Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

13536384041

Comments

  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I don't think you can hang this over Biden's head too much: as Stringer observes, every modern US president has kept Israel at arms reach, or just looked the other way. We can't suddenly expect Biden to behave in a transformative fashion when his entire ticket was effectively a return to normalcy in regards to a sitting President's behaviour and policies.

    It's disappointing for sure, and half the problem going on is America's continued withholding of its diplomatic stick, but we can't be surprised either.

    I think that's a pretty pathetic and a weak excuse. If he was a man of merit and morals he would do more. They give Israel billions in military aid every year. He can do a lot lot more. Giving Israel free reign to do as they please. He's not even being neutral so he can't take the position as an honest broker in future peace talks. Trump was more bias but Biden has been shamefully weak. I would expect this of Trump.


  • #2


    That part of world had people bashing each other going back to Stone Age hell just read the olde bible. I don’t blame any president for not wanting to get dragged into that quagmire, last time US got involved in Middle East it all somehow went to ****e faster.

    I'd be entirely ad idem with you if it was some kind of an independent quagmire waaay out there in the Middle East... But, it's not! Israel and the US have been locked in an incestuous shark/pilot fish relationship for DECADES! And at this stage, its almost impossible to know who's the pilot and who's the shark! The IDF is HUGELY supported by US arms and other support, and EVERY Smart Bomb that is dropped on a Palestinian building is a descendent of overt US arms delivered to Israel.

    So, this is 2021! The US simply CANNOT portray the problem as "THAT quagmire".. From a US point of view, the problem is "OUR quagmire".

    So, whether he likes it or not, Biden must deal with it!
    If anything we should be happy we don’t have a Trump there he probably would have poured oil on whole situation instead of calling for calm

    Well, today's instability is a direct result of Trump's placing of US Foreign Policy in Respect of the Middle East in the grubby paws of SlumLord Billionaire Kushner and his gang! So, effectively, the oil Trump poured over the past 4 years has only now been set alight!

    Like I said Biden has his own homegrown extremists to worry about, we are only a few months since the American Taliban tried to stage an insurrection in the capitol. What he should do is use carrots and sticks to get both sides calm down and send one of his state department people or someone qualified to try get everyone to a table to try reach something of a deal like was done here in Ireland

    I'll buy that!

    But Israel says NO! And, so far, Biden seems to be accepting that!

    For the sake of the future of Israel/Palestine, Biden must not be seen to defer to Netenyahu! Equally, he must deal with HAMAS! There's the challenge!


  • #2


    As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.

    David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.

    It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.

    In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.

    The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.

    Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.

    Great analysis, with which I can fully agree..

    Basically, two evil entities, living in an environment of mutually assured destruction, have decided to partner up for a tango that will take everyone else's eyes out, and they know it, but don't care... So long as the eyes taken out leave them alone with the power to see.


  • #2


    Tyrone212 wrote: »
    I think that's a pretty pathetic and a weak excuse. If he was a man of merit and morals he would do more. They give Israel billions in military aid every year. He can do a lot lot more. Giving Israel free reign to do as they please. He's not even being neutral so he can't take the position as an honest broker in future peace talks. Trump was more bias but Biden has been shamefully weak. I would expect this of Trump.

    There's a lot of truth in this, IMO!

    He simply HAS to do an "I Have A Dream" in respect of Israel/Palestine!

    C'mon Man!!!


  • #2


    Those thousands of rockets spontaneously appeared out of the blue?

    You don’t see the hypocrisy in complaining about Israel overreacting to a thousand rockets coming their way, which according to previous poster is itself an over reaction to tear gas attack

    Once again politically best we can hope for is for a president to tell both sides to cut out this escalating spiral of stupidity.

    Ah come on.

    Have you ever cornered a dog?

    Now, have you ever cornered a dog for 73 years and periodically hit it a few smacks?

    Hamas are an absolute shower, but let's not go around pretending they sprang up out of no where.

    ---

    The parallels when people start talking about the IRA as if they weren't the product of the society that existed...

    ---

    Let's go back to the tear gas attack... Do you reckon it was required? Was there a better way?

    ---

    Let's bring it back home; remember earlier this week after the furore of Ballymurphy was still fresh we had the pronouncements from Frosty saying the NIP had to go and that the EU had til July 12th to come up with something?

    You see, these are small things that while in the grand scheme don't seem that big a deal, but they're engineered to escalate. I mean, They could have said July 25th or August 9th etc. But no, July 12th.

    Exactly the same way that Bibi decided that he's screwed without his immunity if the coalition falls so I'll f*ck sh*t up on Eid and that will definitely get Hamas twitching.


