President Joe Biden

Bigga said:
And this is the problem, isn't it? Instead of putting Sanders in the position of trying to win over senators and the public in the fight for $6Tr, I inserted Biden at a lower number for the same thing, which framed your question. Sanders went to Biden with a sum. Biden did not like that sum.

You, happily, skipped over the point, though.

Biden didn't fight for that lower number, but was happier at an EVEN lower number than that! Still, hardly making the case for that sum, he went on bended knee to Manchin and Sinema!

Incredible!! History will not be kind to this man!
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to be obtuse but I don't get the point you are making. That Biden went for a particular sum and ended up with less is a fact, 'm not disputing that but neither am I making a judgement on it as you seem to be. I would guess that most objective observers would say that is a result of the political processes in the US rather than a failing on Biden's part.

Should Biden have started at Sanders' $6tr and then negotiated down to the figure he initially had in mind? Would that have worked? These are obviously rhetorical questions if my previous questions to you which have gone unanswered are anything to go by. I'll try them again though. Would Sanders have got a $6tr bill through? How would he have done that? You're obviously more clued up on all this than me but from what I've seen in the MSM sanders, while saying that $3.5tr should be the minimum accepted that compromise was likely. You could condemn that as being a bit weak and playing into the hands of those seeking to water down the bill or accept he had at least some grasp on the reality of how things work.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ber...infrastructure-bill-lowered/story?id=80368168
 
Bigga said:
Interestingly enough, I wanted to make a point on inflation in the Western economy of the rich getting richer, but Stewart's following cast is absolutely on the money, so why not listen to excellent points made:

Click to expand...

I haven't got time to watch a 22 minute video of someone, if the heading is anything to go by, telling us that corporate greed is a problem. We know it's true and is summed up more concisely here:



I don't know to what extent the power of big business dictates the political agenda but I suspect it's substantial in the US and here. Who do we blame for that?
 
journolud said:
I'm not trying to be obtuse but I don't get the point you are making. That Biden went for a particular sum and ended up with less is a fact, 'm not disputing that but neither am I making a judgement on it as you seem to be. I would guess that most objective observers would say that is a result of the political processes in the US rather than a failing on Biden's part.

Should Biden have started at Sanders' $6tr and then negotiated down to the figure he initially had in mind? Would that have worked? These are obviously rhetorical questions if my previous questions to you which have gone unanswered are anything to go by. I'll try them again though. Would Sanders have got a $6tr bill through? How would he have done that? You're obviously more clued up on all this than me but from what I've seen in the MSM sanders, while saying that $3.5tr should be the minimum accepted that compromise was likely. You could condemn that as being a bit weak and playing into the hands of those seeking to water down the bill or accept he had at least some grasp on the reality of how things work.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ber...infrastructure-bill-lowered/story?id=80368168
Click to expand...

Okay, you clearly can't see the point being made, so I will have to use the example of a lie in the UK that shows that campaigning on a subject matters:

The Cons, here, used a lie that helped convince an important voting consensus that they would save £350 mil a week and use that for the NHS, by coming out of Europe. They hawked that all over the country and, eventually, it one of the things that helped win gov.

There's nothing more convincing than the promise of help to a people that need it. As I said before, and you ignored the point twice, where was the 'big sell' on why a bigger sum was needed? To go around, state by state and sell the much wanted medicine the country needed to heal?

You seem to think it was impossible to do, but people hang their collective hats on hope, through despair (it's a good reason why Trump got in), but this would have been based on truth and only the state senators would have been the ones to deny their people what they needed.

A denial worthy of bringing up every month until midterms where it would have remained fresh in people's memories.
 
Bigga said:
Okay, you clearly can't see the point being made, so I will have to use the example of a lie in the UK that shows that campaigning on a subject matters:

The Cons, here, used a lie that helped convince an important voting consensus that they would save £350 mil a week and use that for the NHS, by coming out of Europe. They hawked that all over the country and, eventually, it one of the things that helped win gov.

There's nothing more convincing than the promise of help to a people that need it. As I said before, and you ignored the point twice, where was the 'big sell' on why a bigger sum was needed? To go around, state by state and sell the much wanted medicine the country needed to heal?

You seem to think it was impossible to do, but people hang their collective hats on hope, through despair (it's a good reason why Trump got in), but this would have been based on truth and only the state senators would have been the ones to deny their people what they needed.

A denial worthy of bringing up every month until midterms where it would have remained fresh in people's memories.
Click to expand...
Yes Brexit was won on lies, I know that. On what basis was Biden elected? That he wasn't Trump? According to some that is all he offered but I have just found this:

Biden Promise Tracker | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com

I've no idea if that website is partisan or fully objective but interesting all the same. Having won the election then why would Biden go "from state to state" selling the benefits of the bill? Surely he needed to get it through the house and we know that there was opposition from within his own party.

I'm not ignoring any point about the big sell on a bigger sum any more than you are failing to answer the question of whether sanders would have had any more success getting a larger amount through.

It's not an act of political genius to pluck a large sum of money out of the air and say this is what we need. I probably wouldn't argue with the need for massive investment in the US and here in the UK but strikes me it isn't quite as black and white as that.
 
journolud said:
I haven't got time to watch a 22 minute video of someone, if the heading is anything to go by, telling us that corporate greed is a problem. We know it's true and is summed up more concisely here:



I don't know to what extent the power of big business dictates the political agenda but I suspect it's substantial in the US and here. Who do we blame for that?
Click to expand...

theglobepost.com

Welcome to Our American Plutocracy Ruled by Corporate Oligarchs

The coronavirus epidemic has exposed that American corporate oligarchs are firmly in charge of the nation's fate and will be until the eventual collapse of US democracy.
theglobepost.com theglobepost.com

Article is a couple of years old. However it's an interesting read about the US no longer being run as a democratic country.
 
journolud said:
Yes Brexit was won on lies, I know that. On what basis was Biden elected? That he wasn't Trump? According to some that is all he offered but I have just found this:

Biden Promise Tracker | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com

I've no idea if that website is partisan or fully objective but interesting all the same. Having won the election then why would Biden go "from state to state" selling the benefits of the bill? Surely he needed to get it through the house and we know that there was opposition from within his own party.

I'm not ignoring any point about the big sell on a bigger sum any more than you are failing to answer the question of whether sanders would have had any more success getting a larger amount through.

It's not an act of political genius to pluck a large sum of money out of the air and say this is what we need. I probably wouldn't argue with the need for massive investment in the US and here in the UK but strikes me it isn't quite as black and white as that.
Click to expand...
It is Partisan. In fairness, unless it's outwardly Conservative, almost all Media lean left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.