Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Biden locked up the Democratic nomination last week, but looking ahead to the general election, anxiety has seemed to increase.
You're viewing a single thread.
It makes sense. He's actually been competent, which not many (certainly not I) quite expected, but the media hasn't reported a lot of his successes, which have been unusually deployed and quite complex to begin with. People don't understand it. Maybe they'll vote for him anyway, but it's not assured, somehow even with Trump on the other side again.
e.g.how he blocked the railway strike at Christmas to save "the economy" first and foremost at the workers expense, but then kept working afterwards to help get most if not all of their demands met (I'm not sure if they got any sick leave though). Right or wrong, in the past that would have been hailed as a "huge success", but instead we barely heard about it.
Likewise with Gaza he has tried to toe the line - we technically have obligations to fulfill there, but does genocide change that, and if so what is the process by which to do that, and is he engaging in that, or doesn't Israel have a veto anyway, so what else is he doing that we might want done?
We have depended upon our media so much, to tell us not just what happened but what it means and how to feel about it all. So with it being bought out now by billionaires... it is like our fourth branch of government has become as unreliable as Congress and the Supreme Court.
I think the media is reporting Biden's accomplishments accurately when they happen, however nobody is really interested. The news media (particularly on TV) thrives on controversy, conflict, and violence, even if they have to exaggerate. "If it bleeds, it leads". Things working the way they ought to simply doesn't drive attention.
I often joked during the 2020 election that Biden's campaign should have been "Make Politics Boring Again". Good governance shouldn't make headlines. But there are some people who assume that if someone is out of the news, they must be irrelevant.
Oh I do not mean to suggest that they make false statements, just that they have an enormous bias, well as you said, towards providing "focused" coverage in some areas but then virtually nothing else.
So now he is trying to make his case to the American people, and like I guess he is worried (title of the OP) that nobody will believe him, b/c if he did good stuff then surely they would have heard of it (except... that is not the case - he did the good stuff, but they did not hear about it, at least not from the common news media).
And even that is irrelevant in a large sense, b/c Trump is in the news daily lately - but like, somehow that is working for him!? This is where I sigh and wonder if we will even have so much as the farce of a democracy a couple years from now, b/c if that is our mantra - that whatever the news shows is "good", while facts themselves are, if not "bad" then at least irrelevant? - then we deserve whatever we will have chosen for ourselves, at that time.
And yes, I know - "but they did...!" - and I am countering with "why didn't we do...?", like each individual state could implement some kind of ranked-choice voting? I don't know if that would work for the Presidential election, but if it would help with the members that we send to Congress and the Senate, then while it would take some few years, we could really change things, in less than a decade. But instead, I guess we just... won't?
Elections aren't about gaining voters, they're about getting yours to the polls. Trump constantly in the media fires up his base. Biden's base doesn't even like him yet.
As always, Dems are hoping that fear of what the other side would do if they won will drive its base to the polls. But as all the comments here show, I worry that that will not be the case.
e.g. people recall how Biden "slapped" the train workers - not so much forgetting as never even knowing in the first place that Biden stayed with the situation for months to help them get a good proportion of what they had asked for.
If facts do not matter so much to conservatives, who are in possession rather of "alternative facts" and then vote with their hearts rather than heads, so now too it seems that liberals are likewise receiving possibly a different set of "alternative facts", and may also (e.g. the Gaza situation) vote with their hearts rather than heads.
Not just the media, but perhaps worse, unverified strangers on the Internet though social media. The biggest thing that pisses me off is every time I the lesser of two evils argument spouted of paired with Biden's handing of something that 100% should fall in the domain of Congress to solve. So may things that historically have been attributed to the President were ultimately created and decided on by Congress and the public attributes way more power to the President than they actually have because of it.
If we want actual support to Gaza we need to push our congressional members to provide that support. Which is laughable because congress can't even pass a bill that had bipartisan support because half of one floor bends knee to the will of a private citizen. Biden keeps having to overreach his office with executive orders and policies that aren't backed by law and as such are highly transient and subject to constitutional review allowing them too be thrown out, as well as peace time commander-in-chief powers to do things like supply airdrops or back door old equipment sales to their other countries to affected groups.
The difference between Ukraine and Gaza is that unlike Ukraine, have does not have a unified Palestinian force that the US can safely supply arms to (HAMAS has actively proven that they are not the good guys) and that we're legally obligated to supply arms to Israel, which we are not to Russia. Biden can only sit loudly at Israel stating that genocide is bad threaten that this could lead to a withdrawal of US support, but he can't actually withdraw US support. Congress needs to provide a bill for him to sign that does that.
