|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 31, 2023 9:47:05 GMT -5
PS: Biden didn't cause inflation to increase, He also doesn't deserve much credit for its having fallen. But I read that we're now at about 3.3% annual inflation. The inflation rate under Reagan was 4.7%. It's currently 5.3% in the Eurozone. Propaganda aside, the economy is pretty good right now (knock on wood). Let's hope that continues.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Aug 31, 2023 9:59:51 GMT -5
McConell’s service is not called into question because he is a Republican, it is attacked because that’s politics in America. Remember John Kerry? The swift boat thing?Politics in America is a blood sport for both sides. Which also speaks to the concerns about the age of McConell, Feinstein, and Biden. I see a constant drum beat that Biden is too old for the job, which apparently reasonates with 77% of the electorate. Biden’s only hope of winning a second term is to have Trump as the Repub nominee, and then it’s questionable.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by John B on Aug 31, 2023 10:15:45 GMT -5
Beyond that, the thread's fascination with a doddering old man is just too rich for words. Doddering only matters when it's a Republican like McConnell or Reagan. And the comments are made with Biden in office. The hypocrisy is just too rich for words. I think folks have pointed out the issue on both sides, e.g., Feinstein which is a SERIOUS issue, and the fact that they would include Biden if they weren't afraid of what Harris would do. If Biden was 20-30 years younger I don't think I would be investigating so many Republican candidates this early. I very well might put age over party, so to speak, if I think I can live with the alternative.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 31, 2023 10:47:14 GMT -5
Biden is 80. Trump is 77.
Biden is slim and eats vegetables. Trump is fat and gobbles down Big Macs and Sugar Pops.
Either could kick off any time, but I expect most doctors would put money on Biden outlasting Trump.
Mentally? It is matter of opinion, but mine is that Biden has been a rational actor while Trump is deranged.
Any partisan charge of "too old" is a boomerang. Both are too old. But, both are where they are because too few of the people that matter want anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 31, 2023 11:08:20 GMT -5
too few of the people that matter want anyone else. This is the weird one. Everyone we all know -- without exception -- wants someone else. Maybe that's an exaggeration. I doubt it. Do you really know anyone whose first choice is either Biden or Trump? I don't. And I didn't know anyone thus inclined in 2020. So who are these "people that matter"? ...and why are we powerless to change this?
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,958
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub on Aug 31, 2023 11:10:49 GMT -5
It’s long been my belief that U.S. presidents generally have or take a lot less latitude than we give them credit for. Most presidents try to surround themselves with top experts who also share at least some of their vision. President Trump is the only one I can think of who surrounded himself primarily with sycophants and expected absolute obedience. With him, it seemed that “draining the swamp” meant eliminating anyone hoping to exercise independent thought.
I think that, for the most part, presidents listen to the people they’ve appointed and to to key government officials whose employment predates their administrations. Most U.S. presidents don’t mistrust the country and it’s government, they only seek to guide it successfully toward the goals they have in mind. Most people, both in and out of government, don’t regard the President as some kind of sovereign king whose every wish must be anticipated and carried out without question.
I don’t worry about Biden’s government running off the tracks in his absence. His administration is not founded on his personality and the wisdom (such as it is) of his administration doesn’t depend on his constant control. We know that fecal material occurs regardless of the intent of the who is president and that praising the president for all things good or damning the president for all thing bad isn’t a useful way to view our situation.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 31, 2023 11:17:54 GMT -5
President Trump is the only one I can think of who surrounded himself primarily with sycophants and expected absolute obedience. How do you know this? How would he compare in this regard to FDR who by all accounts was utterly authoritarian? (by the way, I do mostly agree with your post. I just don't accept that Trump was different. I do accept that he was reported as different. But I also don't agree that most people don't look at the president as a sovereign king. I think most people DO view him that way. And that's just one of the many things broken about our political life and our government.)
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 31, 2023 11:21:42 GMT -5
"So who are these 'people that matter'? ...and why are we powerless to change this?"
