught me any of it.
Right here:
Clyburn also said that Biden is falling short when it comes to naming Black people to cabinet seats and other top." "From all I hear, Black people have been given fair consideration," Clyburn told The Hill on Wednesday. "But there is only one Black woman so far." "I want to see where the process leads to, what it produces," he said. "But so far it's not good."
Biden will be the POTUS and a Democratic Congress WILL follow his lead.
I wish I had your confidence.
Biden has been a consensus builder his entire political career. He knows how the Senate works and he knows how to work with the Congress to get shit done. Schumer and Pelosi will get their caucuses to compromise and come together.
Compromise in Congress! I can hardly wait!
Answer?
If he thought he was - he got screwed!
Since my comment was in the context of upholding agreements, YES.
I don't really concern myself with whether all agreements are upheld. Some are really bad for the country.
How about the American jobs that Trump gave away?
I think a lot of minority workers would disagree with that.
Who did that Vic?
Obama, Bush, Clinton & Bush.
I've HAD it
Good, then don't bail on us!
So nowhere.
It's based on Biden's documented history as an elected official.
I doubt that you'll be happy about it.
Right because Trump made such a great deal that Xi got most of what he wanted and only held up to about 50% of what he promised to buy...
We should either keep our word and renegotiate the terms if needs be. That's what ethical adults do.
Then they should seek the facts and educate themselves.
Bullshit.
Says the all time King of seed locking.
In front of your eyeballs. Didn't you see it?
It's based on Biden's documented history as an elected official.
Yes, that wonderful tenure that the credit card companies will always fondly remember.
I doubt that you'll be happy about it.
Then you really don't think it will be a compromise.
Right because Trump made such a great deal that Xi got most of what he wanted
Oh ya, Xi was so happy, he released a pandemic.
We should either keep our word and renegotiate the terms if needs be.
Yes, exactly what we did for the past 4 years.
Then they should seek the facts and educate themselves.
I don't think they need look it up. They are feeding their families. That tells them what they need to know.
Bullshit.
No, FACT
Says the all time King of seed locking.
And I always will lock them.
No Vic, I don't see it because your claim is fabricated. Clyburn didn't say what you claim. PERIOD, full stop.
READ my comment Vic. It's about compromise within the Democratic caucus, NOT with you or yours.
Oh please, take that RW BS to someone who is willing to swill it.
That's delusional. TPP. Paris Climate Agreement, Iran Nuclear Deal, Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO.
Ignorance isn't bliss Vic.
Fine, prove it.
Bail.
Where they should be?
Now we learn that Biden is prone to falling.
Newsflash. Take a fall is not being prone to falling.
I had a stress fracture in my foot when I was in my 20's. Just like with Biden the doctors/technicians didn't see it it on the x-ray right away. They first told me there was nothing wrong, then called me back as I was leaving to say they saw the fracture.
You were lucky they called you back. It could have healed poorly and then you would be dealing with a bigger issue later.
I did that twice in my 30's but they caught it both times.
It must be very hard to see. Probably like a pencil mark.
How ironic, complaining because the President elect is active while supporting a president that can't even walk one round of golf.
Vic said:
Sooo.... pre 1968 there was no radical element among us? Just who were you referring to as this radical element? The Black Lives Matter movement?
All the radicals from the late 60's, their descendants and the indoctrinated in the meantime.
The Black Lives Matter movement?
Yup, they are included.
Was that really the good old days and for who?
It was and for most Americans. I wish I could say all, but as I have said many times, every civilization has it's high point. I believe America's was a 20 year period following the end of WWII.
Vic,
You must be kidding. Huge swaths of America were just coming out of being total second class citizens. It was great if you were a white Christian male, but for everyone else, not so great.
What we did have was prosperity, and then again, not across the board. It was the last time that you knew your kids were probably going to do better than you did.
No, I'm not kidding. I wish it was universal, but it was the only time so many lived so well. Every aspect of our culture was at it height.
Why would I have lived through all of that and then say, oh well if every member of society didn't share it, it was no good?
Sorry Vic, but I'm with Perrie on this one. Being a woman that has worked in a male-dominated field for more than 25 years now... I can promise you that it's STILL more difficult for women [black women have it most difficult still] to succeed and "climb the ladder" so to speak. You know... in Sweden you're far more likely to see a woman in an executive position than here in the US.
Too many people were being held back from succeeding.
Did you live through the period I am speaking of?
That's a legitimate point. Women were mostly part of the home. Not all of them wanted a career.
Still, I have to say the best time for the most people.