On a side note... I'm fairly convinced that a good chunk of the rhetoric spouted to not vote for Biden likely originated from foreign sources to plant the Idea in people's minds and get them to repeat it everywhere because on the surface it feels right. The vote any vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump rhetoric probably exists for similar reasons, mostly to help reinforce the thought that both sides are the same because it's quite easily proven not true and likely increases the odds that someone it's used to convince to vote for Biden ultimately ends up either withholding their vote in protest or voting for someone else out of spite.
Excellent points, truly.
Esp on congressional v presidential power/responsibility. I must admit im rather guilty of this, too. Its easy to hate on our cultures authoritarian tendencies that prevade in the stupidest fucking places, and yet i still consistently think, "wheres that marjuana legislation, Joe? Why arent you passing executive orders to prevent the intellectually challeneged baboon heading Texas from busing his responsibilities to my state? Or at least offer more executive support in handling the influx of ppl? Maybe something to give out more work visas, no?
Reading this tho reminds me, most all of that is legislative tasks. weve just all been brainwashed by years of executive encroachment to where the broken parts of our system behave extra broken.
Keep fighting the good fight. Your words hit hard.
The best way to think of it is that the presidents power is roughly bellcurved relative to how much Congress is in alignment with them. If Congress is completely out of alignment with them they have very little power because congress can pass a vote on what he vetos or issue a stop on any executive action he takes. If Congress is slightly in alignment or out of alignment he becomes able to singlehandedly stop laws and executive actions aren't likely to get overruled and will have up go under judicial review. If Congress is completely in alignment with him, he doesn't need to use his veto powers or executive actions and if he does they likely won't be contested anyway but we're generally better off with Congress passing a law.
If we all (very justifiably) believe that Trump would truly become a dictator if he wins in November, then it is clear that the president has the ability to wield tremendous power to radically remake our system.
Which means that Bidens failure to act on any given issue is a choice.
If Trump's administration would radically reshape the country through breaking norms, then Biden could do the same, but for beneficial purposes. We should ask ourselves why he is prioritizing procedural norms over real improvements to Americans standards of living. Why do we accept that The Rules are more important than our lives?
sigh being capable of wielding that much power is not supposed to happen is the point. Donnie dipshits potential to do so is enabled by the same problems that americans have been avoiding facing for years. The answer is not opening the door for the next in line to radically reshape everything they dont like, thats beyond inefficient. Instead, lets avoid opening up such a possibility that is only available to dump bc he wields a cult of personality made up of dinosaurs.
If u would like to pursue direct action rather than wait on electoral politics to change ur life, then i think u will find those are much more easily pursued in Biden's America v. Trumps. Enough so that taking the small amount of time itd take to vote for Status Quo Joe is worth it. Similarly, your local down ballot choices are also worth checking off based on who is best or least shit. We can effect greater change long term when ur local electoral politics are, for example, funding ur local schools sufficiently.
sigh
This sort of communication is incredibly unlikable and causes the median viewer to deeply dislike you and your positions. Which is perfect if you're trying to confirm to Americans that Democrats are elitists who don't care about normal people. If, however, you're trying to persuade people and win elections then you need an immediate attitude adjustment or you need to refrain from such discussions if you are unable to be likable
wielding that much power is not supposed to happen is the point.
Said a different way, drastically improving living standards for Americans is not supposed to happen, quickly or otherwise. Which is deeply unsatisfying and is a perfect argument for a 3rd party candidate
Americans have a consumer mentality. They have no interest in longterm solutions. They want their, very significant, societal problems to be fixed correctly and immediately. If Democrats refuse to use the full power of the federal government to achieve that expeditiously then Americans will vote for someone who claims that they will.
Being smug will not change any of that. We don't live in the world you want to live in, we live in the real world. If you want to persuade literally anyone then maybe it is more effective for you to behave accordingly
Whos being smug here? Youve boiled down everything i said to absolute nothing, all while ignoring the central thesis that aimless bitching about it solves nothing, and that if ur going to do something about it, then u might as well ensure that the maximum amount of people are capable of living bearable lives under the current regime. Youve also completely ignored my call for unity across the left leaning spectrum. You do all this not because im "smug," but bc, in this instance, u are a bad faith actor looking to be contentious.