I don't think there are any hidden power brokers. It's just people and votes. "We" aren't powerless. Biden was the consensus candidate, all things considered, even though (I would guess) most voters had a different preference. I'd have preferred Amy Klobuchar but I could live with Biden. I know a lot of people who would have preferred Bernie Sanders but they could live with Biden. It's all a big compromise. Maybe that's what it has to be.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 31, 2023 11:24:24 GMT -5
"So who are these 'people that matter'? ...and why are we powerless to change this?" I don't think there are any hidden power brokers. It's just people and votes. "We" aren't powerless. Biden was the consensus candidate, all things considered, even though (I would guess) most voters had a different preference. I'd have preferred Amy Klobuchar but I could live with Biden. I know a lot of people who would have preferred Bernie Sanders but they could live with Biden. It's all a big compromise. Maybe that's what it has to be. Then it isn't "people that matter", is it? If it as you suggested, it's just "the people", not "the people that matter", right?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 31, 2023 11:36:34 GMT -5
I meant that there's no separate category of "people that matter." It's just the people who cast their votes. They decide everything.
Except for money, of course. I'd like to regulate and curb campaign spending. Thanks to our Supreme Court, that's not doable.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 31, 2023 11:47:33 GMT -5
It seems to me that your second paragraph contradicts your first. If it's about the money, then "people that matter" are a different category from "the people", in which case, the implication is completely different and there IS a class of people "people that matter" that are deciding these things for us, and we have the leadership THEY want, and not what the people want. Maybe?
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,958
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub on Aug 31, 2023 12:03:27 GMT -5
President Trump is the only one I can think of who surrounded himself primarily with sycophants and expected absolute obedience. How do you know this? How would he compare in this regard to FDR who by all accounts was utterly authoritarian? (by the way, I do mostly agree with your post. I just don't accept that Trump was different. I do accept that he was reported as different. But I also don't agree that most people don't look at the president as a sovereign king. I think most people DO view him that way. And that's just one of the many things broken about our political life and our government.) I know this only through the news outlets I read. * I try to understand any POV my sources may have and I am not, in general, suspicious of traditional major news outlets. I may be the only one here who remembers listening to FDR speak over the radio. Many presidents have been authoritarian, RMN and LBJ spring immediately to mind. Still, they relied on the expert (as opposed to opinionated) advice of others in their administrations. *I only read news, I rarely watch or listen to news broadcasts. I read AP, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, Des Moines Register (AKA USA Today) Cedar Rapids Gazette, The Guardian and others.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 31, 2023 12:18:25 GMT -5
On old age and politicians (or teachers or doctors or lawyers or plumbers): What exactly are the age-related requirements of the job? In every one of the categories I listed, accumulated experience matters (as do basic intelligence and skill-set mastery). Physical abilities come into play with plumbers and doctors*, but for the other professions, it takes a lot of physical disability or frailty to seriously interfere with the performance of duties. And for lawyers and politicians, some of the tiring routine stuff is taken care of by staff anyway.
Despite the frequent assertion from right-wing propagandists, I don't see Biden as physically or mentally impaired (his stammer notwithstanding). And even if McConnell is developing a Parkinson's-like condition, there's a good chance that it doesn't interfere with what he's really good at**, which is back-room politicking (that LBJ comparison is a good one). Feinstein, on the other hand, is pretty clearly in age-related neurological trouble.
I'm two years younger than Biden and a two years older than Trump, and they're both at least as spry as I am--Biden maybe spryer, since he gets some exercise. Intellectually, I'm as good as I was fifty years ago. So is my 78-year-old wife. Neither of us is ague-proof (to cite Lear), but we're both still fully functional professionally. And in my case, at least, the accumulation of experience probably has improved my judgment. (C. was always pretty wise, despite her decision to marry me.)
Looking back at this post, it's possible that I'm showing one sign of advanced age: garrulousness. But I'm a pretty well-informed talkative old codger. I don't live in the past, but I did live through it, which is a different thing altogether.
*I've talked to Terry about retirement age for doctors and agree with him about surgeons getting out of the business at 60 or so, but not about diagnosticians.