No. I don't need to when I still deal with people holding women back from succeeding because of some 1950s mentality that women should be home, cooking, cleaning, and ensuring their families are well taken care of and while I don't judge women who want to do that, I'm still often judged for not wanting to do that. Until that mentality changes across the board, there will be people failing to succeed because of the notion that somehow women are inferior.
But those that did want a career struggled and continue to struggle to succeed.
Don't forget there is that fourth thing - sex! (I'm just having some fun with you!)
I'm still often judged for not wanting to do that.
That's wrong. Women should have all the options of men.
Until that mentality changes across the board, there will be people failing to succeed because of the notion that somehow women are inferior.
MsAubrey, I want you to know that there is a Woman about to change the look of the WH as we speak:
I understand perfectly. I have two daughters that went to college and I say thank God they got to fulfill their dreams.
For many white Americans, not so good for those that were not white.
As I said, I wish it was universal - Did you read that?
What do you propose we do with White Americans?
It wasn't so great if one was black. Or gay. Or a woman, ect..
That's a rather insulting question.
It wasn't close to being universal, for non white it was ''tough shit''.
What an ignorant question, what in the world does that have to do with my reply, nothing is the answer, Vic.
Melina didn't seem so happy about Christmas a couple of months ago.
“Who gives a fuck about Christmas stuff and decoration?”
Vic,
I think you are kind of missing the point. You are opining for the good old days, but for most, they were not that good. Good times should be had by all who work hard for it.
I did a paper once on women in executive positions in US based companies. I called out GM, Ford, and US Steel. GM only appointed Mary Barra during the ignition switch debacle and several male executives immediately retired (can't imagine why... sarc/). Ford only had [at the time, I don't know what that exec. board looks like right now] two women and one was married to Bill Ford and the other, a "token" black woman that was far more educated than every other person on that board... you know, they had to show that they're not favoring middle-aged white males. Then you have US Steel, which was an all white-male executive board with a single exception and she has a PHD in Operations Management, but was labeled the "secretary" until 2017, when a new CEO was appointed. That new CEO, from Sweden, "suggested" retirement for those able to (age-wise), promoted the "secretary" and brought 4 additional, well-qualified women onto their executive board.
While I've become pretty successful regarding the ability to cover necessities for my family, I'd have liked to have opportunities to succeed further. The team that I work with now is more likely to recognize and promote than the previous team and I highly appreciate that.
I'm concerned with the well being of all Americans. That was the closest we ever got.
No, I constantly here concerns over Whites from him. I'd like to know what he proposes to do.
No, I think we need to address your concerns.
nothing is the answer, Vic.
Thank you. I guess I'm just a worrier.
My so-called concern is facts, Vic. It's your problem if you're not able to comprehend that.
The key word is "should." Do let us know when that can happen, especially now?
The name is MELANIA.
Vic not even close.
Women, blacks, Latnios, Jews, Indians.... all were treated like second class citizens. Not paid for equal work. Discriminated against. Couldn't buy homes where they wanted to, even if they had the money to do so. So, it was not that fab, if you were them.
I am not saying that white people shouldn't have had theirs. What I am saying is that they were the only ones who had theirs. Everyone wants a piece of the American Pie, right?
Have you noticed how Republicans were able to flip all those House seats?
The secret - WOMEN!
Don't you want to got back to before the vast majority of discrimination based on sex or race was still perfectly legal?
That's true, but that is because there were big changes since 1968...in fact, since the 1980's when I joined the workforce.
Perrie, Do you know the impact the GI Bill had on all those groups you mentioned? It was a huge boost. Under that Bill veterans from those groups got to go to school, buy their own homes and have a stake in America.
The GI bill and unions had a lot to do with that...
The changes that you are talking about are called progress. The majority of that change was not.
And that happened in that period!
The MALES in those groups and mostly white males.
One need not go to school [college] or own a home to have a stake in America.
No, it wasnt. Not by a long shot. It only appeared that way to those who benefited from such circumstances.
Vic believes the high point for American civilization ended 20 years after WW2 , which was 1965. I wonder what happened in 1965 to change American "civilization" ?
Hell yes and if we went back to "the good ol' days" that wouldn't occur.
All veterans were given that opportunity.
In my family, it kind of skipped around. My mother and both grandmothers were the "traditional" house wife / mother role. However, my great aunt and her mother were independent, strong women, which was a big deal considering we're talking about the late 1800s and early 1900s. One of my great aunt's on my father's side has owned a restaurant in the UP for decades... well, I suppose it's one of her daughter's that owns and runs it now; her mother (my great grandmother) owned and operated it before her. My aunt [mother's side] was always pretty independent too.