Eta: and calling the problem consumerism is merely blaming the victims.
You're intentionally (or worse, unintentionally) being incredibly unlikable. RFK and the Green Party could use more online "activists" like yourself
Please stop trying to do anything to help the Democratic Party. Your personality is absolute poison for them winning Michigan Wisconsin, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.
Point of order, we are not legally bound to sell weapons to anyone. The Leahy Law actually bans the sale of weapons to countries or organizations credibly accused of war crimes. The creator of the Leahy Law has publicly said Israel should have been cut off by that law. Former civil servants have said that Israel gets a special vetting process that requires several political appointees to agree Israel is problematic. In contrast to any other country getting a single civil servant.
We are in fact taking great pains to send them weapons illegally.
We're not bound to sell weapons but we're bound to provide aid by a combination of Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952) which I can't find the text of from my phone... Need to wait till I'm near a computer to try again and Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991) which I linked elsewhere in the thread.
https://www.dsca.mil/programs/excess-defense-articles-eda Does explicitly allow the sale of arms to a list of nations from my understanding. This is a huge rabbit hole of laws and then exceptions to laws.
whether I personally agree any of this is right is a different story here
None of that matters if they're committing war crimes. That was the entire point of the Leahy Amendments and later the Leahy Law.
Yes. That's a question that has been raised by the US department of state that we might see an answer to in our life times of we're lucky.
Not likely. The Department of State has been shielding them from Leahy for decades. They setup a special committee just for Israel. To shield them from accountability for things like shooting protest medics on purpose; continuing to settle the West Bank in blatant violation of international law; holding thousands of Palestinians without charge; and just so much bombing of civilians.
Consider though what "unverified" means these days - the media circus is one of the three main sources that got Trump elected the last time (Hillary Clinton's corruption, e.g. with the DNC collusion, and Ted Cruz were the other two main ones iirc), so it seems like they have lost the public's trust?
Therefore if people turn to "unverified sources" - and who even is that really, like aren't Hank/John Green, Innuendo Studies, Kurzgesagt, CPG Grey, and then on the left the comedians like John Olivier, Jon Stewart, even fucking Bill Maher, and ofc on the right are those like Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, etc.? - can we really blame them, when the "verified" sources ARE lying to us? And keep in mind that people like Donald Trump, Mitch McConnel, Lindsey Graham, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bohbert, etc. are among the "verified" ones, yes? They are "verified" by virtue of having the seal of approval by authority.
Maybe you mean places like the CDC, FDA, FBI, etc., and while I whole-heartedly agree, many others do not agree. (Also, Republicans like Trump are constantly ordering them to say or not say some things, like removing all words "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" from the official documents, and Yellowstone National Park was even forbidden to collect temperature data any longer - plus look into why doing taxes sucks, and why the post office sucks, it all becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when these organizations are targeted for destruction and then they get to cite how "unreliable" they are later, as if one action had nothing whatsoever to do with the direct consequences of it.) Meanwhile, in authoritarian communist China and Russia, the "verified" sources could be among the least trustworthy of them all? Now, the USA is not that... we have our own whole other thing going on here, but in both cases people turn to "unverified" sources for the same reason, and imho it is not the presence of the unverified sources that should concern us nearly so much as the absence of good information from verified ones - by which I mostly mean news media, but in some highly specific cases government agencies too, when they are forced to comply by a Congressional order despite the facts, possibly remaining under attack for YEARS until the director is replaced by someone who will be more easily controlled.
Also, of COURSE a lot of this comes from outside sources - I thought this was verified at some point - but also it would be a huge missed opportunity for that particular foreign not to take advantage of that opportunity, and they definitely are not that stupid. Also we do it ourselves to other nations all the time. Water is wet, stones are hard, h8rs gonna h8 and cheaters gonna cheat - at some point I don't even blame them anymore - or rather I at least cease to be surprised - and start blaming ourselves more for falling for such cheap tricks, over & over again! It is hard to get out of an abusive relationship, I get that, but if we need to do it then we just need to get it done, somehow! Or else we will fall, as a nation - and ngl that has a much better chance of happening now than it did back when Trump ran the first time.
I was mostly using unverified in lacking sources and people not going through and verifying their sources before just blindly believing them. Which seems to happen a lot.
People see Biden did something and don't look into why Biden did the thing he did then start calling him every because he did the thing he did without understanding why he did it. It's a vicious circular loop that I've seen with pretty much every president we've had since I can remember.
