I agree with the others about Afghanistan. It's his Bay of Pigs. Yeah, the previous admin started the shitshow but he could've stopped it. That was by far his biggest blunder.
Quick sample of GOP dumbness.
Hunter Biden. Who gives a shit?
Immigration. You got your deal. You tanked it because you're cowards.
Impeachment. Mayorkas. Seriously? No, not serious. Stupid.
Ukraine. Fucking embarrassing. I thought we were the party who were for freedom, democracy and opposing tyrants. Apparently not.
I don't recall who it was here who called him evil and then without a trace of irony planned on voting for Trump. Replacing pseudo evil with real evil.
His current biggest mistake is running again. I've changed my tune on this as he's not up for it and his VP is as weak as we've had in 50 years.
...one thing or another to disgust or dismay me. I won't rehearse a catalog of what I think Biden should have done or should be doing; there are too many things and it would be a depressing exercise. Instead, I just offer an observation that is purely political (that is, devoid of any policy content).
We are all familiar with the much-used slogan, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Under current circumstances, I'd revise that to "Don't let the good be the enemy of the sort of OK," or something like that.
My point is that when we wish we could have X, but the practical choices are only Y and Z, then any vote that is not for Y or Z is impractical and really only serves to somewhat impact the outcome for Y or Z. Everyone has the right to cast an impractical vote, of course, and the intangible purpose such a vote serves might be valuable to the individual.
Even when there's a Sophie's choice, you still need to make the choice; and any action you take, even if it's inaction, will have the effect of weight in one direction or another between the available choices.
I do appraisals from time to time for divorce cases, and have not infrequently had clients confide in me that they wish it would all go away, that what's happening isn't right, etc. I listen sympathetically and don't pretend to be an advisor. But in my head, I'm saying--"Your ideal scenario isn't on the table. You can either settle the matter, and have a sour taste in your mouth, or pursue it through trial, which you could lose, while spending a ton more money, leaving a truly bitter taste. It's your choice."
This is usually what we face in politics, a game that is still not bean bag.
Politics is the art of the possible.
about this figure or that figure is not the right question. It's limiting the scope of the answers. Theoretically, someone could have done something very disgusting but otherwise be the right choice.
In fairness to your question, I asked my wife the other night about whether she'd choose Biden over Trump and she avoided answering the question. 😃 Frankly, there are a lot of conservatives in the same boat as us.
Regarding inflation, even if prices level, they are never going back. You cannot undo all the damage that was done by this administration in printing money for its union cronies via jokes like the Inflation Reduction Act and all the COVID money fraud and giveaways, in which a lot of the money either was fraudulently awarded or was given to school districts to cover deficits for paying teachers.
Pay-for-play with Hunter and friend, the attempt to squash domestic energy production, the handling of COVID-19, the huge deficit spending he has left for future generations (he's not the only one, of course, but he's big), his pro-abortion push, the list goes on and on.
You mentioned the House. As a conservative, I am very disappointed that so many Republicans are rolling over for Trump.
Most importantly, he is not fit to be president, regardless of whether or not I like his policies, and he has not been fit for some time. Father Time is undefeated. I truly wonder who is running this country.
Until recently, the press largely provided cover for him and even now, the issue is getting underplayed. The same people who wanted to use the 25th Amendment on Trump while he was in office have been quieter than a church-mouse regarding Biden.
The two *main* choices right now are both bad.
EDIT: Biden > Trump on Ukraine, but both Biden and the House need to do more. Biden has been "Ditherer-in-chief" on Ukraine.
Please spend five minutes finding actual data about squashing domestic energy production.
Tell me you only watch Newsmax without telling me you only watch Newsmax.
but it just might be a lunatic you're looking for.
Do you seriously think Joe was in league with Hunter on an influence peddling scheme?
Is the administration handing out abortion-club punch cards?
Get 4 and your 5th is free?
and I am admittedly right of center politically. I don't know that he's done anything to disgust me but he is clearly mentally unfit to hold such an important office at what is seemingly a very important global moment. You're not going to take a cognitive test but your going to ask me to give you four more years safe-guarding the US nuclear arsenal ? I dont think so.
Before I make this next point I'll point out that I loathe Donald Trump and I have never voted for him nor will I ever. I find him to be a reprehensible human being who can once or twice stumble over a good idea but any benefit to his tunure is far out-weighed by the damage that he does to the office.
At the same time, I am told that his running or his election is a threat to democracy and I guess that could be true if one thought he is going to grab the levels of power and never relinquish them. I find this fear overblown as he is constitutionally precluded from running for a third term, but that is not the point I want to argue.
How is Joe Biden in his current state not a threat to Democracy? The man can barely string together three sentences. How can anyone possibly believe that he is fully in charge of the executive branch of the US governemnet ? This is a dynamic that will only worsen over time. How is a shadow government not a threat to Democracy ?
Anyhow, that's what I was reminded of. 8^)
it was an unforgivable betrayal and abandonment. Of course Biden didn't have to abide anything that Trump did.
Should US ignore the negotiated terms? It was also set forth, with long ranging conditions set, well before it (s)hit the fan. Added, People knew for bunches of years it was going to be a mess whenever we finally left.
As a career military guy on the tactical side of things, the mind-boggling move was staging the evacuation from Kabul Intl rather than Bagram. Bagram is the fortress. Any 10 year-old who has played a strategy game on an iPhone could tell you that.
That said, we abandoned a population we committed to protect. Beyond the civil population there were interpreters and other individuals we had a duty to protect. The generation that would have led Afghanistan to a better future was in their teens when we abandoned them. They were too young, inexperienced, uneducated and weak when we left - but that calculus would have been different given another 10-20 years to grow. It breaks my heart to think of the girls whose education came to a grinding halt because we left with our tail between our legs.
