What Joe Biden Knows About America

[Tom Paine 1949]

For many reasons I never particularly liked (or hated) Joe Biden. I was sorry when he was chosen — almost tenured in — as the Dems Presidential candidate in 2020. The vicious and blind hatred for him from the extreme right is not shared by most Americans, who preferred him to Trump in 2020 by almost 8 million votes.

The OP article is not alone in saying Republicans have underestimated Biden. Even Newt Gingrich on FoxNews warned Republicans and “blind fellow Conservatives” (I call them populist extremists) … that they were underestimating Biden:

Newt Gingrich issues wake-up call to Republicans: 'Quit underestimating President Biden'

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., recently wrote that winning provides "clarity," and by the metrics that matter, President Biden is winning and Republicans are losing.

www.foxnews.com

Everybody acknowledges Biden is not a charismatic politician. At best, he is just an old, slow but reliable & sober (centrist) liberal. He doesn’t warm the cockles of voters’ hearts the way the master entertainer Trump does for his own (often cultish) supporters. But Trump now has so much baggage associated with him that he may prove much easier to defeat in 2024 than in 2020 — so long as nothing much changes for the worse in the meantime.

Unfortunately Biden is plenty old and there are few Dems is position to replace him should his health fail. Even so, Biden has the great advantage of not being a divider like Trump, a patented loudmouth offensive to so many independents. Biden thus fulfills the somewhat utopian desire of most Americans for “a return to normalcy.”

I personally still hope Biden decides to — or has no choice but to — step down. I want a younger and overall superior candidate to take his place. But I’m not holding my breath …

 

[Sixties Fan]

State of the Union Address (Legal Edition)

‘Let’s finish the job’

joycevance.substack.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Leo123]

Introduction​

• Biden served in the U.S. senate and the House for 30 years and was on two key committees as both ranking member and chairman: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
• 
  
• While in the Senate & House, Joe Biden passed 167 pieces of legislation which you can view here:
• 
  
• https://www.congress.gov/member/jos...e=expanded&KWICView=false&pageSize=100&page=3

List of Biden's Accomplishments in 47 Years

Taskade reimagines productivity with AI. Generate workflows, mind maps, flowcharts, and more. Customize AI agents, train them for any task, and automate seamlessly. Chat with documents for smarter insights in an all-in-one AI-enhanced workspace.

www.taskade.com

I don't believe a career of climbing the political ladder in D.C.qualifies one for excellence in anything but political posturing.

 

[Leo123]

For many reasons I never particularly liked (or hated) Joe Biden. I was sorry when he was chosen — almost tenured in — as the Dems Presidential candidate in 2020. The vicious and blind hatred for him from the extreme right is not shared by most Americans, who preferred him to Trump in 2020 by almost 8 million votes.

The OP article is not alone in saying Republicans have underestimated Biden. Even Newt Gingrich on FoxNews warned Republicans and “blind fellow Conservatives” (I call them populist extremists) … that they were underestimating Biden:

Newt Gingrich issues wake-up call to Republicans: 'Quit underestimating President Biden'

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., recently wrote that winning provides "clarity," and by the metrics that matter, President Biden is winning and Republicans are losing.

www.foxnews.com

Everybody acknowledges Biden is not a charismatic politician. At best, he is just an old, slow but reliable & sober (centrist) liberal. He doesn’t warm the cockles of voters’ hearts the way the master entertainer Trump does for his own (often cultish) supporters. But Trump now has so much baggage associated with him that he may prove much easier to defeat in 2024 than in 2020 — so long as nothing much changes for the worse in the meantime.

Unfortunately Biden is plenty old and there are few Dems is position to replace him should his health fail. Even so, Biden has the great advantage of not being a divider like Trump, a patented loudmouth offensive to so many independents. Biden thus fulfills the somewhat utopian desire of most Americans for “a return to normalcy.”

I personally still hope Biden decides to — or has no choice but to — step down. I want a younger and overall superior candidate to take his place. But I’m not holding my breath …

Biden's like a comfortable old boot, stinky, falling apart and in sore need of replacement.

 

[Sixties Fan]

One data point from a new Washington Post/ABC News poll aptly sets out the challenge facing the White House and Democrats over the next couple years heading into 2024.