Biden seems to be pretty conscious about remaining within the bounds of law so there's a good chance there's generally some obscure treaty or other random grouping of legal documents that when all bundled together cause the reaction we see. I like to look up what those are because I find it interesting but I can guarantee the bulk of people in this thread do not.
The TV show Designated Survivor did a good job portraying that IMHO. He had to agonize over every decision and try to find a way to do the right thing in the right manner. But I guess Trump's real-life antics were more exciting and so that show was too "boring" by comparison, being too intellectual like that, and got cancelled.
We are lazy, greedy, and judgemental. Our "stuff" all pushes us further in that direction - e.g. social media, algorithm based video players, and somehow predating computers bc boomers do it too - yet it is our own fault for choosing to engage in it, when there are choices to pull back instead. And by "we" I mean not just the USA but our whole Western culture, see e.g. Brexit.
Like the audacity for someone who dropped out of high school to claim that they know better than all of the MD and PhD educated scientists + all relevant U.S. governmental organizations too (CDC, FDA, NIH, NIAID) + worldwide ones as well (e.g., WHO), about vaccinations, disease, and viruses that are far too small to be seen with the unaided eye, is staggering. Though I watched some videos like Plandemic and such where the media personality, who are entirely uncredentialed, walked people through the process: "murder is bad, right?" -> "so killing of innocent little babies in the womb is bad, right?" -> therefore somehow equating that to taking the vaccine is likewise equivalent to murder? Brainwashing techniques are strong, especially when delivered from an authoritative source, which causes people to receive things emotionally rather than rationally, and far worse, unquestioningly - despite how e.g. the very Christian Bible itself says "test everything against what you know to be true".
Then again, the sheeple do not know how! This was done to our culture, so I do take pity, but also we allowed it, and more to the point some of us are working to KILL PEOPLE, e.g. by cutting off access to medical care. It's not like I want those who do that to simply die, but like... ranked choice voting might be something worth looking into enacting, in the more liberal leaning states that could potentially get it passed? e.g. if a child who does not know how to drive grabs the wheel of the car you are in, you may want to grab it BACK before bad things happen... bc the consequences of a crash could be REALLY severe.
Biden's handing of something that 100% should fall in the domain of Congress to solve. So may things that historically have been attributed to the President were ultimately created and decided on by Congress and the public attributes way more power to the President than they actually have because of it.
But the public is right to do this, particularly regarding international wars like Ukraine and Gaza. The United States has not declared war via Congress since 1942. Yet clearly we have fought plenty of wars since then solely under the command and authorization of the presidency alone. Which means there is 80+ years of precedence of creating an imperial presidency that authorizes Biden to act against both Russia and Israel. He is choosing not to avail himself of the precedent. And genocide is the result.
we're legally obligated to supply arms to Israel,
Israel is legally obligated not to engage in collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Yet, they are doing those acts anyway. The Constitution requires Congress to declare war. Yet Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the War on Terror, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine/Gaza demonstrate that is apparently an illusory Constitutional requirement. Laws are meaningless if there is no enforcement mechanism.
I'm fairly convinced that a good chunk of the rhetoric spouted to not vote for Biden likely originated from foreign sources to plant the Idea in people's minds
This is undoubtedly true. And it is a sad reflection of the weakness of our system, our historical actions, and the intellectual capabilities of our citizenry that it is as highly effective as it is. Trump will destroy The West if he is elected in November. And plenty of Americans don't have a problem with that because they don't understand what it means. Which is a consequence of neoliberal privatization and deregulation of all social programs, including public education.
As Malcolm X said, this is Chickens Coming Home to Roost. And, unfortunately for us who live in the United States today, an innumerable number of Chickens are coming home to roost in our very near future. I wish I had been born in Denmark or Norway - at least their social democratic safety nets would allow my community to thrive as the world burns around us
I wish I had been born in Denmark or Norway - at least their social democratic safety nets would allow my community to thrive as the world burns around us
I feel this in my soul.
