easyrider16 wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '24, 10:13
Not fond of Biden but it's hard to argue with most of his policy implementation right now. He may come across as a bozo but his administration is working better than Trump's ever did. Low Rider credits him with more than I would as I don't think he's responsible for the stock market, gas/oil or low unemployment, but he should get credit for Chips act, infrastructure bill, veterans bill, and stable leadership. He's also much more moderate than many the Dems could put forward. He sometimes talks lefty but his policies are mostly centrist.
I agree though that we should have better candidates. These two choices both suck, but one clearly sucks more.
Somewhat agree - the president often gets too much credit for some things like that. However, the facts remain. Stock Market is up, Unemployment is at record lows and gas/oil is up - and he is the one in office.
Biden has never been a particularly inspiring speaker - but you are right to look at how the administration is working.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '24, 10:13
Not fond of Biden but it's hard to argue with most of his policy implementation right now. He may come across as a bozo but his administration is working better than Trump's ever did. Low Rider credits him with more than I would as I don't think he's responsible for the stock market, gas/oil or low unemployment, but he should get credit for Chips act, infrastructure bill, veterans bill, and stable leadership. He's also much more moderate than many the Dems could put forward. He sometimes talks lefty but his policies are mostly centrist.
I agree though that we should have better candidates. These two choices both suck, but one clearly sucks more.
+1
Kamala isn't doing Biden any favors either, considering his age.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '24, 10:13
Not fond of Biden but it's hard to argue with most of his policy implementation right now. He may come across as a bozo but his administration is working better than Trump's ever did. Low Rider credits him with more than I would as I don't think he's responsible for the stock market, gas/oil or low unemployment, but he should get credit for Chips act, infrastructure bill, veterans bill, and stable leadership. He's also much more moderate than many the Dems could put forward. He sometimes talks lefty but his policies are mostly centrist.
I agree though that we should have better candidates. These two choices both suck, but one clearly sucks more.
+1
Kamala isn't doing Biden any favors either, considering his age.
Not sure why Kamala isn't out there more - as a minimum she would play well with women who want to be sure they can make their own health care decisions - which is a pretty big block of independent voters. I think she would increase her favorable if she were more visible. As of right now she seems kind of like a mystery behind a curtain.
I don't know, to me Kamala isn't really much different than any other VP in recent memory. How many have been "great" and have signature accomplishments in that role or for campaign support?
Pence?
Biden?
Cheney?
Gore?
Quayle?
The position while important in terms of break glass in case of emergency, has been largely symbolic for a long time.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '24, 10:13
Not fond of Biden but it's hard to argue with most of his policy implementation right now. He may come across as a bozo but his administration is working better than Trump's ever did. Low Rider credits him with more than I would as I don't think he's responsible for the stock market, gas/oil or low unemployment, but he should get credit for Chips act, infrastructure bill, veterans bill, and stable leadership. He's also much more moderate than many the Dems could put forward. He sometimes talks lefty but his policies are mostly centrist.
I agree though that we should have better candidates. These two choices both suck, but one clearly sucks more.
Somewhat agree - the president often gets too much credit for some things like that. However, the facts remain. Stock Market is up, Unemployment is at record lows and gas/oil is up - and he is the one in office.
Biden has never been a particularly inspiring speaker - but you are right to look at how the administration is working.
Trump took credit for the stock market for his first three years until it tanked during Covid. Biden can take the same credit.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '24, 10:13
Not fond of Biden but it's hard to argue with most of his policy implementation right now. He may come across as a bozo but his administration is working better than Trump's ever did. Low Rider credits him with more than I would as I don't think he's responsible for the stock market, gas/oil or low unemployment, but he should get credit for Chips act, infrastructure bill, veterans bill, and stable leadership. He's also much more moderate than many the Dems could put forward. He sometimes talks lefty but his policies are mostly centrist.
I agree though that we should have better candidates. These two choices both suck, but one clearly sucks more.
Somewhat agree - the president often gets too much credit for some things like that. However, the facts remain. Stock Market is up, Unemployment is at record lows and gas/oil is up - and he is the one in office.
Biden has never been a particularly inspiring speaker - but you are right to look at how the administration is working.
Trump took credit for the stock market for his first three years until it tanked during Covid. Biden can take the same credit.
deadheadskier wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '24, 11:48
I don't know, to me Kamala isn't really much different than any other VP in recent memory. How many have been "great" and have signature accomplishments in that role or for campaign support?
Pence?
Biden?
Cheney?
Gore?
Quayle?
The position while important in terms of break glass in case of emergency, has been largely symbolic for a long time.
Good point - but there were also not questions about the sitting presidents age and stamina (even if the questions are baseless they are there). So the situation is somewhat different. Getting out there and improving her favorability could only help.
Low Rider wrote: ↑Feb 9th, '24, 12:29Getting out there and improving her favorability could only help.
She was out there at the start of Biden's presidency, but from what I recall it didn't go well. I think her not be visible, at this point, is intentional and will continue.
I thought she was much better in senate hearings where her history in law shines through. When she goes around talking about school busses…. Looks like an episode of veep.
He would encourage war against our allies if it means it would benefit him (or apparently Russia). He said the below to a roaring applause. The GOP is so gone. None of this is a surprise anymore.
Former President Donald Trump on Saturday said he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country that doesn’t meet spending guidelines on defense in a stunning admission he would not abide by the collective-defense clause at the heart of the alliance if reelected.
“NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump said at a rally in Conway, South Carolina. “I said, ‘Everybody’s gonna pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.”
Trump said “one of the presidents of a big country” at one point asked him whether the US would still defend the country if they were invaded by Russia even if they “don’t pay.”
“No, I would not protect you,” Trump recalled telling that president. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Feb 11th, '24, 13:41
He would encourage war against our allies if it means it would benefit him (or apparently Russia). He said the below to a roaring applause. The GOP is so gone. None of this is a surprise anymore.
Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics ... index.html
Yeah, can you believe they accused this guy of Russian collusion to win the election in 2016?