I also believe we left a massive power vacuum in an important strategic area. An American presence at the center of Iran, China and Pakistan was valuable. More than anything, turning our backs on individuals that put their own safety, and that of their families, at risk to assist us is a stain on our moral fabric as a nation.
Um, yeah. No way.
In my opinion we needed out, so I appreciate both Trump's and Biden's efforts to rip off the bandaid.
I certainly appreciate that we fucked up the evac and could have (potentially) exited more gracefully. Like Across, I'm no military expert or planner either. But it would seem odd that it was the White House that decided to stage the evacuation from Kabul rather than Bagram. Wouldn't that be a DoD decision, or am I missing something? Did the White House overrule our military experts?
We've been in Europe longer than that...perspective.
We are not privy to what happened behind closed doors regarding details of our Afghanistan exit. No one in this administration - neither Biden, his cabinet nor the joint chiefs - want to shine a light onto the planning process behind the biggest embarrassment of the administration.
With regard to your last question, civilian leadership is in charge of the military in this country. It's that way by design. POTUS is the commander in chief and can override the military, not the other way around. The chain of command is POTUS, then SECDEF, then the Joint Chiefs and combatant commanders. Make no mistake, the latter might as well be political appointees as well.
That’s the difference, short of an absolute dictatorship (Saudi Arabia) we’ve only stayed around in places that want us.
that would have allowed us to protect or allies and their families.
Looked? It seems that at some level you'd have needed to surge troops into the country to actively fight and likely take casualties at a level we'd last seen under Obama. All to get out a little more slowly? Who was going to cooperate with us if that intervention was only going to be temporary?
to get the Taliban to cut the shit long enough to fulfill what ACross suggested.
Knocking the table over and leaving all of your chips on the ground after you spill them is not how you play poker or negotiate. Teddy KGB wouldn't do that with Grama sitting over his shoulder. An AC130 is a hell of a lot more of a power projection than an out of shape tough.
AC 130 would have made the terrorist suicide bombing look like a walk in the park.
Mr blutarski. 0.0
I’ve had the pleasure of being aboard an AC130 to see it first hand. It’s humbling.
And yeah…a downed AC130 would have been about number 1,897 on the list of things to be concerned about in an Afghanistan withdrawal.
I am just talking about getting interpreters (and other people to whom we owed a duty of loyalty due to their assistance to America) to get the hell out of dodge rather than abandoning them as they clung to landing gear.
Its an understandable criticism. Personally, I'm not sure there was a graceful exit to be made. But we could have certainly made much more of a concerted post-exit effort to get our Afghan allies to safety and situated here in the US. Still legislation pending to make that a reality, as I understand it. Bipartisan efforts in both chambers are underway to get it done. But nothing is getting through Congress these days, unfortunately.
And overestimated the ability of the Afgans to hold out against the Taliban.
If Joe was planning on getting out, expediting people getting out rapidly should have been a priority.
But once the collapse started it seems like it was too late to go back and slow down the collapse.
And keeping Bagram, at minimum, would have been a strategic asset for decades. As I said many times during the affair, we should have kept BAF, Jalalabad, and possibly a post in Herat to keep an eye on the Iranians. And NATO probably should have kept Marmal in Masi.
It doesn't mean we need to meddle in their domestic affairs. But we could continue to help the Afghan Army keep the lights on at fractional costs, keeping the TB out of the cities, so y'know, the girls can go to school. ANSF was fighting and dying for their country for the last several years- not us. When we pulled the rug, they smartly decided it was no longer worth it.
In Bagram, which in nearly the safest and most defensible part of the country, we would have been safe for generations. We could have kept dirtbags in jail, had a site for CT operations, an airbase for logistics, a listening post for China and a hundred other good reasons.
That this wasn't presented as an option by the Biden admin is an admission that they had good reason to avoid presenting it.
This is not to say I agreed with all prior major decisions. We should have transitioned to that posture as soon as it was clear in the early 2010's that our strategy to turn Afghanistan into a GCC was not going to work.
But I'm not considering Trump again.
...I know the MAGA group is holding stuff up at the moment, but the aid was released slowly and sold poorly to the public. I certainly don't think Vlad is concerned with either Trump or Joe at the helm.
The border was a shit show well before the recent failed attempts at reform; he handed Trump that talking point on a silver platter.
"Centrist Joe" has given in way too much to the progressive wing of his party. Probably because he's too busy napping and hiding from press conferences.
And then there's Joe's vanity -- Joe wants to be transformational; well, he's certainly made his mark (and just wait until Kamala is first female POTUS !). But hell-almighty, he needs to do the right thing for his party and his country and not run again. Joe never threw a 95 mph fastball, but his 75 mph fastball is crossing the plate at 50 mph.
The MAGA crowd is to blame for the result, and hopefully Congress can decide to tell the MAGA morons to shit in a hat and Congress can re-commit to Ukraine.
In no particular order:
- Russia dug in while the West dithered (Ukraine, not so much).
- the West no longer seems to have a theory of victory in Ukraine.
- Trump has proved remarkably adept at shutting down support for Ukraine.
- if Europe is to step up munitions production to (partially) fill the US gap, they will not be able to come close to the production Russia is bringing online in any reasonable sort of timeframe. Finland (or whomever) recently doubled their production schedule -- Russia went 24/7 months ago.
- Vlad has solved a lot of his conscription problem in the near term (and wide swaths of his populace shows now signs of rejecting the premise that Russia is under attack).
- the drone advantage Ukraine had is gone, and in the longer term was no match for artillery or manpower.
- the conscription debate in Ukraine is worrying; and I can't imagine many young Ukrainian lads wanting to sign up to fight with no weapons / aircover / ammunition, etc.