Fully 62% of Americans say that during President Biden's time in office, he has accomplished "not very much" or "little or nothing," while just 36% say the president has accomplished either a "great deal" or "good amount. Two-thirds of independents are among those who say Biden hasn't accomplished much.

The polling comes as President Biden prepares to deliver the annual State of the Union address Tuesday in which he will set forth the battle lines for 2024 in the view of the White House. The speech provides an opportunity for Biden—likely with the largest national audience of any political event all year—to plug his accomplishments in stark contrast to House Republicans' performative outrage agenda.

In fact, the Biden administration plans to devote the lion's share of its energy over the next two years to making certain Americans do feel the impact of the historic amount of legislation Biden and Democrats managed to pass during his first two years in office.

The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, some $369 billion in investments targeting climate change, the CHIPS and Science Act which has already spurred some $200 billion of private investments into American manufacturing—this funding is a potential game-changer for many parts of the country that have fallen behind the pace of innovation.

In fact, some analysts are beginning to wonder if the massive investments in manufacturing could help ease some of the economic angst of middle Americans.

"There's a long lag time in public perceptions re economy," tweeted CNN analyst Ron Brownstein, "but eventually, as inflation recedes, will the large number of non-[college] jobs spurred by his key initiatives help [Democrats] regain ground in blue-collar communities?"

That's a pretty tall order, beginning with the assumption that the main source of blue-collar resentment is economic in nature and not racially motivated.

But short of that lofty goal, Democrats do have some basic facts on their side that could help lay a foundation for their economic argument.

Inflation is receding, gas prices have eased, Biden created more jobs in his first two years than any president on record, and yet unemployment is at record lows.

As recent Navigator polling showed, even though Democrats are proving to be able stewards of the post-pandemic economy, most voters just don't know it. In the survey, for instance, just 29% of registered voters correctly believed more jobs were created last year than lost while a 32% plurality incorrectly said more jobs were lost. The survey also found that once respondents were apprised of the robust job creation and historically low unemployment rates, they were more likely to trust Democrats handling of the economy.

In many ways, House Republicans are also making the contrast between the parties relatively easy for Biden. Polling and focus groups alike show that voters view GOP priorities as misaligned with their own. In several recent focus groups, independent voters also called Republicans' growing number of inquiries a "get even" list designed to exact "revenge."

The media will undoubtedly devote gobs of ink and airtime to Biden's delivery and whether he seemed energetic enough to get some meaningless approval bounce of a point or two. Forget about all that—it's unlikely to make a lick of difference to perceptions of Biden in the near term.

The key question is how well Biden lays out the contrast between Democrats and Republicans and whether Democrats are able to spend the next two years making that contrast a lived experience for Americans.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/2/7/2151523/-Biden-s-economic-accomplishments-are-far-more-impressive-than-Americans-know-It-s-time-to-sell-them?detail=emaildkre&pm_source=DKRE&pm_medium=email

 

[Lastamender]

Drugs[edit]​

Biden earned a reputation for being a "drug warrior", leading efforts in the war on drugs.[57] During the 1980s crack epidemic when both Democrats and Republicans were "tough on crime", Biden was the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee that passed numerous punitive measures against drug offenders. In 1986, Biden sponsored and co-wrote the Anti-Drug Abuse Act which caused a large disparity between the sentencing of crack cocaine and powder cocaine users. Black drug users were more likely than whites to use crack and hence were incarcerated in larger numbers.[58][59] He later acknowledged the negative consequences of the legislation and in 2010 supported the Fair Sentencing Act.[60] The bill eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine, and aimed to reduce the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine offenses.[61]

Biden favored increased funding for anti-drug efforts. He frequently criticized President Ronald Reagan in this regard,[62]stating in 1982 that the administration's "commitment is minuscule in terms of dollars".[63] He also criticized President George H. W. Bush's anti-drug strategy as "not tough enough, bold enough or imaginative enough",[64] stating that "what we need is another D-Day, not another Vietnam, not a limited war, fought on the cheap".[62] In 1982, Biden advocated for the creation of a drug czar, a government official overseeing all anti-drug operations. This led to the establishment of the Office of National Drug Control Policy by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.[57] Biden also supported increased penalties against those caught selling drugs within 1,000 feet of schools.[65]