They did get nominal sick leave. 3 days I think, which is better than the 0 they had previously, but still effectively useless.
edit FOUR sick days and the ability to convert 3 PTO days to sick days:
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
how can anyone that age be competent
not to be mean but the mind does age it does not magically stop because your name is Biden he has reached that age
he told those rail workers they could not strike or they would lose retirement and shit
he threatened them with their livelihoods fuck that old crony he promised to raise the minimum wage and fight for us workers
he hasn't quite the opposite
Silent Genocide Joe and Prosecutor Kamala Harris are not America's saviors neither is Trump
just older people refusing to let a younger generation take the reins while cashing checks from the corporations same as Trump and making sure the younger people are disenfranchised enough to not to take a stand
fucking sick either candidate get any support with the suffering and misery they have wrought
I can't disagree with the age argument, these dinosaurs need to step aside and let the world change.
I do want to know what exactly Biden has genocided. The two groups in this world who are driving genocides are Putin's and Netanyahu's regimes. Biden has no control over them, and the only group that could enact a foreign policy to do anything here in the US is Congress. So if anyone is complicit in that, it's our "Currently Genocidal by Inaction Congress."
I get it though, doesn't roll as nicely off the tongue.
[Edit: a poster below pointed out that my joke was bad and I should feel bad. ]
Camilla was a poor choice at vp no matter how you swing it given the current progressive opinion on police.
Biden has no control
He could stop sending a new shipment of the very weapons used to commit genocide with every day and a half.
It might not stop it immediately, but it would at least make it more difficult for Netanyahu's fascist apartheid regime to keep blowing the shit out of innocent civilians if they have to look elsewhere for the bombs to do so with.
Plus, there's hardly any way to be more clearly an accomplice to war crimes than insisting on sending weapons to be used to commit war crimes regardless of congressional approval.
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
First of all, no he isn't. In fact, it's illegal for the US government to supply arms that might be used in the commission of war crimes. In this case there's not even any doubt.
As for the GOP, they've already demonstrated that whether or not they try to impeach has nothing to do with reality. Even if they DID somehow manage to make impeachment stick by a one-vote majority, there's literally no risk that 2/3 of the senate will vote to convict, so that's not anything remotely resembling a valid excuse to keep contributing to a genocide either.
He actually is in the case that the initial arms shipment was sent, Israel was attacked by Hamas and he had to respond by sending aid. He has gone on record stating that the current war crimes Israel has been committing raise question of the legality of providing further support.
Obviously still remains to be seen if anything will actually come of that though. Words are cheap.
He has gone on record stating that the current war crimes Israel has been committing raise question of the legality of providing further support.
While continuing to send the weapons anyway, as much as he possibly can without congressional approval.
His public pretense at being a moderating influence means less than nothing as long as he keeps being an active supplier of the genocide.
There's no congressional approval needed as he is driven by treaty to provide arms, if anything he is compelled by Congress to send arms as long as Israel is at war as a US ally due to NATO.
He's trying to make the argument that Israel committing genocide with those arms is reason to withdraw support, unfortunately the US government moves at a glacial pace on it's best day to the point that the US military is actually somehow faster. Given the number of Democrats that do support Israel, its entirely realistic that he could get successfully impeached if he failed to comply.
Anyway... Thanks for the civil debate but work is starting so I need to go, I'll read your next message bit I probably won't have time to reply.
This is getting circular and I have better things to do with my day. Let's just agree to disagree.
Cool, sounds good to me. Thanks again, I was finding myself eagerly anticipating your responses because I was definitely learning some new things about why people dislike his handling of the Gaza genocides. You've made some really good points. I think he's made a good enough case at this point that NATO is no longer applicable in the case of genocide. At least with to protect him from retaliation if he did command a stop of US support to a NATO ally.
thereâs literally no risk that 2/3 of the senate will vote to convict
I dunno about that - Democrats are not "the same" as Republicans (some might have some ounce of integrity? wow that gave me a laugh, but still...), then too there is his own legacy to consider, and his own personal code of ethics. Look, I know, genocide, but still there is a distinction between content vs. process. And the latter it turns out, especially at a level of power that high up, is pretty damn important. The next President could use that same identical power for a far lesser ideal, and so on it goes and before you know it we have a King, not a President. This is the same reason why guilty people go free, so as to attempt to avoid putting innocent people into jail (I know, sometimes that happens too, unfortunately, but the goal should always be to minimize that).
Anyway, long story short: Repubs can huff & puff & try to blow the Dems house down all day long - and that pack of lies is on them - but what Biden chooses to do, is on him. And he is choosing to do this by the books. Which I kinda respect. If only the American people were not so divided - where half the nation wants to increase the military aid we are sending to Israel!! - then he + Congress could act swiftly. But we are divided so... instead we will not. Though keep in mind that if Trump comes to power, he + Congress will send more aid to Israel - and there's a not-insignificant chance that we may send more aid to Russia too (you read that right, not just stop sending aid to Ukraine but join with the aggressor there!). Yes, it can always get worse:-(.