- the sanctions kind of worked, but only kind of.
- Vlad readily drew upon a more or less aligned axis of evil, the axis of more or less decent regimes and good guys (West) can't figure out what the hell it wants to do and will wring its hands all the more when the next Russian-backed conflagration appears.
Someone needs to tell Obama that the 1980's called, and indeed have brought their foreign policy back.
research expertise.
Seeing as it comes from the internet.
if the WSJ is deemed an unreliable news organization because of its editorial bent, what's left ?
Apparently Cross, who doesn't have a subscription to the WSJ because it costs $12 a month, is well informed on the tone and narrative expressed by the WSJ's op-ed page.
Strangely enough, no one here ever complains about the op-ed section of any other paper. It is only the WSJ that gets criticized.
I treat it as a game. Quote the editorial page the WSJ and see how many posters come forward with the ridiculous "...the WSK editorial pages suck". Or, the reliable "it used to be good, but now it sucks."
He has not done an amazing job at anything.
Biden is inept and a shitty president. At best he has pulled a Joe Pa and chose not to be bothered with some nefarious activity involving those close to him while they and he likely have benefited from such activity.
I do not feel he has the US best interests when he or whoever is making decisions makes decisions. Every decision is about Democratic votes. He has been the least transparent president in my lifetime despite saying he would be the total opposite. The Biden/Harris ticket blows. We are F'd with the options available.
More of the investments made through BBB legislation is benefiting Red states to a much greater degree than Blue states, and to the working class, rather than educated elites. But yeah, whatever.
If it was about Democratic votes he would have left Israel out to dry, as many democratic voting blocks (Muslims, African Americans) wish. Thats just one example.
The border disaster is absolutely about votes. To quote you, "Thats just one example."
Opinions vary, I'm not trying to change yours and I respect your viewpoint even though I do not share it. Mine is that Biden has and continues to do a horrible job. The fact that the alternative blows too doesn't change my opinion. Like I said we are F'd. I will say this. If Biden wins and steps down for Harris, we may all be wishing ole Joe was back.
Letting immigration go to shit excites exactly nobody. Are you conspiratorially suggesting that there's a sinister cabal of people that want unchecked immigration? I call bunk.
It's worth mentioning that a perfectly fine immigration bill left the senate with bipartisan support, only to get tanked by the idiots in the house because Trump wanted it to. I'd say the blame for the border can now be in part to them and him.
Let as many people in as possible believing they will vote for our party. It's as plain as day to me. Why else would you tolerate a disaster like this unless you are a total dumbass which sadly might also be in play. From day 1 the mission was to open the border and let anyone and everyone in. This is indisputable. Look at the number of crossings. It is unprecedented and was overtly invited.
Great Replacement is quackery. Also, last I checked, non-citizens cannot vote.
The fact that you continue to push "disaster", "open borders", and decided to call me a "total dumbass" says a lot more about you and your inability to maturely express an idea than it does anyone else.
The border is absolutely a problem and in need of a bipartisan solution. We can point fingers at each party when they're in power more or less equally, or we can pass legislation that tries to address it.
Question2: if you had extended family members here illegally, or if want to play the game, here as “asylum seekers” who would you vote for?
Oh that’s a conspiracy theory! Trying to keep minorities from voting!
why wouldn’t you want basic controls in place to prevent fraud?
There is a lot to be gained by Biden to open the borders, it’s not that complicated.
I don't think these people are voting as consistently as you or Democrats think.
I implied that Biden is one if in fact he believes what he's done at the border is in the best interest of the United States. I don't believe he does, as stated I believe he and his handlers believe it's in the best interest of their party winning future elections. You call it a conspiracy theory, I call it a very reasonable and probable deduction.
I think I've maturely expressed my thoughts. Whether you agree or disagree is your prerogative and I don't care one way or another.
" Why else would you tolerate a disaster like this unless you are a total dumbass which sadly might also be in play."
I think one can be forgiven for being unclear as to the object of that epithet.
Again, you're conflating the idea that demographic shifts were supposed to give Democrats a permanent majority (this has not happened, but pundits breathlessly kept saying it wout) with the way it was supposed to happen.
Nobody is saying immigration would lead to more democratic voters outside of some charlie kirk bs.
Just because it hasn't worked to the extent they hoped for does not mean that it is not the objective. Answer the question Brahms asked. What is their motive then for moronic and devastating lack of border control. From day 1 dopey Joe opened the flood gates.
, there have been elected officials who brag about this) continue to point to the "changing demographics" when they point to factors contributing to the demise of the Republican party. When you let in millions of people from foreign countries, that will absolutely by definition change the demographics. The generous interpretation is that they're just pointing out facts (which it's true the demographics are in fact changing). However, coupling that with pointing out that these changes will be to the detriment of the Republicans means they're acutely aware of voting patterns (or at the minimum the voting patterns of their children). In conjunction with policies (Day 1 rescinding of EAs) that would have helped prevent this immediate crisis, it's not really surprising to see people connecting those dots and not immediately giving the benefit of the doubt to politicians who crave power. Also this kind of thing would not be unprecedented in the history of our nation.
It's basically a popular internet meme at this point.
It is exactly what it appears to be.
that at least most Americans believe Biden created, he can undo the EA reversals he signed day 1 that made things significantly harder on our border patrol.
But he is that stupid and creepy.
Lord, I wish we had someone besides Biden and Trump from which to choose.
On both sides of the aisle there are huge segments who feel we should accept shitty because we feel or talk ourselves into feeling that the alternative is just a little less shitty. Rather than uniting to find a better solution we just accept things and those in politics on both sides do the same because they are human like the rest of us. It really is a strange dynamic to me.
