It has offically been a year since Joe Biden took office. How would you rate his presidency after a year with Joe?

[Cenzonico]

A poll I made while I deal with what could potentially be COVID.

[vcczar]

He's far better than Trump and will maintain being better than Trump by virtue of discontinuing much of what Trump did. However, he's been quite underwhelming. I thought his legislative experience would somehow be an asset, but he's sort of just half there. 

I'd give him a D+ (C- on good days), but that's certainly better than Trump, who I'd give an F overall (D- on good days).

I think Trump only did two things worth supporting 1. He did some things--such as suspending student loan payments--during the pandemic that I don't think most Republicans would have done, especially Cruz and Rand Paul types. I give Trump some points for that. The other thing that he did was mostly avoid military engagement, although he did fire rockets and drones as all other 21st century presidents have done. 

Biden gets credits for the following: Undoing much of what Trump did via executive actions, appointing a diverse group of lower federal court justices, withdrawing from Afghanistan completely (although it was sloppy) and declaring an end of the long policy of nation building, the infrastructure bill, climate change efforts, and an improved rhetoric over Trump's rhetoric. Policy in general is preferable to Trump. 

I think Biden has the potential to improve his grade, but I don't think that happens so long as the pandemic is going. Although the end of the pandemic brings him a lot of opportunity. I think the GOP takes the House, possibly the Senate in 2022. It will certainly decrease any chances for policy success. I think he has to get the slimmed down Build Back Better passed prior to midterms or his legacy will be basically non-existent, even though he could still win reelection in 2024 without policy successes if someone like Trump is the opponent. 

[MrPotatoTed]

He's been fine.  He won't be in anybody's top ten lists, and that's perfectly okay.  Because "fine" is 1 million times better than what we had before.

[Edouard]

The point is that I don't think that Trump would have been better than him

3 major things on which Biden is blamed :

1 Inflation

I don't see Trump trying to do more against it while discussing with the FED

2 Covid

Biden's policies are not worse than Trump, both are pretty equivalent just that Biden is more pro measures than Trump, which can help to reduce cases and deaths overall that's why it's not his weakest point

3 Afghanistan

Both planned to leave quickly, Trump actually sooner than Biden

On spendings both had huge investments plans so there was no fiscal conservative on the scene

The major difference is on racial discriminations for which Joe and democrats could do better than Trump

[themiddlepolitical]

Biden is a D+ President

But he is still significantly better than Trump (Trump is an F with many -'s) 

[DakotaHale]

Biden is D-, Trump is C- imo. Obama was a C and Bush Jr. was a D- for comparison. (Bill was a B+)

[DakotaHale]

Do you guys think Trump will do better in his second term or his first?

[DakotaHale]

Just now, Patine said:

If this world has any sense and Americans care about their nation and it's future, neither Dotard will have a second term.

Idk I think his third or fourth term will be about when I’ll pull the plug

[Timur]

7 hours ago, Patine said:

But a better choice (or more viable, realistic choices) than two Dotards with a lot of rotten baggage each who both have a habit of rabbiting on in ways that may show that their faculties are at least starting to give way should have been available for the title of, "Leader of the Free World." When a tiny country like Luxembourg has more likely candidates for their Prime Minister in their general election, there's a real problem - and the denial of it should stop by Americans who really care about their nation, it's better founding values, and it's future.

South Korea also has FPTP, but at least there seem to be more options. Also it seems that four candidates will get to participate in the debates unlike 2 in the United States. The rest who don't qualify will get to participate in a separate Minor candidates debate.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Timur

[Timur]

3 hours ago, DakotaHale said:

Do you guys think Trump will do better in his second term or his first?

Neither.

[MrPotatoTed]

On 1/20/2022 at 2:48 PM, Patine said:

But a better choice (or more viable, realistic choices) than two Dotards with a lot of rotten baggage each who both have a habit of rabbiting on in ways that may show that their faculties are at least starting to give way should have been available for the title of, "Leader of the Free World." When a tiny country like Luxembourg has more likely candidates for their Prime Minister in their general election, there's a real problem - and the denial of it should stop by Americans who really care about their nation, it's better founding values, and it's future.

