159
Biden turns 81 as questions about age continue to dominate 2024 race
(abcnews.go.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
159 points (85.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2464 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Very common misconception to say "economy good when one president in office, but when another was in office economy bad". In reality, we live under the previous administrations policies, as our government cannot make change happen overnight. It takes years to see the impacts of policies put into place. With that being said, the recession economy were in now was caused by a lot of trump era policies, while trump was riding out obama era policies during his term (allowing him to brag about how he was fixing the economy while not lifting a grubby orange finger to do so).
We're not in a recession. Economic growth last quarter was almost 5% (which is massive) and growth has been positive for the last 4 quarters. The average quarterly growth over the last several decades has been closer to 2%.
The economy is doing just fine. Frankly, most people hear their neighbors complain about the economy, so they think the economy is bad, so they complain about the economy, and the result is everyone thinking the economy is terrible when it objectively isn't.
Inflation is relatively high by recent historical standards, but it's really not that high anymore and hasn't been for most of 2023. People got sticker shock during the height of it last year and haven't forgotten. But the labor market is still tight, people who gave up trying to find work a long time ago are entering the market and getting jobs again, wages continue to rise, business investment is up, and small businesses are being created at a historically rapid pace.
When pollsters ask people, "how is your personal financial situation?", most people are answering "good." When those same people are asked, "how do you think everyone else's financial situation is?", they scream "TERRIBLE!" That doesn't mean there aren't people suffering, but things aren't nearly as gloomy as everyone insists they are.
Much like a lot of issues, the state of the economy is a regional phenomenon.
In a Ruby Red middle of nowhere West Virginia, it's quite poor right now. I was laid off three months ago and cant find a single job outside of retail (not doing that again) or medical care (no qualifications).
I think it would be a mistake to completely discount people's economic worries.
That's because you're in a Ruby Red middle of nowhere West Virginia, where they've been fucking over the poor and blaming Democrats for at least two generations. Federal policy can only go so far, when it's left to the states to determine where the money goes and what public support to offer. If you want to blame anyone for that, look to your state leadership, not Biden.
You're not going to see me pretend that Republicans aren't at fault, but I really would like some solutions, and the only people competent enough, to do that are Democrats.
And then they wonder why they're losing rural America. It's because they've given up on them entirely. I think Democrats would make huge dents in rural America if we had sound economic policy. Instead, we're just so darn corporatist.
It reminds me of all the fascism going on right now. Why are Democrats not stopping it? Someone has to be in charge, and they're just dropping the ball. So no wonder they get the image of a spineless party.
I agree, Democrats are not doing enough to end our corporate mindset and push the needle back toward the common good. But that's not the same as doing nothing. Biden's policies have been far more progressive than Obama's, and Obama's were more progressive than Clinton's. AOC's "the Squad" have increased their numbers (they're still a tiny minority, but they're growing) and the more we elect people like them the more traction we'll see for progressive policy.
I'm sorry we can't just turn the ship around on a dime. Our government wasn't broken all at once, and it won't be fixed any quicker. It's going to take time, patience, and persistence before we see the changes we demand, and undermining the only faction willing to be reformed isn't going to help those efforts. Criticize, yes, but make those criticisms based on factual, verifiable criticisms. "Biden is old" doesn't help us, not as long as Biden is still willing to listen to us (and he has!) and adjust his policy for the better.
We're never going to have the perfect candidate, one we align with 100%. I didn't think Biden was going to be anything more than a corporate shill when he took office. But he's pleasantly surprised me, and I think he's more than earned the benefit of the doubt.
I am watching as fascism is taking over America, and Democrats are in fact doing nothing to stop it. No, we are not doing anything close to what we need to be doing.
When the other side is snakes, I expect to have some snake wranglers in charge
You what? Do you only have access to Fox News, or something?
You are intentionally misreading what I'm saying. I specifically said what has he done to stop the creep of fascism that the GOP is engaging in right now, because it's quite possible we lose the next election, and fascism takes over America, and Democrats did not do what they needed to do to smother it in the crib.