1. Supporting Israel isn’t doing that
2. Coming out in favor of the doomed border bill isn’t supported by democrats
3. Nominating Powell to stay on as chair of the Fed was not supported by all democrats
4. Working with the Republicans on a budget bill wasn’t supported by democrats
I think you are confusing supporting policy’s a majority of all Americans approve of with buying Democratic votes. In a functioning democracy the government should be working to please the majority a majority of the time.
1. Supporting Israel isn’t doing that - I would argue he'd likely lose more Democratic votes than win if he didn't support Israel and caved to the nutjobs in the far left (and far right on this issue)
2. Coming out in favor of the doomed border bill isn’t supported by democrats. It's not, but it's absolutely necessary in an election year, after lying about it for 3 years to appease his base.
Is the Republicans, Israel aid is linked to Ukraine aid.
can't do anything to energize even his own party because he's so damn old. We are a union contractor so I support unions and things that get us more work but I don't like the expanded powers that the union bosses and nlrb have received both at the federal and state level. That said, while I typically favor republican policies for business, the republicans are not good for union contracting...unfortunately some of the things that rolled back rolled too far.
I didn't like Obama's policies but I thought he was a dynamic personality and when he spoke, I listened. I can't listen to a single thing that Biden says. I voted for him to get rid of Trump in a swing state and I also thought he could soften the rhetoric. Biden is asleep at the train and doesn't deserve a second term. The trouble is, the only other option is Trump...I love the USA but this election blows chunks.
response word for word.
He should acknowledge reality and bag it. We don't need someone in their 80s running the country.
This goes for Trump, Grassley, and anyone else that is long in the tooth.
It's hard to imagine he's got another 5 years in him. What a disaster.
He probably thinks that he is popular enough to win, then he will step-down after the election and hand the office over to the first woman President.
He has to know that she is not popular enough to win on her own, so he thinks that this is the best way to shatter the glass ceiling.
going to serve int he Senate before his election.
You only need to look at the US Senate to see these officials think they can serve longer than most of us do.
I just think that it is possible.
doing or conversely he is hell bent on destroying America as we know it. I know that is overly simplistic way of putting it but it does seem to be the two dominant thoughts about Biden. I thought there was a similar view of Obama during his term.
The Daily Show did a piece on this recently. Matt Yglesias wrote about it last month with regard to half the Republican Party criticzing Biden for walking us into a MIddle East War and the other half criticizing him for being too weak and not standing up to our adversaries.
I find the idea that Biden wants to pull Harris into the Presidency one that isn't outlandish or insane.
Given his age, this is the only possible explanation for keeping her on the ticket. Politically, there is nothing advantageous about her brand. She isn't popular, she doesn't bring a swing state into play, and she is only there because Biden needed help in SC in 2020. She was the price of admission.
Can anyone justify keeping her on the ticket? Or is the path of least resistance the answer here?
If he replaces her, he loses the Black vote because they will all stay home. Therefore, he hands the election to Trump.
What would be interesting to me is how much a reduced Black voter turnout would affect key swing states. For example, could it move Georgia?
Trump is so polarizing that I can't see people staying home because Biden dropped someone that isn't even popular.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/
...they'd be "allowed" to affect the election by staying home because the only people honor-bound to vote for Joe Biden whether they want to or not are conservatives.
I don't care if you don't vote for him. Just don't vote or Trump. And you're not voting for Trump so what's the problem here?
I have said in the past that Biden's election rested upon both moderate conservative voters not voiting for Trump but also an increase among Dems particularly AA females.
What % of Trump voters switched ot Biden in 2020? Take Georgia as an example. If you assume 15% of the Trump voters switched to Biden that means tan equal number of new Dems came out to vote for Biden that did not vote in 2016. And I am guessing the 15% number is high but more disturbung is the fact at the 15% number there were an additional 700,000 people just in Georgia who did not vote in 2016 then voted in 2020 because they wanted four more years of Trump. For every 1% increase in the voters you think made the switch ad 20,000 new Trump voters in 2020.
You and I disagree that Biden and Trump pose the same danger to America moving forward and I think that as long as people view it that way it will be difficult to win. However, if you shove the other 300,000 new 2020 voters aside the same thing is true.
Every American has the duty to prevent a tyrant from getting control. If you don’t you’re just as culpable.
Kamala is almost as dim and rudderless as he is.
He was needed to run in 2020 to beat Trump and I think he was the only leading candidate that would have done that. I also always wondered if he didnt really want to run in 20 but felt compelled to get Trump out of the White House (in other words if it was a moderate Republican he probably never would have run). I think most at the time assumed he would be a one term President on his terms.
Now, Biden being stubborn and running again, even when there are plenty of Dem strategists publicly suggesting he should move on, very well could lead to Trump winning again. I dont know if there is an obvious Dem candidate who would easily beat Trump, but I sure wish some other candidates were given the chance. But for those of us who hate Trump, Biden was the man we needed in 2020 to beat the president, now he is the man we need to go away to again defeat Trump.
As Harvey Dent said in Dark Knight, "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." I think if he announced a year ago that he was not going to run again, most anti Trump voters would view him overall in a positive light. Now, who knows.
But i still dont believe Biden vs Trump will be the ticket this November. But, its not looking good.
I see the 'Biden is risking another Trump presidency' thrown around sometimes, but what states will Trump move back to his ledger?
Perhaps Pennsylvania and Michigan as well.
The first 3 would put the election in the hands of the house, where Trump would win.
That Trump will flip no more than one of those.
Haley is not going to win the nomination and basically has admitted she is hanging around in case something happens. Trump is not dropping out in fact he needs the nomination and the Presidency to solve his other problems.If he does drop out it will be after he has enough delegates and the nominee certainly wont be Haley.