  • #2


    As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.

    David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.

    It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.

    In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.

    The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.

    Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.

    This is bang on.


  • #2


    As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.

    David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.

    It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.

    In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.

    The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.

    Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.

    Brilliant post


  • #2


    Ah come on.

    Have you ever cornered a dog?

    Now, have you ever cornered a dog for 73 years and periodically hit it a few smacks?

    Hamas are an absolute shower, but let's not go around pretending they sprang up out of no where.

    ---

    The parallels when people start talking about the IRA as if they weren't the product of the society that existed...

    ---

    Let's go back to the tear gas attack... Do you reckon it was required? Was there a better way?

    ---

    Let's bring it back home; remember earlier this week after the furore of Ballymurphy was still fresh we had the pronouncements from Frosty saying the NIP had to go and that the EU had til July 12th to come up with something?

    You see, these are small things that while in the grand scheme don't seem that big a deal, but they're engineered to escalate. I mean, They could have said July 25th or August 9th etc. But no, July 12th.

    Exactly the same way that Bibi decided that he's screwed without his immunity if the coalition falls so I'll f*ck sh*t up on Eid and that will definitely get Hamas twitching.

    Nail on the proverbial head there. Totally agree.


  • #2


    As Brian? pointed out above, the real issue is drawing a line in the sand before that point and saying that that was the start of the current conflict. At best it's completely arbitrary, at worst it feeds entirely into Israeli claims to be the original victims in all this and ignores their hand in recent events leading up to the rocket attacks.

    David McWilliams had a guest on his podcast today who made quite an interesting point. Immediately prior to these events, after 4 inconclusive elections an alternative coalition were in negotiations. This would have, for the first time, included an Arab-Israeli party as well as a settler party and it would also have deposed Netanyahu as PM.

    It was in the interests of both Netanyahu and Hamas to ensure that this coalition would not come to pass. Netanyahu is avoiding a corruption trial based on the immunity he has as PM. Hamas are ideologues who don't recognise the state of Israel and wouldn't approve of Arabs validating that state by entering into government.

    In a way Netanyahu and Hamas are in a toxic co-dependent relationship. They are diametrically opposed to each other in a way that helps prop them both up.

    The actions carried out by the Israeli state in a Holy Site during Ramadan were deliberately provocative. Likewise the response by Hamas, firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel was deliberately provocative. They're both more than familiar with each other at this stage. They both likely knew what the response from the other side would be.

    Those coalition talks collapsed so Nethanyahu lives on as PM for another while. Similarly, the bombardment of Gaza will likely only strengthen Hamas's grip on that territory. The real losers are the ordinary citizens of both Israel and Palestine.

    Probably one of the better posts I've read about the recent escalation of the conflict.


  • #2


    Fairly explosive article series coming from Propublica about tax avoidance by US billionaires. It'll interesting to see how this is picked up national media and Congress. McConnell has predictably come out decrying this violation of privacy.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax


  • #2


    Tonight proves the democrats need to get rid of the filibuster

    The GOP blocking the voting rights bill, what an awful party

    They know they have to block it other wise they are dead in the water and it's their old fault.


  • #2


    Headshot wrote: »
    Tonight proves the democrats need to get rid of the filibuster

    The GOP blocking the voting rights bill, what an awful party

    They know they have to block it other wise they are dead in the water and it's their old fault.

    Ludicrous vicious circle. If voter turnout increases, the Dems always benefit. But they can’t take action on voter suppression because the GOP use their Senate power, elected by a suppressed vote, to block it.


  • #2


    The idea that, basically, you can stall your way into killing any bill you don't like is a perversion of democracy, and the filibuster needs to die. Now: obviously what goes around comes around & its absence might be keenly felt the first time a hardline GOP bill breezes through the chambers, but the principle of the concept is obscene.

    Not that there aren't ways for the Dáil to stymy bills and legislation but I'm eternally grateful a founding principle of our government is the notion that it's a constant Work In Progress - not holy writ and part of some chucklesome "Game" to be played.


  • #2


    And the thing is, if the Dems don't counter the GOP State by State perversions of democracy now, the 2022 elections will put the GOP back into the House almost for sure, due to gerrymandering. The basic voter suppression laws being passed all over the place will focus on limiting effectiveness of more liberal voting and may also hand the Senate back to the GOP.

    That country will be in the throes of renewed White Supremacy for a generation if that happens.


  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    The idea that, basically, you can stall your way into killing any bill you don't like is a perversion of democracy, and the filibuster needs to die. Now: obviously what goes around comes around & its absence might be keenly felt the first time a hardline GOP bill breezes through the chambers, but the principle of the concept is obscene.

