In hindsight I don't think he was the right guy due to his inexperience so that illustrates my point. I am not debating if the candidate needs to be an outsider to win, I would just prefer to have somebody with experience so they can continue to actually get **** done. I am not saying they need to have 20 years in the federal gov just not 2 years after being a preacher or a bartender.
I don't disagree with you, but it's worth pointing out that you and I are not the entire Democratic electorate umbrella that needs to be consolidated to beat the MAGA right. You gotta make the playoffs if you want a chance to win a championship, and for that reason it's hard to say that Obama was the wrong choice even if he only got ACA passed, and that's about it (I think you could argue that he did more but it's besides the point). Obama won and in his first term had a super majority. Hard to argue against that from a setup for success standpoint. In the end, his value has to be weighed with his ability to turnout the Dem coalition in the first place to even get in the position to do something in the White House. So I don't think Warnock or whoever is or isn't the answer. I'm just saying that we gotta keep in mind who Biden's coalition is first and foremost... and it aint just me and you who are probably considered political junkies at this point. (slowing getting my life back).
Yeah we are thinking alike. And I think Obama did a lot more than just getting the ACA passed, I just think he was to cautious and a lot of that was because of inexperience but also his temperament.
Yeah and I think everyone (myself included) really underestimated how looney the right would go. Most thought Democracy was here to stay, and the norms would hold. In that world it's easy to see how Obama could be viewed in retrospect as the wrong man for the moment if he was by all measures the right man for the moment. That's why it's so hard now to really guage what the Democratic party should look like in two or four years. Like where the heck are we even going to know who is best suited to steer that ship? I really don't know.
the joke has been, during the trust fund presidency, seemingly, it was infrastructure month, every month; and nothing happened the fact that, 5 months into his presidency, Biden had already reached a bi-partisan deal on infrastructure underscores how inept Trump is Biden announces bipartisan infrastructure agreement, "We have a deal"
Biden's 1st biggest accomplishment was kicking out Trump. If he sat around and did literally nothing else, I genuinely believe he saved the republic. 2nd, Covid is finally under control. Fortunately, he's still doing plenty more ...as today illustrates.
lol "Instant Bipartisan Double Cross": https://www.wsj.com/articles/instant-bipartisan-double-cross-11624574163 Instant Bipartisan Double Cross Biden and Pelosi hold a Senate deal hostage to the rest of their agenda. By The Editorial Board June 24, 2021 6:36 pm ET Politicians in Washington renege on their bipartisan promises all the time, but what are we to make of a deal in which one side admits it is pulling a bait and switch from the start? That was the astonishing news Thursday as President Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosiendorsed a bipartisan Senate infrastructure deal even as they said the price of their support is getting the rest of their agenda too. Mr. Biden stood with five Democratic and five Republican Senators at the White House and endorsed their trillion-dollar infrastructure outline. Back-slapping and self-plaudits all around. But two hours later the President said he won’t sign the infrastructure bill unless the Senate also passes the other $3 trillion or more he has proposed in tax increases and multiple new entitlement programs. “What we agreed on today is what we could agree on. The physical infrastructure. There’s no agreement on the rest,” Mr. Biden said. “If this is the only thing that comes to me, I’m not signing it.” Mrs. Pelosi issued the same ultimatum: “We will not take up a bill in the House until the Senate passes the bipartisan bill and a reconciliation bill” (that could pass without GOP support). Most politicians at least wait a decent interval to pull a double cross. But Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Biden are trying to prevent a revolt on the left. So they are now holding a bipartisan deal hostage to the left’s demands. This is political blackmail aimed at Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema who are part of the bipartisan Senate Gang of 10: Unless they sign on to all of the progressive tax-and-spend agenda, they won’t get their bipartisan deal. And Mr. Biden and progressives will blame them for the failure. This is remarkable bad faith even for Washington. We’ll have more to say about the details of the bipartisan deal as they emerge. But Thursday’s comments make clear this exercise isn’t bipartisan at all. The Pelosi-Biden political goal is to use this Senate deal as leverage to jam through the rest of their progressive wish list. The question is why Senate Republicans would sign on to this deal when they are being told to their faces they’ll be double-crossed. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell expressed appropriate doubt due to the bait and switch late Thursday. Some Republicans hope the bipartisan deal will make it harder to pass a reconciliation bill by taking away the popular infrastructure bits. But unless Republicans know that Mr. Manchin or other Democrats won’t support a Pelosi reconciliation bill, that hope appears to have died on Thursday. Appeared in the June 25, 2021, print edition.
Yea, I think that is a mistake. He needs to sign this deal as he agreed to. Then independently continue to pursue the remainder of his agenda later.