Biden is not dropping out and quite frankly if he did so I think it would insure a Trump victory. Biden won in 2020 based on a number of groups coming together. DUmping Biden to make Republican non Trump voters happy will anger other parts of the winnng coalition.
As I said to others as long as people in swing states see equal dangers from Tump and Biden there isnt likely anything we can do.
I voted for Biden last time for the good of the country. In return, he was supposed to gracefully retire after one term for the good of the country. Instead, we're getting a rematch that no one wants because his ego won't let him step aside.
So I'm writing in MarineDomer because Trump is going to win North Carolina anyway.
I'm in Wake County (a blue county), and the only ad from a Dem on TV is from Jeff Jackson for Attorney General (I'll probably vote for him. He seems like a solid human).
The GOP ads are all focused on immigration and how people are mean to Trump. There is also a low production RINO ad against two of the candidates (Kelly Daughtry and Fred Von Canon).
but Biden wears brown shoes withs navy suits and I don't like that.
The magnitude of difference of downside between the two leading candidates is massive and I've yet to see anyone articulate what Biden has done that is so bad where Trump would not have been worse.
The guy is flat out incompetent.
Why would anyone think he would have conducted a smooth withdrawal from Afghanistan? I'd bet it would have been even worse.
His handling of the Border sucked. All based on building the wall he never came close to finishing. Stay in Mexico, even if you liked that? Ended in the Trump administration.
But it all pales in comparison to, as you put it, budding fascism that became full-blown on January 6. As someone else said that I read recently, I'll take a dead Biden over a live Trump.
After spending my entire career focused on national security I tend to weight a President’s performance in this area more heavily than others. President Biden is very poor in this area, specifically:
1. Deterrence of Iran
2. Afghanistan pull-out
3. Although his performance in supporting Ukraine has been widely praised, I find much to criticize. Namely his adopting an incremental approach that hearkens back to Rolling Thunder and has resulted in Ukraine looking like a modern day Verdun. This is a result that likely could have been avoided with early and aggressive supply of the correct material.
I am not in a great position to assess our whole of government efforts to deter China, but the snippets I see don’t make me feel very confident.
Generally speaking I think President Biden is one of the worst modern day presidents in the National Security arena. The only recent President that was unquestionably worse was President Trump (and it is not close which is why I will be voting for President Biden if his opponent is Trump)
Obama was famous for the Syrian red line as well as not seeing thei issues w China/Russia until late in his term.
Bush invades Afganistan and then immediately shifts to Iraq. Which in large part strengthens Iran.
Clinton was before my time, but I always heard grousing from the military people in my family (admittedly all very partisan Republican).
My vacation got in the way of reading.
You are correct that all administrations have negative outcomes as they execute their National Security Strategies (the world is highly complex and adversaries get a vote).
My issue is that the Biden administration stands alone in the modern era by following a policy of incrementalism and appeasement. History has shown us that this approach invariably leads to negative outcomes usually with dramatically higher loss of life (Chamberlain providing the most well known and horrific example).
Where we have strategic interests in China/Russia where have we seen that?
I can understand disagreements about individual things we've done in the Middle East, but the overall strategic goal post Bush has been to pivot away from the Middle East and towards Asia.
If the Republicans were putting up anyone else I could see someone with different opinions say they couldn't vote against Biden bc of Foreign Policy disagreements. But you know what you're getting with Trump and it's catastrophic.
The only worse President of the modern era wrt National Security was Trump and it isn’t close. Did you miss that?
While the world became safer in some respects I think it also led to
Some of the regional issues that define much our national security today. I don’t know enough about foreign policy say this with confidence but it stuck out to me as I read your post.
This board is almost universally anti-Trump.
reconsider Trump. Apparently it was enough to warrant another thread on why Trump is far worse.
Voting for trump because of abortion alone. It was sort of disturbing, not because of the issue at play but the general lack of concern for any other issues.
I think my only quibble is with people who liked "policies" under trump. Most of this stuff is subject to the whims of an increasingly dysfunctional congress. Plus, most of the policies people cite would have happened under a much saner conventional gop candidate.
I can't really get past a guy who has quite transparently said what he'd do if reelected - it's quite frightening. Yet you have people equivocating with "well he did frame me for armed robbery, but I'm aching for that tax cut!"
Considering how many abortions he’s paid for
they prioritize as the most important issue when voting to be "disturbing" (well, within reason I suppose). Each of us is extremely different. I know people who knew next to nothing about Obama's policies but voted for him because he is black. Is that disturbing to you given they had a general lack of concern for any other issues? I found it incredibly silly, but not disturbing.
Being a white dude I don't know what it's like to be black and have a black man in the white house.
Is it "disturbing?" I'd say maybe more shallow - a single characteristic can make you feel more fondly towards someone but it has nothing to do with actual policy.
Abortion is at least a policy issue. I would say disturbing for two reasons:
- Because it is a focus on a singular issue to the exclusion of all other issues. That isn't great.
- To a lesser extent, I do not like religiously-based policies to enter a secular government.
issue is at least more informed and relevant than voting for someone because of immutable characteristics. These are all white people by the way. And none of the reasons were about making life better for blacks.
I'd say the same about a person who only voted for Bernie because of whatever free stuff he was peddling as I would about someone who thinks their religious beliefs should legislate abortion.
I think Gloria Steinem face planted with a similar shallow take "women only vote for bernie because they want to meet boys" in 2016. It's absolutely low grade uninformed voting, so yes, I do agree.
As a resident of the PNW, I get to see a lot of white people with luxury beliefs about minorities. I highly recommend watching "American Fiction" because it's generally a shot across the bow aimed right at them.
Obama wasn't an insurrectionist, as one example. He didn't promise to encourage enemies to do whatever they want to NATO allies. He didn't threaten retribution against anyone and everyone who slighted him in any way.