I still think Biden should do more. Though I have to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to know what else he possibly could do.
I don't find that argument compelling at all without more of a source. As if we haven't already gone above and beyond in supplying arms and funding to Israel's government. Why should a piece of paper compel the United States to continue to unconditionally fund a genocide?
Let's not forget, Biden has gone out of his way to bypass Congress to provide further weapons to Israel. And his administration has repeatedly vetoed any UN resolutions pertaining to the situation.You can find the entire text of the treaty online btw. Google is enshittified now so I would not know how to search for it, but I do recall that I've seen it once:-).
But in general that is simply how America works: Congress passes the laws, then the President enforces those. The line gets blurry when the President suggests things to Congress to pass, like a budget, but ultimately if Congress refuses, there is nothing he can do (his power lies in vetoing laws that are passed, but there is no corresponding veto to anti-block things that they refuse to pass; with only minor exceptions possible e.g. changing how he uses his own budget to change things within solely the federal government - which Israel is not a part of).
This is to prevent a totalitarian regime from rising up, which the founding fathers seemed to fear more than just about anything, given how we started by kicking out the English King, and then we decided to build in protections to ensure that another local one could not rise up from within.
Summary of our obligations from the state department https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/
The two that apply here are that arms can be dispersed with only congressional notification and that we're have multiple bilateral defense agreements with them.
Hamas issued an attack on Israel which triggered the bilateral defense agreements and one way to remedy would be to deploy supplies to the region with congressional notification.
Just imagine the damage to the region if we took bilateral defense to it's logical conclusion and dispatched actual military aid.
This is not Biden "going around Congress". This is Congress explicitly granting permission in advance to do it as long as they are notified.
(Worth noting I've never looked this deeply into this before so I'm learning about this clown fiesta as well. It goes pretty deep...)
That might work if it werenât for the fact that Biden bypassed congress twice to sell Israel weapons.
Until he completely stops sending them weapons and vetoing UN resolutions then he is just as guilty as the people dropping the bombs
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
Can you show me the treaty and what it specifies?
It's the NATO agreement. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf
Article 5 is the one that got invoked by the Hamas attack
As stated in another thread, at this point Biden has done enough to cover against any legal retaliation however, and 100% command a withdrawal of US support as Israel has actually been using the supplies to commit war crimes
Israel is not a member of nato, and article 5 only applies in Europe and North America.
You might want to reread that
Ah you are correct. They are a non-nato ally as they are out of geographical scope.
This world be applicable though.
From what I can tell, that just makes it easier to sell them weapons, not necessary. Feel free to correct me though
I canât disagree with the age argument, these dinosaurs need to step aside and let the world change.
There's a whale of a lot of wisdom and experience younger, less experienced folks can learn from those "dinosaurs".
Sure, but there is also a lot of updated knowledge those dinosaurs could lean from the "less experienced" folks.
Especially when it comes from science, sociology, technology, and plenty more.
Hertsogâs regimes.
Who on Earth are you talking about?
Current president of Israel
First of all, his name is Herzog. Secondly, it isn't his regime because he is only nominally in charge due to the president of Israel having limited powers.
Are you under the impression that Israel's president is like the U.S. president?
Israel has a parliamentary system. The prime minister has supreme executive power. The prime minister of Israel is Benjamin Netanyahu.
That's actually sorta that joke, the US president is roughly as capable of commiting genocide as the president of Israel.
As for misspelling his name... Thanks Google? I'll fix it.
Which the joke was probably not well delivered as it would probably have flown over that other guys head anyway...
Then it's not a good joke since the U.S. president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, meaning that a U.S. president could absolutely commit genocide. And has done so many times with indigenous Americans.
The last one also caused a huge number of "excess deaths" as well...
Only with clearance from Congress though. I actually did not realize that Israel's president did not serve as cic.
Only with clearance from Congress though.
Absolutely not true. Only for prolonged conflicts... which congress will almost definitely approve of by the time that happens because the military will already be too embedded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
And even the limits on the War Powers Resolution have only been in place since 1973.
I see, so essentially they would state that it was in defense of the United States because it is was onshore and is there's nothing Congress could do about it.
That's actually really horrifying if someone like trump takes the presidency given his current threats...