So every time they opposed Republican attempts to install fascism but failed because they didn't have the power, because we didn't vote for them to enable them to control policy, that's their fault? Seriously? People keep saying Democrats have a messaging problem and I agree, but no one ever seems to acknowledge that the reason Republicans have the advantage in messaging is because they've got dedicated media organizations tipping the scales in their favor and bombarding the public with pro-Republican disinformation. No private, independent organization has done the same for Democrats, and it would be illegal for them to spend campaign money to create one.
So please, tell me what they could have done differently with the information they had at the time.
I don't exactly see where Republicans are failing at instituting their fascism right now. They're successful in every single state in which Republicans hold power, where one election away from completely losing our democracy. So, yes, what other choice do we have than to rely on Democrats in power to stop them? We have no other choice.
Would they be successful if we were consistently getting out the vote to deny them majority control? Would they be successful if we were actively participating in primaries to put forward more progressive candidates? How do you justify blaming Democrats for not doing enough to block Republicans when voters keep enabling Republican majorities? How are we not reaping the consequences of our voting patterns?
I'm going to give you a real example as someone who lives in West Virginia. Let's take the 2020 primary season.
I tried to vote for Bernie Sanders. I did vote for him in the end, but my vote did not matter because by the time the primary had already rolled around to my state, Bernie Sanders has dropped out of the race. That can only happen because we don't have same day primaries all throughout the country. We allow for this fundraising attrition to let the capitalists pick who our candidate is.
So, whatever, we still have a chance at a Democrat, so I go to vote on Election Day in the general election. Here's the problem. I live in Ruby Red West Virginia, so my vote actually does not matter. I can't swing things in Biden's favor. I sure did vote for him, but it's not like my vote was goning to matter. It doesn't matter how many Republicans vote because there are always going to be enough of them to a voted for Trump. So where did I get any say in the Democratic process in this entire exchange?
But much like one of the other posters in this thread, not you, you've been quite pleasant, by the way, he just doesn't see states like West Virginia as a mattering whatsoever. Democrats don't see West Virginia as a mattering whatsoever.
And then we wonder why so many people feel disenfranchised and apathetic. It feels like there's absolutely nothing I can do to affect the country based on my geography.
Is it because there aren't as many Democrats voting in West Virginia, or because Democrats have given up voting in West Virginia? It's a chicken-or-the-egg problem: if West Virginia is a reliably Republican-voting state, should the DNC spend money to sway elections there when they could focus more on swing states?
Now, a case can (and should) be made that the DNC should focus more on grassroots level elections. They should do what Republicans did and focus more on local and regional elections rather than primarily national level elections. Obama bucked the DNC's policies and ran a fifty-state campaign, and that helped him win. But -- and I feel this is where the disconnect probably lies -- the DNC is not the Democratic Party. The DNC is the fundraising and electoral strategy arm of the Democratic Party. Disagreeing with their electoral strategies should not put the blame on the entire Democratic Party for not doing their part to block the rise of fascism.
The DNC doesn't have unlimited funds. For some odd reason, they don't typically get quite as much money from corporate interests as Republicans. They don't have as many dedicated donors as Republicans. Because Democrats still believe in a government for the people and by the people, which means taxing people who have more to help people who have less. So they have to decide how to best spend that money for the greatest effect. If that isn't enough for you to go out and vote, even though you live in a state dominated by Republicans, then I don't know what to tell you. If you're not willing to do your part, I'm not willing to listen to your complaints about how not enough is being done for you.
That's my point, though, I specifically said in that long string of text that I did go out and vote. I will go out and vote, but it sucks that it doesn't matter.
Because I think you fundamentally are misunderstanding what my problems with the Democrats are. I think they don't have any grassroots presence because they are so beholden to the capitalist class. So of course places like West Virginia, which objectively holds zero monetary value to Democrats, is going to be left behind.
West Virginia in particular was a strong Union state. Used to go blue every single election cycle. But that changed when Democrats adopted the new way view in the '90s.