If he had done some or all of those things, and then a voter said he was voting for Obama because he is black, I think the reaction might move from "incredibly silly" to "disturbing." When a voter is going to vote for a basically sane person, even if I happen to disagree with that person on various policy issues, almost no reason will be "disturbing." Randomly pulling the lever without a thought isn't "disturbing." The justifications might be stupid or even offensive, but the threat is small so it's hard to be too disturbed.
The case is a bit different here, though. One person willing to put aside everything Trump has done in his political career, all because Trump will appoint pro-life judges (as would literally any Republican president), is at least a bit concerning. It's certainly odd. That millions are willing to do so is disturbing.
Let me know when prices are going to go back down to the original 2% a year graph line, because they ain't close right now.
We would need deflation to go back to where prices were before CPI exploded.
He's not talking about return to the level of prices just before inflation rose above 2%. He's talking about graphing where prices would be if we had experienced 2% every year since then and getting the actual price line to intersect that line at some point.
We could, in principle do this by having 1% inflation for some period of time. However, I agree that a monetary policy which would produce that would probably be accompanied by a recession.
inflation from 2008 to 2021 was well below historical averages. So we were due for some catch up. Certainly, not what we have seen in 2022 and 23.
on the part of the Federal Reserve and probably shouldn’t be.
Whether this is official policy or not, it is certainly the public expectation of the ideal inflation rate, since it is often cited as our official inflation target.
years trying to get the inflation rate up to their target even with zero interest rates.
Two points: They never came up with a definition of "longer run" and this was to be the (vague) policy when they missed the target on the down side.
I think that discussion is moot. We're back to the "two percent and bygones are bygones" formulation which we've had since they set a numerical target in the 1990's.
Targeting
They were three years ago. Also real wages are higher - meaning wages are outpacing inflation, which is the most important measure
In fact the rate in 2023 was virtually the same as the rate in 2005.
The lowest inflation rate outside of the Great Recession was in 2015 under Barack Obama. Since the middle of the Reagan administration the inflation rate has had little to do with which party controlled the White House. It had far more to do with who chaired the Federal Reserve.
He could have dump him for someone less dovish. Instead, we got transitory and inflation.
Biden could have dumped Powell, and Biden should have dumped Powell after Powell let Trump bully him around.
Don't worry, when Powell was renominated Biden had full confidence that Powell would keep inflation under control. Ya know, until Powell lost control of inflation and CPI exploded.
“I’m confident that Chair Powell and Dr. Brainard’s focus on keeping inflation low, prices stable, and delivering full employment will make our economy stronger than ever before. Together, they also share my deep belief that urgent action is needed to address the economic risks posed by climate change, and stay ahead of emerging risks in our financial system,” Biden said.
In July of 2020 Powell famously said "We’re Not Even Thinking About Thinking About Raising Rates" last year, Powell said that the Fed is "not thinking about rate cuts right now at all". Powell has been behind the curve at every step of his tenure. He deserves to get the boot, and should have gotten the boot in 2021.
How people think a depression could have been avoided without stimulating the economy during Covid is beyond rational comprehension.
And I was just stating a fact that Trump nominated Powell, because, well, he did, and unlike many of his appointments, he actually appointed a guy well-qualified for the job.
and right in the middle of covid. Did he say that in July, 2021? I dont remember timeline
The Fed is almost always is behind the curve a little bit, they are never going to try to front run economic data. That is for the market.
The Fed unleashed trillions in liquidity, PPP was pushed out, and the vaccine was on the horizon. Did we need bravado from the Fed Chair? What was the point of declaring an absolute position? Then, he did it again just a few months ago.
The transitory timeline also really annoys me. Powell was slow to acknowledge reality, and extremely slow to start QT.
I'm failing to see the justification for giving him another term. He's not Burns bad, and he isn't Volcker great. He is also below Greenspan and Bernanke (who I also have issues with).
I'm starting to believe that we need to overhaul monetary policy. We place too much emphasis on the Fed's every move and statement. It reeks of central planning, and we need to devise a better system. Maybe embrace AI and let an algorithm set interest rates. Friedman proposed it decades ago, so the idea was been around for a long time (under less advanced technology).
No one was going to raise rates as fast as we probably needed right away and if we did that might have forced a recession. And once Powell got going he raised them quite quickly. We got to 4.5% by end of 2022 and after onyl starting in March of that year, and once the markets saw the Fed meant business you started to see inflation come down (obviously the supply chain issues slowly getting fixed and fear of Russia vs Ukraine waning helped too). If we started a few months earlier, say in the summer of 2021, I doubt it would have mattered that much in the grand scheme of things. No one would have raised rates 300 bps in 6 months with CPI in the 4s and 5s. They would have started slowly and that never would have been enough to restrict the oncoming inflation surge. Plenty of people were predicting future inflation, but no one was suggesting 7-9%. I agree Powell was slow to raise and stupidly wanted to wait until the bond purchasing was over before raising, but going from 0- to say 1% rate by March of 2022 would not have done much, IMO. It probably would only had meant that they would not raise 75bps 3 times in a row.
I think Powell has done a pretty good job if he is able to soft land this thing and possibly avoid a recession. At the very least he certainly pushed it down the road months to even years past when every economist on the planet predicted it was going to happen.
You'd need to enter a pretty bad recession or even depression.
I doubt either winner will do better than stabilize at 2% over their term.
PCE comes out and that is more important than CPI.
I would not get too freaked out about Januarys CPI. January tends to have some weird seasonality that makes it a bit volatile compared to expectations (especially in jobs numbers). Doesn’t mean you discount it, but wait to see a little more evidence first before becoming worried.
build back better must have worked, I suppose.