Your comment is in direct contradiction to real history.
And it wasn't just black that experienced that bigotry.
It was a huge boost if you could buy into the neighborhood, which was not a given. Try buying into Levittown if you were a colored minority or the entire north shore of Long Island if you were Jewish. My dad bought our first home on the GI bill, and it was in a crappy part of Amityville. That is where they would let us live.
No Gordy, It wasn't an illusion. It was a strong society, in which the nation's wealth was shared by many, experiencing prosperity beyond their wildest dreams. For a young veteran just out of college (courtesy of the GI Bill) security meant finding a good white collar job, getting married, having children and buying a house in the suburbs.
It is why we had a baby boom.
Those veterans weren't just whites. They represented an entire generation.
I disagree. All changes have growing pains and the pains that you remember for the 60's lead to a better life for all in the 80's and there was still work to be done. The Republican women that you talk about in the congress could have never happened had all the rest not happened. Things get shaken up and then settle out.
My mom and my grandma were both strong independent women, but I also know the stories of how men treated them in the working world.
And when I entered it in the 80's, I faced my own share of sexism in the workplace. You had to work twice as hard to be treated half as well and the men still had no issue giving you a slap in the rear end.
And some things are inevitable. The groups you want to judge everything by had to attain equality. It was inevitable.
Not any different than the 90s.
There was a lot of poverty after the war. Not everybody got to use a GI bill to go to college. Some of those veterans had to come back to the coal mines and the steel mills because they got drafted right as they were starting families. My grandfather and his brothers certainly never got to use the GI bill for college because they had children waiting for their dads to make enough money for food in their bellies and roofs over their heads.
So your "Ozzie and Harriet" fantasy is just that...a fantasy. There were still a lot of blue collar workers after the war and not all of them prospered.
Ignorance is an amazing thing.
How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black ...
The GI Bill ’s Effect on Black Veterans. From the start, Black veterans had trouble securing the GI Bill ’s benefits. Some could not access benefits because they had not been given an honorable ...
How the GI Bill Left Out African Americans | Demos
Black veterans weren't able to make use of the housing provisions of the GI Bill because banks generally wouldn't make loans for mortgages in Black neighborhoods, and African-Americans were excluded from the suburbs by a combination of deed covenants and informal racism. Veterans Day is always an occasion among progressives to talk up the GI Bill .
How the Democrat-Backed GI Bill Left a Million Black WWII ...
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the G.I . Bill on June 22, 1944. This legislation provided veterans returning from World War II with unemployment compensation, low-interest home and business ...
Racism Created A Separate, Unequal GI Bill For Black Vets ...
The GI Bill ’s race-neutral language had filled the 1 million African American veterans with hope that they, too, could take advantage of federal assistance. Integrated universities and historically black colleges and universities – commonly known as HBCUs – welcomed black veterans and their federal dollars, which led to the growth of a ...
How African American WWII Veterans Were Scorned By the G.I ...
How African American WWII Veterans Were Scorned By the G.I. Bill. This Veteran's Day, remembering some of our veterans who protected a country that did not protect them. A million African Americans joined the military during World War II as volunteers or draftees, and another 1.5 million registered for the
My grandfather was one of those too. He worked at a steel mill for nearly 40 years... on swing shift.
Vic,
You seem to be missing my point totally. In 1968 the world was only peachy for some. Now due to changes that didn't happen easily, more people have prosperity and are treated fairly. That is the American way. That is the American dream.
Let me take you back a bit. When the Irish came here, they were treated like garbage by the WASPs. Then the Italians came here and were treated like crap by the other two groups. It took till 1960 for the 1st Catholic President and still, people were not trusting that the Pope was not running the country. Each of these changes came with growing pains. Not sure? Watch "Gangs of New York". All that happened post-1968, was that groups that were treated poorly, finally got a piece of the pie.
My grampap was a coal miner, as were my dad and his brothers. They all worked alternating shifts. One week was days, then it was hoot owl, then it was afternoons. That's how they called the different shifts in our area
WRONG! I said the 20 year period following WWII. That would be 1945-1965.
Get it?
Pretty sad. I was already teaching, so I didn't feel it as much.
I know how to count Vic. What happened in 1964-1966 that upset you so much?
Unfortunately I think we all know the answer to that.
Wrong again!
The problems began in 1968 with the shit that took to the streets over Vietnam.