Age: Yup, mostly.
On the bright side, neither President would likely actually do much of anything personally, but rather act as a prop for whatever team they choose to actually accomplish things behind the scenes.
And while I do worry about Biden's age, I also worry about Trump's too. What choices are we being offered there even? That ship has already sailed.
To be fair to Biden, he did keep his promise to those railway workers, to stay with them to negotiate better terms. They lost the urgency to have it all done prior to the holiday season, but they gained his involvement and that might even have worked out better for them than if they had tried it alone? But I truly don't know the details there, b/c while the news media splashed it up every single day when it was inflationary, they dropped it like a rock when he quietly got stuff done in the background.
He has delivered on at least some of his promises to workers. He needs to do more ofc, but also, he has been working towards that goal - e.g. it was REALLY, SUPER, EXTREMELY difficult to have lowered gas prices, and the ethics of how it eventually got done are even more than a little shady but... he managed it? Not everyone drives a car ofc, but both those who need one to get to work and those who buy things at stores should be highly grateful to him, but instead they just want more.
As they should - we all NEED more. And if elected again, he will work towards that, just as he has in the last four years. Though most of the lack of progress is due to Congressional bickering and in-fighting - did you know that the fiscal year for 2024 began back in fucking OCTOBER!? We are now in month number fucking SIX, almost ready to begin number seven, and we STILL do not have a budget for THIS YEAR!!! That is not the job of the President, that is solely on the feet of people like Matt Gaetz and Kevin McCarthy and now Mike Johnson. Speaking of, Trump will do even less for the working-man - he will CLAIM to do more, but he will ACTUALLY do less, just as he did before too, which is the largest part of what got us into this mess in the first place - e.g. with supply lines disrupted b/c of so very many truckers who flat-out died from COVID.
It helps to read between the lines: a President CANNOT simply "raise the minimum wage" - that's not within their job capabilities - he can only be receptive to and even outright PUSH Congress to do that. Which he sort has done but... see above.
Silent Genocide Joe and Prosecutor Kamala Harris are not Americaâs saviors neither is Trump
Abso-fucking-lutely. But we still have a choice what to do about it. Though one thing I agree with: Biden and Harris are NOT "the same" as Trump. Bad yes, but nowhere close to equally so. And "support" means different things depending on the context: imagine an abused spouse needing to divorce and get away - remaining there vs. leaving are both "bad" options, but one will result in a much better outcome, eventually, while the other may be suicide. It is not that they "want" to, they HAVE to, b/c the alternative is SO MUCH worse off. I feel your pain - I abso-fucking-lutely share it, but in a way, I suppose I "support" Biden too, as the lesser of two evils. (And even there, my main reservation is his advanced age, which as I mentioned earlier, what choice are we even being offered there at all, when his opponent is even older than him!?)
His opponent isn't older than him. Trump is 4 whole years younger.
Thank you for the correction. I keep forgetting b/c Trump is the one in diapers who can barely walk down a ramp, while Biden stumbles while walking up the stairs. Neither can control their tempers and both have slurred speech, though Biden can pull it together occasionally whereas Trump never seems to.
For the job of President of the most militarily powerful nation on earth, they are both older than dirt, though as you pointed out, not equally so.
I used to think like that, sorta.
Read Kegan & Lahey's "Immunity to Change" book, on people's unconscious-mind's mechanism for fighting-off growing-up.
Then let it percolate in your mind for a few decades, while you watch humankind's process.
I'd now make a law requiring that the top people be Kegan5 unconscious-mind-development ( he calls 3, 4, & 5 something like "socially-based sentience", rooted in needing to feel liked, "self-authoring" mind, which I call Bulling-BOSS mode, it's an obnoxious mode male-culture values because it's so "alpha".
Youtube's Wranglerstar & Veritasium are both poster-people for it, 1 in working-class Kegan4 the other in middle/upper-middle-class Kegan4, & both displaying Kegan4's obnoxiousness.
I spent most of my adult life in it, and wish I could just retroactively slice most of my life from Universe.
"systems-of-systems" mode is Kegan5. )
it's consistent that if you field a Kegan3 person to be your negotiation-representative, and the other side fields a Kegan4, you're run-over.
If you field a Kegan5 & they field a Kegan4, you're run-over.
IF they field a Kegan4, THEN you need equal/opposite bullying, in order that the zero-sum-game not beat your side to shit.