Biden advocated for increased use of civil asset forfeiture by law enforcement agencies.[64] Biden played a key part in the passage of the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act in 1983, partnering with Strom Thurmond, a conservative Republican. A Washington Post article described Biden's role in the negotiations: "He got the Democrats to agree to strengthen forfeiture laws and allow judges to hold more defendants without bail; he persuaded the Republicans to drop such controversial provisions as a federal death penalty, and he made sure Thurmond got most of the credit. Civil liberties groups said the measure could have been far worse without Biden."[66]

In the early 2000s, Biden was critical of raves, describing most of them as "havens" for use of ecstasy and other illegal drugs.[67] He was the sponsor of the bipartisan Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act in 2002; the bill's successor, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, was later enacted as part of a broader 2003 crime bill that became law.[67][68] The legislation, an expansion of the existing 1986 federal anti-"crack house" statute, provided for civil and criminal penalties for event promoters and property owners/managers who knowingly allowed their property to be used for sale or consumption of drugs.[69] The legislation was opposed by the ACLU and electronic dance music enthusiasts who viewed it as overly broad.[68][70] Responding to criticism, Biden said that the statute would not target law-abiding promoters, saying on the Senate floor: "The reason I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill 'the rave scene' or silence electronic music—all things of which I have been accused. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression. It is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids."[68] Although the law has been rarely used, advocates such as Drug Policy Alliance and DanceSafe argue that it discourages event producers from engaging in harm reduction efforts, and have sought to clarify the law.[71]

Biden opposed the legalization of marijuana as a young senator in 1974, in contrast to his other more liberal views.[72] In 2010 he maintained this position, stating: "I still believe it's a gateway drug. I've spent a lot of my life as chairman of the Judiciary Committee dealing with this. I think it would be a mistake to legalize."[64] In a 2014 interview, Biden said, "I think the idea of focusing significant resources on interdicting or convicting people for smoking marijuana is a waste of our resources" but said, "Our policy for our Administration is still not legalization."[73] In 2019 and 2020, during his presidential campaign, Biden expressed support for decriminalizing marijuana and legalizing medical marijuana; reclassifying it as a Schedule II drug to ease marijuana research; automatically expunging prior convictions for marijuana convictions; and allowing states to legalize without federal interference.[74][75] In October 2022, President Biden announced that all federal convictions for simple marijuana possession would be pardoned, while also announcing that he would initiate a review to determine how cannabis should be scheduled under federal law, adding that the Schedule I classification of cannabis "makes no sense".[76][77]

As Vice President, Biden actively engaged with Central American leaders on issues of drug cartels, drug trafficking, and migration to the U.S. caused by insecurity and drug violence. (See Central America below.)

Political positions of Joe Biden - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So far you have the "Atlantic" and "wikipedia" How about one source that is not in the globalist tank?

 

[Sixties Fan]

So far you have the "Atlantic" and "wikipedia" How about one source that is not in the globalist tank?

Globalist as in JEWS?

 

[Lastamender]

Globalist as in JEWS?

No. As in anyone involved.

 

[Sixties Fan]

No. As in anyone involved.

Who are they? Name them.

 

[Lastamender]

Who are they? Name them.

I can name a few. We can start with about half of Congress. Then there is Obama, Gates, Schwab, Macron. The list is endless.

 

[Sixties Fan]

I can name a few. We can start with about half of Congress. Then there is Obama, Gates, Schwab, Macron. The list is endless.

What being a globalist means to you?

What does it mean to the Republicans? Are they the same?

The Origins of the 'Globalist' Slur

President Trump recently used the epithet to describe his outgoing National Economic Council director—but the seeds of its disparaging use were firmly planted 75 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

Globalists, explained

Trump used a (possibly anti-Semitic) insult that illuminates a big fight unfolding in the Republican Party.

www.vox.com

 

[Lastamender]

What being a globalist means to you?

What does it mean to the Republicans? Are they the same?

The Origins of the 'Globalist' Slur

President Trump recently used the epithet to describe his outgoing National Economic Council director—but the seeds of its disparaging use were firmly planted 75 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

Globalists, explained

Trump used a (possibly anti-Semitic) insult that illuminates a big fight unfolding in the Republican Party.

www.vox.com

Shove those links. No one is going to tell me what globalist is, I know already. If you choose to believe the liars that is on you.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Anyone with a curiosity to learn about the world around them — and an ability to keep an open mind and an interest in sorting out the changes being wrought every day — can consider himself or herself a “globalist.”