I think everyone is aware that I don't support either guy. I will either do a write in or vote for the Liberterian candidate.
And if the choice is Biden or Trump, I hope Biden wins (I'm in Illinois so I'll cast a third party or write-in vote that more closely aligns with my views, if I lived in a competitive state I'd cast a Biden vote).
But I certainly do not think Biden is a quality candidate for President, and I'd support just about any normal, mature Republican candidate against him. Beyond run of the mill policy disagreements, the following are chief among my complaints:
-He's too old and clearly has lost a step (or two). Don't tell me he's got a stutter or always been a bumbling moron. If faced with a true crisis requiring decisive executive action, does anyone feel confident that he'd be the one making the tough decisions? In a democracy, we should know that the buck ultimately stops with the guy who's elected. I don't have confidence that would be the case with Biden right now, let alone 5 years from now at the conclusion of his second term.
-Afghanistan was a disaster.
-The border's a huge problem. Republicans are contributing to addressing it now, but the Biden administration let it get out of hand for the last three years bringing us to where we are now. I'm a proponent of lawful immigration (we probably need more of it) and humane treatment to people who came here illegally but have been productive and law abiding since they arrived. But it's not viable to have the flood of people crossing the border illegally and Biden didn't act like he gave a damn about it until it really started to get political traction more recently.
-The student loan program is an unconstitutional transfer of wealth to people who are generally less deserving than people without college degrees. As noted on this board, any Republic who said "the Supreme Court tried to stop me but I did it any way" would be called an authoritarian. And rightly so.
...many folks have warned against a President Trump unfettered by not having to face the voters again, and what he'll do as a result.
What about Biden? As he gets older and dottier and much more able to be influenced by his younger, more leftward staffers, what makes you think he's going to tack any more towards the center than he already hasn't? The minute the election is over and he's victorious, any thoughts of improving the border are going right out the window. The aforementioned unconstitutional wealth transfer will switch into high gear. This guy has a legacy to pursue and damned if he ain't gonna do it no matter what anyone says
But none of my policy disagreements with Biden are worse than having a President who is a malignant narcissist with no respect for any provision of the Constitution, with no concern about anything or anyone other than his own narrow self-interest, who thinks murderous dictators are tough and strong and NATO is dumb. Hell yeah the border will get worse under a second Biden term. I'm sure there will be more student loan shit I don't like. That can be corrected by better policy in the future. We'll still have a country and functioning democracy. Trump threatens just about every democratic and Constitutional norm that has made this country work for almost 250 years. Biden wants to pursue a legacy, Trump wants to tear the whole thing down for his perceived personal benefit.
I struggle to think of a fiscal policy implemented during a Democratic administration that has ever been walked back.
Trump is a shitshow, no doubt. Show me an actually moderate Democrat and I may be convinced to show up Election Day.
finding ways to work together find compromise to improve things.
And the minute the (D)'s didn't need the (R)'s, welfare reform vanished.
WTH are you smoking. Pretty sure Biden has promised to not change taxes on people making less than 400k. Besides unless the democrats win a 2/3rds majority in the Senate (which they won’t) it’s just not happening. The 2017 tax law sunsets next year, and going back to the previous regime is political suicide. It may be tweaked but the next Congress is going to have to renew it.
Politically, such a strange move in an election year. Bought votes he already had. The only thing I can figure is he figured he couldn’t alienate the working class (let alone those who worry about individual responsibility or the negative effects of the debt) any more, so screw it.
For every fear of what Biden would do, what Trump would do is either be incompetent or downright damaging to democracy.
The man tried to overthrow a free election. How anyone not in the MAGA cult could consider voting for the guy is a mystery for the ages.
Someday a non-Trump Republican will be president, probably sooner than later, and could reverse every one of those wealth transfers and the like even if they got through Congress in the first place, just as Richard Nixon reversed a whole lot of LBJ's Great Society initiatives.
I presume you are implying a return to a more traditional Republican Party and candidates. The name may remain, but the Republican Party of the 20th century is dead and gone. The hard right MAGA Republicans have taken over large swaths of state governments. The grass roots of the Republicans is MAGA.
There may be a new more traditional conservative party that develops, but it will take time to grow to sufficient size to win the White House.
Demographics will play a large role in the power and positions of the parties, but that will also take some time.
I think for the next several cycles we are looking at an ever more hard right MAGA dominated Republican Party vs the Democrats. Whether they move further left or are moderated by an influx of previously center right Republicans remains to be seen.
But the problem at the border has exploded since Biden came into office. It's a statistical fact that illegal border crossing have skyrocketed since Biden assumed office, as discussed by such notable right-wing publications as the New York Times. It's certainly too complex of an issues to pin entirely on Biden, but he's the man in charge and has been slow to act and failed to effectively lead on the issue. In part I think because he's afraid of the left wing of his party, and in part because I think he's too old to effectively lead. Hell, his staff was too fricking afraid to roll him out for the softball pre-Super Bowl interview.
the most concessions they'd likely ever see, certainly more than they'd gotten in decades (as evidenced by the far left being against it), with the support of 24 Republican senators, and Trump killed it.
You can't blame that on Biden. He was all set to sign it.
Biden ignored the problem and let it become a crisis. When he finally proposed something Republicans failed to act in a serious and good faith manner.
act. However, once he did act he agreed to much of what the Republicans wanted and did not even demand anything for dreamers. The immigration items they asked for will actually help speeed up the asylum process. In return they asked for aid to Ukraine. Israel and relief funds for Gaza.
In other words they acted like any administration in the last 200 years. Republicans then blew up the deal. The Speaker has now flipped his position on the Biden's authority to unilaterally solve the border.