I read every word and have no idea what you said.

[DakotaHale]

2 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I read every word and have no idea what you said.

I love this forum

[MrPotatoTed]

18 minutes ago, Patine said:

Basically, that the American voters should have more choice, and a better choice, than two old geezers who are well past their sell-by date for President in 2024 who will realistically win. If it is, indeed, a rematch of those two, it will be the third U.S. Presidential election in a row with both candidates CAPABLE of winning being wretched senior citizens with a lot of bad baggage and either no, or toxic, charisma. It will also be the such election where voters have no Progressive or Conservative candidate to vote for for President, despite the rise, and likely majority support, collectively of these movements. It would be a true low point in American electoral politics that SHOULD, at least, lead Americans to reevaluate how they select their leadership.

But they did have choice.  More choice than ever before.  We had multiple people of color.  We had multiple women.  We had a gay guy in his 30s who won in Iowa!

The people CHOSE for the race to be between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.  That’s the part you ignore.

 

”The people deserve...”. Well, apparently the people did not WANT.

[MrPotatoTed]

57 minutes ago, Patine said:

The party primary system of the two main parties is actually, as I said, quite unrepresentative and easily manipulated, in the end. And Trump, like most incumbents running for reelection after 1980, was renominated with only token opposition. Biden likely will be the Democratic nominee, unfortunately, in 2024, if he runs again, by that broken tradition. It really struck me that Biden was not truly the choice of the Democratic rank-and-file - it was just decided at some point that Biden was the, "electable," one, and everyone else but Sanders dropped out in relatively rapid order. So much for choice! Plus, the institutional suppression of Third Party and Independent candidates is still an issue, because concerns that the two main parties decide are not election issues, but REALLY should be addressed, in many cases. I don't think the choice you claim is really as much there as it's touted to be. And, given the common voters and citizen initiative are completely locked out of changing electoral laws or amending the U.S. Constitution, or even having binding advice or consultation outside of elections (which is part of the problems) - lawmakers on the Federal and State levels have full authority and must be given full trust (and fiat) in the area, looks are looking quite grim for real electoral reform and choice. The U.S. truly does deserve it's spot in the bottom five of the First World for electoral choice and partisan culture, along with Japan, Singapore, and Hungary, and being little better, in that regard, than most Anglo-Caribbean nations.

To say that Biden was not the choice of “rank and file” Democrats is to deny the existence of black Democrats.  Hispanic too, for that matter.

Biden was not the choice of white guys in college.  
 

But those aren’t the only people who exist.

[Hestia]

25 minutes ago, Patine said:

Almost half of U.S. States only had Biden and Sanders by the time their primary came around. Plus, It very much seems obvious that the campaign that, "Sanders, and many others who dropped out earlier, will be trounced by Trump in the GE - don't nominate them!" very much was an effective scare tactic. You speak of the Democratic Primary as though every candidate was a choice in every state, and conducted under more ideal circumstances (that is, when the Orange Bogeyman wasn't played to the hilt as a fear campaign for the, "electability," card), but I think you know, as well as I do, that wasn't, at all, the Primary we saw.

You're basically saying to discount what people chose because they listened to a scare tactic, which may or may not be true. That discounts the fact that tactics were used by every campaign to win. Buttigieg claimed the younger card, Klobuchar went with expertise, Sanders with progressives, etc. Tactics are used in every campaign. That shouldn't discount the actual choices that voters made. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Almost half of U.S. States only had Biden and Sanders by the time their primary came around. Plus, It very much seems obvious that the campaign that, "Sanders, and many others who dropped out earlier, will be trounced by Trump in the GE - don't nominate them!" very much was an effective scare tactic. You speak of the Democratic Primary as though every candidate was a choice in every state, and conducted under more ideal circumstances (that is, when the Orange Bogeyman wasn't played to the hilt as a fear campaign for the, "electability," card), but I think you know, as well as I do, that wasn't, at all, the Primary we saw.