Globalists are by no means an elite circle of business or political leaders determined to push forward their agenda in a rapid-fire fashion.

What unites globalists is a strong interest in understanding more about the modern global economy, politics and culture — and how these forces relate to each other.

A globalist, in short, is anyone dedicated to figuring out how the world hangs together. That includes sorting out the dynamic political and social changes associated with globalization, questioning them rigorously and seeking to correct them when necessary.

That is why our editorial focus is on presenting the many intriguing story lines from all corners of the world. At the core, we are dedicated to examining the premises and fallacies of conventional wisdom about the global landscape — with new features every day.

In doing so, we are not trying to give any definite answers. Rather, we lay out before you the results of the questions that intrigue us. Ultimately, we are putting together a mosaic — daily feature by daily feature — all in an effort to compose a broader picture.

Globalists understand that the cooperation of many individuals, institutions and corporations is needed to ensure that the potential fruits of globalization are spread throughout the world fairly and equitably. Globalists are committed to muting or eliminating globalization’s negative effects.

Thus, globalists believe that solid arguments — and not narrow-mindedness and demagoguery — are needed to bring all parties to a better understanding of their own role and responsibilities. In that vein, globalists place the highest possible emphasis upon exploration and open-mindedness.

In fact, many globalists have not formed set opinions one way or the other — either about the global economy, society, politics and culture or about globalization itself.

What unites globalists is their interest in the process of constant discovery, learning, open-mindedness and exploration on a global scale.

It is a daunting task and requires both listening — and contributing — to the dialogue about the ongoing process of global integration.

One thing that globalists do agree on is the importance of a keen awareness about the process of globalization. This integration process has been going on for hundreds of years.

At different stages, varying nations have been in the lead as a result of their specific courses of action. By the same token, the dynamic integration of the global economy does not — and cannot — predominantly serve the interests of any one nation, no matter how powerful.

Ideally, we are all globalists, as members of the human community and the global economy, living on the planet earth. As the economy evolves and pressure on the environment rises, so too should the debate about it and the many changes brought about by globalization.

Globalists watch closely as these changes occur — and take part in the debate. They make their contributions and insights heard. Thus, true globalists will have a direct impact on the process of globalization — and give the crucial debate about it a truer form and shape.

Another thing on which globalists tend to agree is that globalization, for all its faults, tends to advance — rather than retard — the agenda of global openness.

After all, due to the power of the media — in particular, social media — globalization’s failures and weaknesses are exposed more quickly and powerfully than ever before. This global spotlight gives perpetrators a strong incentive to correct their actions.

Such democratization is the key to ensuring that the positive power of globalization gets harvested while its potential harms are kept in check

As constructive globalists, the editorial team at The Globalist and our worldwide author network are not beholden to any particular national identity or interest. We tell stories, draw comparisons, analyze the issues and examine the arguments of all sides in the globalization debate — and we strive to do so clearly and cogently.

That is where we differ from many of the world’s traditional media, governments, corporations, think tanks or universities. They often limit their scope of analysis and interpretation in a crucial manner — by persistently advancing their own nation’s set of interests in the dialogue on globalization.

Viewing the sweeping changes in the global economy and politics through the prism of any nation often leads to misunderstanding — or outright fallacy.

Who Is a Globalist? - The Globalist

For all the talk about globalization and the global economy, we ask: Who is a globalist?

www.theglobalist.com

 

[Lastamender]

Anyone with a curiosity to learn about the world around them — and an ability to keep an open mind and an interest in sorting out the changes being wrought every day — can consider himself or herself a “globalist.”

Globalists are by no means an elite circle of business or political leaders determined to push forward their agenda in a rapid-fire fashion.

What unites globalists is a strong interest in understanding more about the modern global economy, politics and culture — and how these forces relate to each other.

A globalist, in short, is anyone dedicated to figuring out how the world hangs together. That includes sorting out the dynamic political and social changes associated with globalization, questioning them rigorously and seeking to correct them when necessary.

That is why our editorial focus is on presenting the many intriguing story lines from all corners of the world. At the core, we are dedicated to examining the premises and fallacies of conventional wisdom about the global landscape — with new features every day.