How did you feel about rules that wouldn't allow schools to have violent students suspended or expelled?
So you think that protesting the war by the people who were going to die in it, was wrong? 64,000 young men died from a war that netted us nothing. And for the record, my dad was in that war, and while he agreed with it then, he totally disagrees with it now.
NYC had a different way of handling it. They were removed from the regular ed classes and put into various out of building classes. And we did suspend for normal bad behavior.
It truly is. You need to read your own links and pay attention to what I say.
Your article talks about places Black veterans couldn't buy houses and Black veterans who couldn't get GI Bill benefits if they were dishonorably discharged. The former is not great, though they could still buy their own homes. The latter was true for all veterans. If you get a dishonorable discharge, you don't get benefits.
Read the links, John.
You dont want to start in with this Vic. You really dont.
In the beginning of that war there was a college deferment, then it was removed. (rightfully so). Do I think it's wrong for Americans to protest an American war? YES!
64,000 young men died from a war that netted us nothing.
If it had no meaning for the nation, we shouldn't have engaged in it. However any war this nation gets into must be fought with all our will- until we prevail!
Why not? Can I expect the usual?
Why? Why was it necessary to keep violent students in school?
Where did this policy come from?
You mean the truth? Of course. But you would not like it. In the article you referenced, the fact that some blacks received less than honorable discharge is a small part of the problem.
So why dont you read the articles I linked. You need them a lot more than I do.
The country did well economically. But socially, many segments were either marginalized or endured inequality. Anyone else who wasnt a white male was subject to inequality or discrimination in some form. Women were viewed as homemakers, blacks endured racism & segregation leading to the civil rights activism of the 1960's, gays were seen as mentally ill, non-christians were often viewed with suspicion. Then you had the Red Scare, threats of nuclear war, political witch hunts, ect.. So the idea that the 1950's was some idyllic time in history is largely a farce. Of course, if one was actually benefitting of society at the time, then it probably did seem idyllic and like paradise. It's easy to be a saint (or sanctimonious) in paradise.
John, I've longed to hear you speak truth.
In the article you referenced, the fact that some blacks received less than honorable discharge is a small part of the problem.
I know, but many were able to live where they wanted and enjoy the benefits of the GI Bill. It was a boost for many.
You need them a lot more than I do.
I got it John. The world wasn't perfect.
Gordy, we know. It was the best time for the most people.
Do you think we are entering an era when we will have prosperity for literally every one?
How about today's society? How does abortion affect Blacks?
The articles, included the one you referred to, are all about how blacks and other minorities were not able to fully benefit from the GI bill because of racism , so when you said "Those veterans weren't just whites. They represented an entire generation." you were , at best, being very incomplete. Non whites did not get near the benefit from the GI bill after world war 2 that whites did.
All right I'll agree to that much, John. I'm going to have supper, but I will leave it open.
I think we have mods available.
Best time for most white people perhaps. Anyone else, not so much, as I pointed out and as you seemed to ignore or summarily dismiss.
I never said we'd have prosperity for everyone. It's as naive to think we have prosperity for everyone now as we had then.
As for abortion (also a non sequitur), I expect it affects blacks the same as it affects anyone else.
Seriously Vic?
Schools, including colleges were segregated, so was housing.
The STATES administered the GI bill Vic. Do you think that the Jim Crow south treated black and white vets equally?
Ever hear of redlining? Do you think that the banks in Mississippi gave out a lot of mortgages to black vets? Do you think they built all that new housing in black neighborhoods? Many of the new white suburbs had race based covenants.
The HBC's couldn't absorb the number of black men coming home and many black vets were undereducated and unprepared for college, though some took advantage of the new GED program.
The US government encouraged black vets to go to vocational training schools were they were denied the tools and equipment they needed to train, those tools were restricted to white students. If they DID get training, unions in the South and some in the North were segregated. The 'good jobs' going to whites, the 'bad jobs', especially the dangerous ones, going to the blacks.
So sure Vic, theoretically, black vets were given the opportunity. In practice, black vets got screwed and while their white comrades received benefits, black vets were stonewalled.
You are wrong, Vic. The first demonstrations started in 1963.
April 17, 1965, between 15,000 and 20,000 protested the Vietnam War in Washington D.C.
Hitler would approve.
So, as long as this radical element exists, you infer that chaos will be the norm. 1968 is when all of this chaos started, according to your statements in your article, and it continues through today and into the future ...until what?. Why do you think that these particular groups of people were inclined to sow this chaos? What could they have been hoping to gain?