It wasn’t a scare tactic.  It was actual, legitimate, well-founded fear.

Look, maybe you didn’t notice from your aunt’s basement or whatever, but here in America, Trump’s presidency was actually horrific — and without the need to worry about any future elections, it would have only gotten worse.

Those of us who live in the real world actually do have to think about the consequences of a given action.

[The Blood]

I think you can admit the clear flaws in a two-party system and the very legitimate need for election reforms without downplaying the choices of primary voters(even if you have your problems with the primary process) or throwing away the very real concerns about a Trump reelection in 2020 which Democrats had. 

[Rezi]

10 minutes ago, Patine said:

Regardless, a concern of mine about the choice of Primary voters in terms of the drop-out rate and around half the States getting to vote for only two or three of them by the time their later Primary rolls around is something I've brought up above, and have quite a few times before, and it almost always gets utterly ignored. As is the close to free ride to renomination of an incumbent desiring to run again in most cases. I will concede many of my other issues are more nuanced and circumstantial than I make them out to be (except for the undue influence of campaign donors and PAC's, which is also a big problem), but the issues above are significant flaws, and they, at least, compromise the actual sense of choice of Primary voters. And they are more prone, as I said, to be ignored when I bring them up than other issues I may address.

I think what you talk about here is certainly a problem, and ties into the overlapping problem of the American election season simply being too long. The first primary debates are more than 6 months before the first primary, and the primaries themselves typically take place over the course of 4-5 months. A good solution to not only your concern with everyone dropping out and many later states being meaningless would be to take this current primary schedule and shorten it. No more year long primary campaigns, bring it down to less than half a year. This way it could maintain some of the good of keeping primaries on separate dates (namely allowing smaller candidates to gain momentum with a big win in the early states) while preventing the system from being gamed as much as it currently is with less time to dropout and having more meaningful later primaries.

[Rezi]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Perhaps, also, that once a Primary candidate is declared and on the ballot, they can be voted for in any Primary thereafter, even if they stop actively campaigning, advertising, and fundraising, as most dropouts are not actually due to a change of heart, but a lack of resources or confidence and optimism in being able to clinch the nomination.

IIRC I'm pretty sure that candidates do stay on the ballot after they've dropped out (as long as they gained ballot access), though this may not be the same everywhere

[MrPotatoTed]

6 hours ago, Rezi said:

IIRC I'm pretty sure that candidates do stay on the ballot after they've dropped out (as long as they gained ballot access), though this may not be the same everywhere

 

6 hours ago, Patine said:

I was under the impression that was only the GE, because Third Party and Independent candidates who claim to be withdrawing are left on the ballot. But I could be wrong. I've never filled out an American Primary nomination ballot, or any American election ballot, and I've only seen digital images of GE ones, so...

It varies by state, and potentially by party.  Because primaries and parties are not covered by the Constitution, the parties in each state get to decide the specifics on how they choose their nominee.  Most are more or less the same, but details like this vary.

[MrPotatoTed]

8 hours ago, Patine said:

So was Bush's. And while Trump did lasting, scarring damage to American society and intelligent discourse, Bush did last, scarring damage to American due process and Government impunity and trustworthiness. It's an absolute miracle that Trump didn't actually think to take the battleaxe that Bush left on his desk that was the (Un)Patriot Act, and declare all the groups in the country that so angered and offended him, "terrorist organizations," and proceeded to enact the Unconstitutional, police state tactics of tyranny that act of high treason would have allowed him to. However, fear and scare tactics got both men INTO the White House in the first place.

"When asked if it is better to be loved or be feared, I say it is safer to be feared."

-Nicholo Machiavelli

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself,"

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering,"

-Master Yoda

What scare tactics got Bush into the White House?

He was elected in 2000, nearly a full year before 9/11.  He ran as a "uniter, not a divider" and a "compassionate conservative."  He also mostly ran on his lack of significant scandals compared to President Clinton, frequently saying that he'd bring dignity back to the White House.