In doing so, we are not trying to give any definite answers. Rather, we lay out before you the results of the questions that intrigue us. Ultimately, we are putting together a mosaic — daily feature by daily feature — all in an effort to compose a broader picture.

Globalists understand that the cooperation of many individuals, institutions and corporations is needed to ensure that the potential fruits of globalization are spread throughout the world fairly and equitably. Globalists are committed to muting or eliminating globalization’s negative effects.

Thus, globalists believe that solid arguments — and not narrow-mindedness and demagoguery — are needed to bring all parties to a better understanding of their own role and responsibilities. In that vein, globalists place the highest possible emphasis upon exploration and open-mindedness.

In fact, many globalists have not formed set opinions one way or the other — either about the global economy, society, politics and culture or about globalization itself.

What unites globalists is their interest in the process of constant discovery, learning, open-mindedness and exploration on a global scale.

It is a daunting task and requires both listening — and contributing — to the dialogue about the ongoing process of global integration.

One thing that globalists do agree on is the importance of a keen awareness about the process of globalization. This integration process has been going on for hundreds of years.

At different stages, varying nations have been in the lead as a result of their specific courses of action. By the same token, the dynamic integration of the global economy does not — and cannot — predominantly serve the interests of any one nation, no matter how powerful.

Ideally, we are all globalists, as members of the human community and the global economy, living on the planet earth. As the economy evolves and pressure on the environment rises, so too should the debate about it and the many changes brought about by globalization.

Globalists watch closely as these changes occur — and take part in the debate. They make their contributions and insights heard. Thus, true globalists will have a direct impact on the process of globalization — and give the crucial debate about it a truer form and shape.

Another thing on which globalists tend to agree is that globalization, for all its faults, tends to advance — rather than retard — the agenda of global openness.

After all, due to the power of the media — in particular, social media — globalization’s failures and weaknesses are exposed more quickly and powerfully than ever before. This global spotlight gives perpetrators a strong incentive to correct their actions.

Such democratization is the key to ensuring that the positive power of globalization gets harvested while its potential harms are kept in check

As constructive globalists, the editorial team at The Globalist and our worldwide author network are not beholden to any particular national identity or interest. We tell stories, draw comparisons, analyze the issues and examine the arguments of all sides in the globalization debate — and we strive to do so clearly and cogently.

That is where we differ from many of the world’s traditional media, governments, corporations, think tanks or universities. They often limit their scope of analysis and interpretation in a crucial manner — by persistently advancing their own nation’s set of interests in the dialogue on globalization.

Viewing the sweeping changes in the global economy and politics through the prism of any nation often leads to misunderstanding — or outright fallacy.

Who Is a Globalist? - The Globalist

For all the talk about globalization and the global economy, we ask: Who is a globalist?

www.theglobalist.com

You push crap. I think you know you do. Find some more, the pile of shit is not high enough yet.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

You push crap…

He says … as he types away obliviously on his foreign-made tablet, telephone or computer!

 

[Lastamender]

He says … as he types away obliviously on his foreign-made tablet, telephone or computer!

Isn't everything foreign made? That does not change the fact that his posts are propaganda.

 

[Sixties Fan]

You push crap. I think you know you do. Find some more, the pile of shit is not high enough yet.

Isn't everything foreign made? That does not change the fact that his posts are propaganda.

Globalism refers to basically all nations depending on each other, especially in the past 100 years, of each other trading. And something happens, like covid or any wars, it sometimes affects the distribution of goods, like oil or baby formula.
What does your attack on Democrats in general have to do with how the world operates, and is dependent on, now?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Isn't everything foreign made? That does not change the fact that his posts are propaganda.

It doesn’t change the fact that he is right that we are all living our lives in a globalized economy, and that you still haven’t said one word about what you plan to do about it, or what you MAGAnuts propose to replace it with. You’re screaming about “globalism” and “globalists” being the enemy … but you are only highlighting your own hypocrisy and ignorance.

 

[Lastamender]

Globalism refers to basically all nations depending on each other, especially in the past 100 years, of each other trading. And something happens, like covid or any wars, it sometimes affects the distribution of goods, like oil or baby formula.
What does your attack on Democrats in general have to do with how the world operates, and is dependent on, now?

Bullshit. You are wasting your time repeating lies.