As Adam Kinzinger wrote in the piece I linked before the current version of the Republican party is not a serious political party that is interested in governing it is a party interested in power.
https://adamkinzinger.substack.com/p/the-gop-is-not-serious-about-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1910658&post_id=141201339&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=nufly&utm_medium=email
Biden waited too long and let the problem become a crisis. But Republican are not serious or good faith actors.
had his messengers (some on this board) repeat the lie.
I have not seen any real analysis that suggests we can absorb >1.8M additional illegals per year, and the problems we're seeing today based on a fraction of that amount being sent by the administration and Texas to some of our larger cities supports that. I honestly think reinstating the remain in Mexico policy is the right thing to do (it seems Biden is contemplating that), as it's clear a large majority of the people are not seeking true asylum, but just better opportunities. I do have a soul and can sympathize with them, but we're having real and significant issues absorbing this level of mass migration.
Once upon a time in this country we had the concept of "compromise" to get things done.
Day 1 or the status quo after he rescinded dozens of executive orders that horribly exacerbated the problem? To play this game where this was just a mess Biden inherited at this point is either intellectually dishonest or lazy. He specifically said he wanted these people to "surge to the border", then made it so they could all get in by rescinding remain in Mexico, then had his administration lie for years that there was no real crisis. He had control of the legislative branch for a couple years but didn't change anything, but certainly rescinded any EAs that made it less chaotic. Also the vast majority of busing or "planing" of migrants has been executed by the federal government, not Texas or other states.
And again, where is the analysis that we can absorb another 1.8M people per year in addition to the legal immigration we have?
Asking for asylum is a legal process. While the numbers are certainly a problem, individuals requesting asylum are decidedly not 'illegals'. While some people may be crossing the border illegally, most of the problem is with a broken asylum process that doesn't allow us to remediate asylum claims quickly enough.
is very specific, and has very specific conditions. We have seen from the data that the majority of the illegals who even bother to show up at their court hearings are not here for real asylum, just better economic opportunities, thus illegals.
Are Canucks pouring across the bridge from Windsor?
Asylum has been granted in about 40% of the nearly 700,000 asylum cases that have been decided since 2000. Immigration judges in that time frame approved about 30% of the applications, or about 420,000 cases, filed by people in deportation proceedings after arriving at the border or after being apprehended within the U.S.
In fiscal year 2022, immigration judges decided 52,000 asylum cases; about 46% of people were granted asylum. The approval rate was closer to 39% for those who applied for asylum as a defense against deportation.
"I acknowledge that I misspoke. The number is closer to 30% or higher," Johnson told PolitiFact.
It’s important to note that just because people are not granted asylum does not mean they do not have a valid claim. Experts have previously told PolitiFact that cases can be denied because of procedural reasons, or because immigrants don’t have legal representation and aren’t able to effectively argue their case.
me: So its more like 40-50%. Certainly doesnt ruin your overall point Im sure. I think the worst part is that it takes 6 fucking years to process a claim. Thats nuts!
everyone is doing that is crossing from the southern border. The vast majority are leaving their countries for the social services and economic opportunity in the US. These aren’t defectors from the former communist bloc countries.
The vast majority of these people aren’t leaving their countries because of political persecution.
It is massive migration of people leaving 3rd world countries for social services and economic benefits because they know when they get to the border they will not be denied entry.
“Asylum” seekers and just work thru a process doesn’t sound great to me.
3.5 years into Biden’s term he’s trying to do something (and I don’t think a good plan) after saying there was no problem, crossings claimed to be low, that really doesn’t sit well with me.
Biden and his administration has been playing a much more damaging game with their border policy in my opinion.
Apply for asylum and have your claim adjudicated. That’s how the process has always worked, I think.
The problem is that the number of asylum seekers has outstripped our ability to handle the volume.
Interred there were screams of abuse. When Texas was trying to stop the influx the Biden administration interfered.
very public statements encouraging illegal immigration, and then backed that up by rescinding a number of EAs that made things less chaotic, and then actively interfered with essentially any measures the states took to counteract the chaos. All while telling us to not believe our lying eyes about the crisis unfolding. Truly Orwellian.
back down to or below historical averages. Biden then proceeded to undo all the EAs that were helping to keep it trending down Day 1, then lied about the border for the last 3 years. The levels it has achieved under Biden are not even comparable to what we saw under Obama or Trump. Also one of the few things Trump didn't lie about was a crisis at our border.
I'm no expert, but I believe Covid certainly made conditions worse in the Central American triangle, while also suppressing migratory behavior pre-2021. We have upheaval in Venezuela and the middle east. People are looking for safe havens to raise their families.
Can we take them all? No. A compassionate response to their travails should be a thorough vetting at the border, with non-asylum seekers being sent home, and an expedited asylum process so legitimate candidates can be accommodated, up to our capacity to handle them.
Not barbed wire in the Rio Grande.
“non-asylum” seekers. No is showing up and saying I just want to join my extended family in the US get a job. Just check the asylum box.
The solution of show up at the border and/or cross illegally, request “asylum” and then be allowed to stay effectively indefinitely is simply a terrible process and is no solution.
Which is worse?
I don't think people quite understand how the bill went way beyond any concessions the Democrats agreed to in the past, and likely they won't give in the future.
Yet another example of insisting on perfection and getting nothing because of it. And in the bargain Putin might roll over Ukraine.
Great, just great.
the one he created with his EAs? Also how is accepting 1.8M more people (in addition to the legal immigration we have every year) sustainable? Would be good to see that analysis. This is a nonstarter and Biden knew it.
Do you want any kind of solution or not? It was right there for the taking.
in this bill there was / is money for lawyers and judges to speed up the processing of claims.
I think a recognition of the fact that is who most of the people crossing are would lead to a better opportunities to deal with the problem.