However, IF they have the uprightness to field a Kegan5 & you can too, THEN Win-Win becomes possible.
Young-adults, Kegan3's ( the Kegan3 stage can continue for the entire rest of a person's life, from post-adolescence to 100yo or more, but it is mentally/psychically a young-adult stage ), cannot accept that evil is real, the way someone mentally-older can.
Kegan3's are in the absorbing experience into their unconscious-mind, stage.
Kegan4's are in the pushing meaning out of their unconscious, "authoring" themselves through that unconscious-pushing-out process stage.
Kegan5's are in the this is true for them, that is true for these other people, the-other is true for me, and this is how it all fits together stage.
I'd not permit any naive Kegan3's to rule any major operation, nor permit any zero-sum-game-"validity" Kegan4's to rule anything important.
That book gives people the means of converting fighting-off-growing-up to actually-successfully-growing-up, and so it is worth many life-years or life-decades, to many.
Nobody in the whole world has any reason to accept that my values have any validity in them, though, that is true.
All who hold that there is no understanding which should be prerequisite to authority, well they all outnumber me, don't they?
shrug
This I've found tests to be true, however.
( bonus point:
it has been published that the DreamTeam formation is a team-of-7, with 2 who match the Kegan5 mental-development, 2 who match the Kegan4 mental-development, & 3 who match the Kegan3 mental-development.
The Kegan4's bursting with ideas, but not understanding all the systems-of-systems gotchas, means the team is more likely to be able to innovate,
the Kegan5's, if they can do it without demolishing the Kegan4's morale, can ask questions to corner the Kegan4's into considering all sorts of things they hadn't, so they prevent lots of stupid mistakes,
& the Kegan3's are the "glue" which holds the team coherent & harmonious.
I'm mixing multiple sources together, but they really were identifying the same thing, only each was doing-so without some of the other pieces.
New Scientist had an article on The Dream Team, years ago, Chris McGoff's book "The Primes" is part of it, the Kegan & Lahey book is part of it, some HBR stuff as well, perhaps some stuff from the managers-of-programmers books, what's her name, Roth? can't remember...
fit it together, though, and it fits properly: there is a balance which produces working momentum, instead of institutional-mentality, and that working momentum is based on the substance of the minds of the people in the team, and ignoring the unconscious-mind-development stage .. is ignoring the BIG part of each person's iceberg.
: )
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Iâll bite, what are the obligations we have towards them?
I do not know the specifics, but some kind of a contract - "provide for the defense against attack" and such.
Ofc you could argue that genocide could invalidate that contract, though much like the outright war crimes happening in Ukraine, you would have to prove that, to a governing body (and again, doesn't Israel have a veto power there?). Also Biden then loses any negotiation leverage he had to employ the carrot rather than the stick.
Also, there is whatever reason (cough oil cough) that we made the contract in the first place. If gas prices suddenly spike through the roof, Americans will complain bitterly and LOUDLY, and place ALL of the blame onto Biden, with NONE of it going to Israel.
Also, none of this matters really, b/c the job of President entails enforcing the contracts, not making up new ones - that is the job of Congress, who despite the fact that the 2024 federal budget started last October (look it up) STILL has not managed to pass the budget for THIS YEAR, 2024. We are nearly halfway through the ENTIRE YEAR - five months and 2 & 1/2 weeks behind us already - and despite ousting McCarthy and replacing him with Johnson, Congress is still gridlocked. Especially on this matter. And on Ukraine. And on the border. And on literally everything else.
People forget: but it is the job of Congress, not the President, to make funding decisions, like what monies go to what other country - otherwise he is bound to simply enforce whatever contracts were PREVIOUSLY signed, and there is only so much he can do to change that without their approval. This is what democracy looks like: to enforce the will of the people, who unfortunately are a divided nation right now, particularly on this matter where half the nation wants to send aid to Hamas, while the other half wants to send further aid (as in MOAR weapons) instead to Israel.
So you donât know anything about it and decided to just make up your own story?
Come on man
Ofc you could argue that genocide could invalidate that contract, though much like the outright war crimes happening in Ukraine, you would have to prove that, to a governing body (and again, doesn't Israel have a veto power there?)
The United States is the global hegemon. We are not bound by any agreement. And, inevitably, our lawyers can find ways for us to act however we want in such a way that it does not technically violate any agreement we are a party to. No one can bind us against our will.
And no, Israel does not have "veto power" before any international body. Certainly not at the UN or WTO