So when both parties refuse to stand by the unions in any meaningful capacity, they're going to revert back to the culture war.
WV is a great example of how Democrats have failed their constituency.
Democratic losses are entirely at the hand of moderate neoliberal policy.
I agree, the Democrats need to change and return to progressive goals. But the initial comment I was replying to suggested that Democratic voters have no reason to go vote, or at least that's how I was reading it. If I misunderstood I apologize, but that's exactly the sort of sentiment that plays into right-wing electoral plans. Discouraging people from voting is their goal, particularly in Democratic strongholds. We need to do everything we can to resist that, not feed into it.
No, I specifically said that the Democratic vote does not matter in West Virginia. Unfortunately, our entire democracy hinges on a few purple states to get actual leadership in charge.
What exactly do you recommend to strengthen the economy in rural West Virginia? There's no return on investment in an area with negative population growth, just as there aren't enough rate payers to justify millions of dollars in broadband infrastructure to service half a dozen 20-acre homesites. Businesses are moving to areas with a positive ROI where labor is widely available (and educated), houses are available for that labor, and economic synergy is magnified due to proximity with supporting industries. The reason the economy boomed in WV in the first place was extractive industries who knew they could make bank by paying no-education rural residents next to no money to shovel coal out of open pits. If that's not a viable industry anymore, then what's left? Tourism? Hospitality? Retail? The government can't force businesses to set up shop where they'll lose money.
Funny you say this, I'm not even a capitalist, and that's part of the capitalist problem. If it's not profitable, nobody gets help.
And therein lies the problem. You, much like all the other Democrats, are so capitalistic in nature that you're willing to let anybody who's not wealthy enough just suffer.
Bullshit, I asked you what you propose something. Put your money where your mouth is. What would help? Welfare? Subsidized housing? Government training programs? Tax money on broadband?
Instead of putting words in other people's mouths, why don't you offer up something reasonable? Literally anything except derision would probably suffice.
I would provide a minimum standard of living to every American regardless of any economic Bullshit you pull out.
Putting in simply, we have labor, we have resources, therefore we can make sure people have housing and other nessesities. Because unlike you, which you explicitly said, I do not care about profitability, I do not care what business is want, because businesses, I don't think outside of the government's mandate have any right to exist.
If people need housing, you build houses. If people need internet, you build infrastructure. I have no idea why it's so hard for capitalist brain-rot victims like you to understand this.
UBI then?
"I can't find a job. I refuse to work in retail. I don't care what businesses want. I don't think businesses should exist."
I'm skeptical there's much of anything anyone could propose that would make you happy.
Yeah, WHO? Who builds those houses? With what money? You gonna force someone to build them? Where do you get materials? Do you give the houses away?
I'm not surprised no one will hire you, if it's this hard for you to answer really simple questions.
Keep living with that mushy brain there, capitalist man.
Don't forget to apply for unemployment while you're sitting in your basement with your thumb up your ass.
When fascism takes over our country due to your lack of imagination, Ill remember this conversation.
No lie, that's what you start to sound like when you haven't physically interacted with another human being in a looooooong time. Go touch grass, bro. It's nice outside.
Interesting that you are still talking? Is this a last word game we are doing?
That’s fair, but if you’re pointing to middle of nowhere West Virginia it’s nearly policy irrelevant. I understand that it’s absolutely brutal for y’all right now and has been for a long time but your economy is built on an outdated fuel source, the mining of which is so much easier now that it doesn’t need the population it used to. You’re geographically terrible to build manufacturing.
This is how little people actually understand about West Virginia. Coal is not nearly as dominating of a force as it used to be. It's all natural gas now, and even that's going to dry up eventually.
It's why now more than ever we need Democrats to focus on it and have strong progressive economics to back it up. You can't just let a state wither because it's politically irrelevant, that just leads to it forever being politically irrelevant.
It's also worth noting that Democrats have a mandate to do the right thing, whether it's politically relevant or not.