** My musical friend's form of Parkinson's at first prevented him from playing cornet but did not at all interfere with his thinking or other musical abilities--he shifted to his secondary skill-set of arranging. And with some therapy, he returned to the cornet for a while before the Parkinson's returned and finally killed him in 2020. For the record, he was Peter Ecklund.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 31, 2023 12:19:22 GMT -5
The people that matter are the people that vote in the primaries.
And the people that respond to opinion polls. Which, in effect, are just another primary.
Not complicated or secretive. Painfully simple.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Aug 31, 2023 12:27:30 GMT -5
It seems to me that your second paragraph contradicts your first. If it's about the money, then "people that matter" are a different category from "the people", in which case, the implication is completely different and there IS a class of people "people that matter" that are deciding these things for us, and we have the leadership THEY want, and not what the people want. Maybe? It's the people who vote in primaries. Or the people who vote in the early primaries. The ones who determine the candidates by the rules set out by the respective parties. They are typically far to the left (D) or far to the right (R) as compared to their party as a whole. Which is why candidates tend to tack as far to the edges as they can during primary season and (at least for the Ds) frantically try to get close to the middle in time for elections. And yes, we end up with the candidates THEY want, not necessarily what "The People" want.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Aug 31, 2023 12:42:55 GMT -5
We don’t respond to polls anymore because we don’t answer the phone unless the caller is known to us. If it’s a legit call they can leave a message, most don’t.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 31, 2023 12:53:45 GMT -5
"It seems to me that your second paragraph contradicts your first. If it's about the money, then "people that matter" are a different category from "the people", in which case, the implication is completely different and there IS a class of people "people that matter" that are deciding these things for us, and we have the leadership THEY want, and not what the people want. Maybe?"
I see why you might find the statements inconsistent but I don't think they are. Money can't literally buy an election. It can buy influence over the voters' preferences. That can affect the votes that determine the outcome.
Lots of things affect the people's preferences. That includes Fox News, the New York Times and the Russians (according to the Mueller report). But in the end the result turns on people and how they choose to vote, not some hidden cabal. We aren't powerless to improve things because the system isn't the problem. The system works fine. We, as voters, are the problem.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 31, 2023 12:56:23 GMT -5
I think the "primaries are dominated by the fringes" deal is overplayed. Not that it isn't a hand, just an over-played one.
Trump wasn't and isn't the choice of "fringe" Republicans, he is the solid choice of a wide swath of run of the mill Republicans. The fringe R's are the ones polling at 2%. That's a fringe. 2%. 40% isn't a fringe.
It's true that caucuses, traditional caucuses that select delegates to represent a precinct, can be, and often are, filled with nutjobs (but a closer analysis might indicate that those nutjobs are very representative of the party as a whole).
But, it's more true that opinion polls and the primaries have replaced traditional caucuses, and both are very open and easy to participate in and do represent a very broad, and fair, slice of the electorate (we the people).
Even the argument that money rules stumbles when faced with the greater influence of opinion polls and primaries. Money flows to the winners, not the losers.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 31, 2023 13:16:58 GMT -5
"And yes, we end up with the candidates THEY want, not necessarily what 'The People' want."
I don't agree that the typical voter in Democratic primaries in my state is far to the left. Biden defeated Sanders in the last presidential primary here.
In any event, the purported distinction is between those who vote in the primary ("They")and everybody else ("The People"). The solution is to vote in your party's primary. If someone doesn't and then complains about the outcome, I don't have much sympathy.
(This isn't a criticism of you, John B. You just happened to be talking about this.)
|
|
|
Post by John B on Aug 31, 2023 15:20:17 GMT -5
"And yes, we end up with the candidates THEY want, not necessarily what 'The People' want." I don't agree that the typical voter in Democratic primaries in my state is far to the left. Biden defeated Sanders in the last presidential primary here. In any event, the purported distinction is between those who vote in the primary ("They")and everybody else ("The People"). The solution is to vote in your party's primary. If someone doesn't and then complains about the outcome, I don't have much sympathy. (This isn't a criticism of you, John B. You just happened to be talking about this.) I do vote in primaries, but I don't believe I have ever lived in a state where the primary was held before the nominee had already been determined. Maybe CA?
|
|