Now, you could argue that he ran his re-election campaign on fear tactics -- but you would once again be ignoring that there was an actual, active threat that people were actually afraid of at the time.  Not a made up one.  

[Timur]

10 hours ago, Patine said:

But what about the problem in every modern major Primary, that I've brought up quite a few times to different posts, but only had addressed once, and weakly, by anyone in the past, that, because of the drop-out rate of candidates, usually around (give-or-take) half of States (the latter Primaries), usually only get to vote on two or three candidates by the time their Primary comes around - in some cases, the very last ones effectively get acclaimed candidates. Is that true choice for the Primary voters in those States?

South Dakota comes to mind.

[MrPotatoTed]

7 hours ago, Rezi said:

I think what you talk about here is certainly a problem, and ties into the overlapping problem of the American election season simply being too long. The first primary debates are more than 6 months before the first primary, and the primaries themselves typically take place over the course of 4-5 months. A good solution to not only your concern with everyone dropping out and many later states being meaningless would be to take this current primary schedule and shorten it. No more year long primary campaigns, bring it down to less than half a year. This way it could maintain some of the good of keeping primaries on separate dates (namely allowing smaller candidates to gain momentum with a big win in the early states) while preventing the system from being gamed as much as it currently is with less time to dropout and having more meaningful later primaries.

I'm torn on this.  Yes, ideally, you'd have everyone available in every state's primary.  

That said, there's also something about making it a gauntlet race.  It's a marathon, not a sprint, because we want to see what a candidate has long-term.  What scandals will arise?  How do they conduct themselves in a wide variety of situations?  Do they, frankly, have what it takes?  The more time the better, for that.  

When I began dating my wife, it was clear very early that we were likely heading for marriage -- but she still told me to wait at least until our first anniversary before I propose, as you should see how someone acts in all four seasons before deciding to spend the rest of your life with them.  Ha.  (In my case, although I wanted to propose immediately, I waited 14 months -- good advice, as we're still together more than 12 years later).

That said, some people don't have what it takes and so they quit.  Maybe they engaged in a scandal where they're entirely at fault.  Maybe they hired the wrong people.  Maybe they looked at the internal polling data, and realized this wasn't their time.  Whatever the situation, it's not a bad thing when people decide they don't want to keep trying to be President anymore.  Frankly, we're better off without the quitters.  If somebody gives up when they've just gotten started...that's not really what you're looking for in a President, right?

 

[MrPotatoTed]

26 minutes ago, Patine said:

You are correct, and I stand corrected. I did mean his re-election in 2004. But that still gives each of Bush, Trump, and Biden the same number (one) of Presidential election victories using that tactic. And the threat of terrorism was indeed exaggerated and overstated in terms of Al Qaeda's realistic long-term capabilities and operating and logistical abilities, and left the definition of a, "terrorist," deliberately much more vague than it should ever have, much like with Joe McCarthy and the HUAC regarding Communism in the late '40's and the '50's. Also, what the so-called Patriot Act allowed and authorized legally required a Constitutional Amendment to be legitimate and enforceable - a simple legislative act was insufficient, Constitutionally.

Fair enough...though (this is the first time I’ve ever defended Trump and I pray to god it is the last) Trump didn’t run on fear tactics either that I can recall, in either campaign.  He ran on “government sucks, pick me” both times..despite obviously being a huge part of the government the second time.

 

[Dobs]

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Fair enough...though (this is the first time I’ve ever defended Trump and I pray to god it is the last) Trump didn’t run on fear tactics either that I can recall, in either campaign.  He ran on “government sucks, pick me” both times..despite obviously being a huge part of the government the second time.

 

???

They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists

They're stealing our election

They're letting 3 trillion muslims in every year

The altar to Trump is built on fear, the second clause to that "government sucks" is "government sucks because it's making all these scary things happen." His whole campaign was fear-mongering.