Do you not understand how reconciliation works ? You have to pass a budget resolution and draw up the bill in committee. The process takes a minimum month and usually 2-3. The cutoff for reconciliation this year is end of September and next year with midterms congress won't take up any big bills. Biden knows he has one chance at this and is going big. The bipartisan was always bs to give manchin cover for when this blows up he can go solo. Now manchin and sinema are in board with reconciliation and manchin looks like a hero back home. Trump praised Manchin last week on foxnews for his guts to stand up to Schumer. It's all a game for him to build up political capital back home in a state trump carried by 70%. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...emocratic-only-infrastructure-bill-inevitable Biden will guarantee to get a 2 trillion bill through with the biggest expansion of social services since 60s. If you read the reporting in politico the democratic leadership knows they'll lose the house next year and won't get it back for possible a decade until next redistricting
If Democrats are doing things because they think we are going to lose the house, they are doing it wrong. I mean how did we get the house in 2018? With Republicans losing support among the suburbs i'm not so sure there is a great redistricting plan.
Nope, I don't understand how reconciliation works. What I DO understand is keeping your word. I think it's a bad look. Call me naïve but I'm a believer of the golden rule. All that said, Republicans don't care about bad looks ...as evidence of how they treated the supreme court nomination.
"White House scrambles to manage fallout of Biden’s ‘tandem’ remarks": https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/25/biden-infrastructure-bill-496412
the Tuskegee Airmen slip is pretty damn funny https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...and-kicking-off-a-community-canvassing-event/ transcript: There’s a reason why it’s been harder to get African Americans, initially, to get vaccinated: because they’re used to be experimented on — the Tuskegee Airmen and others. People have memories. People have long memories. It’s awful hard, as well, to get Latinx vaccinated as well. Why? They’re worried that they’ll be vaccinated and deported. more at the link
Why Biden got tripped up on his own infrastructure deal https://theweek.com/politics/1002040/why-biden-got-tripped-up-on-his-own-infrastructure-deal Before he launched his presidential campaign, Joe Biden was known as a one-man gaffe machine. But verbal flubs didn't become a significant problem during the campaign, and they haven't been an issue since Biden became president — at least until last Thursday. That's when he seemed to threaten to veto the very infrastructure bill he'd just negotiated with a bipartisan group of moderates in the Senate. By Saturday, he'd walked it back, claiming he'd never intended to imply a veto. Fine — but there's a reason why Biden ended up stepping into this mess: Because the incentives surrounding the infrastructure package are incoherent, necessitating either a veto from the president or the collapse of the process in Congress. Unless one of the factions — moderate senators, progressive Democrats in the House, or the administration — does something highly unlikely and changes its position, we will end up with nothing at all. Biden and the bipartisan group of senators spoke to the press last Thursday because they were proud of the deal they'd reached, agreeing in principle to move forward on a bill spending nearly $600 billion to fund a wide range of physical infrastructure projects like highways, bridges, and tunnels. But progressive Democrats in the House are far more intent on passing a much bigger bill that Republicans uniformly oppose — one focused on "human infrastructure," including elder and child care, paid family leave, and efforts to curb climate change, along with tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations. Both of these bills were contained in the administration's original infrastructure proposal. The whole point of dividing that proposal into two bills was to get moderates to support a smaller bill that needs to clear a 60-vote threshold in the Senate while allowing the rest of Biden's original bill to pass without Republican support using the reconciliation process that only requires a party-line vote of 51. But now congressional Democrats are threatening to oppose the smaller bill if the bigger one doesn't also pass. In seeming to promise a veto of the first bill, Biden was merely trying to show he's going along with the demand of his party's progressive wing that the two bills get signed into law or go down to defeat together. But that puts the party's progressives in the role of hostage takers, with Biden seeming to act as their enablers. Why would the Senate moderates (especially the Republicans among them) vote for a bill that is the necessary condition for the passage of another bill they don't want? That makes precisely as much sense as Biden threatening to veto the bill he just negotiated, which makes no sense at all.
And as someone who's been there, there is a massive difference between the US dedicating 1% if their power into one country performing COIN operations trying to set up a new government and training said government to be able to enforce its will vs just going in and annexing the country with a full in invasion. The Taliban would have zero chance if all the US cared about was seizing the country. Zero. Because the tactic wouldn't anymore be having a squad of 8-12 Marines on foot doing COIN operations in a village with very sporadic air support but rather entire tank battalions rolling up with a bombardment of air power preceding it. When it comes to the homeland, expect 100% of our operational power being used to keep power of said homeland. Defending the homeland has a different level of priority than successfully installing a new government in some far off third world nation that most Americans will never step foot in.
There are a lot of unknowable factors regarding a hypothetical scenario where the U.S. citizenry is in any type of action against the U.S. government. Political divisions within the citizenry, popularity of the regime etc etc.. To say, "YoU'D NeEd F-15'S BrO" or "tHe GoVerNmeNt has NukEs" is such an unnuanced and unthoughtful way to look at the any number of scenarios which could arise in the future. You don't need to completely compete with the U.S. military toe-to-toe on the battlefield to engage in an insurgency which could topple a regime in any numbers of ways.