    Not that there aren't ways for the Dáil to stymy bills and legislation but I'm eternally grateful a founding principle of our government is the notion that it's a constant Work In Progress - not holy writ and part of some chucklesome "Game" to be played.

    In fairness the filibuster is only a senate rule it is not part of the institution so to speak and can be changed or got rid of. For instance if the Democrats wanted to they could keep the rule as is except make an exception for voting rights legislation. This is exactly what the Republicans did when they decided that stacking the federal courts with far right activist judges was a priority they got rid of the filibuster but just for the appointment of federal judges. The exact same could be done for voting rights legislation.


  • #2


    There are many different voices calling for a sea-change in Democratic thinking on this whole filibuster issue, and particularly for the Manchin/Sinema tactic of keeping it intact so that, when the Dems lose the Senate again, they'll have it to fall back on, and its presence 'promotes bi-partisanship' (hint: it doesnt)

    I think this American comedian/ordinary person from Georgia speaks more sense about it than a gaggle of Senators... Warning: He's not easy on the language...

    https://youtu.be/265YZcKhMYY


  • #2


    Biden just made a speech about new gun control legislation. Everything he said made sense and sounds eminently reasonable to anyone in any other country, but sadly he sounded so tired, his speech was so flat and frequently slurred, that it was a gift to republican critics.


  • #2


    looksee wrote: »
    Biden just made a speech about new gun control legislation. Everything he said made sense and sounds eminently reasonable to anyone in any other country, but sadly he sounded so tired, his speech was so flat and frequently slurred, that it was a gift to republican critics.

    Absolutely nothing about that was sensible or reasonable, and from a purely political viewpoint, will only serve to antagonize a large portion of the populace against him at a time that he's trying push his agenda thru.


  • #2


    Absolutely nothing about that was sensible or reasonable, and from a purely political viewpoint, will only serve to antagonize a large portion of the populace against him at a time that he's trying push his agenda thru.

    Let me guess, he should roll over and ask those who supported the insurrection what exactly they are comfortable with?

    Compare his tone, language and logic with the example of his predecessor who held press conferences to say short blunt statements like 'We're getting rid of Obamacare, it's a terrible terrible thing.' or any other number of examples where he gave no context and just said something was 'bad' when he didn't even understand what he was talking about.

    I really wish Biden would realise what Conservatives (and some within his own party) are doing when talking about partisan agreements and a need for consensus when they aren't willing to do the tiniest thing towards making this happen.

    Case in point, the American Rescue Bill and all the Republicans who voted against it and then went back to their districts lauding what it was delivering for their constituents. I'd love to see Biden ride a Democratic Agenda through all flag wearing chest thumping 'patriots' on the other side and then let their next President roll them back if they want to really own their regressive tendencies.


  • #2


    Absolutely nothing about that was sensible or reasonable, and from a purely political viewpoint, will only serve to antagonize a large portion of the populace against him at a time that he's trying push his agenda thru.

    Gun dealers breaking already existing laws being cracked down on is unreasonable and senseless?

    Interesting...


  • #2


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    There are many different voices calling for a sea-change in Democratic thinking on this whole filibuster issue, and particularly for the Manchin/Sinema tactic of keeping it intact so that, when the Dems lose the Senate again, they'll have it to fall back on, and its presence 'promotes bi-partisanship' (hint: it doesnt)

    I think this American comedian/ordinary person from Georgia speaks more sense about it than a gaggle of Senators... Warning: He's not easy on the language...

    https://youtu.be/265YZcKhMYY

    It's moronic in the extreme. Democrats needed to railroad everything they could through and thumbtheir noses at any and every republican taking issue with it - its not like they're without endless examples to push back in their faces from the last 4 years.

    Instead, they put back in place precedents that the republicans already broke (filibuster) which does exactly nothing but handcuff themselves to a fuel the Republicans will remove as soon as they take power.

    The republicans are going to win huge in 2022 and likely 2024, and more than anything it will be because the democrats let them by trying to keep pretending that there was a chance for good faith work to be done.


  • #2


    Biden has again collated gun violence with particular types of guns. His solutions aim to either outright ban or increase the difficulty to purchase most rifle type firearms. None of that will make any impact on the level of gun violence in the country.

    It's also wildly disingenuous to make reference to said violence without acknowledging the main driver of those numbers.

    Typical empty, perfomative nonsense.


  • #2


    Biden has again collated gun violence with particular types of guns. His solutions aim to either outright ban or increase the difficulty to purchase most rifle type firearms. None of that will make any impact on the level of gun violence in the country.

    It's also wildly disingenuous to make reference to said violence without acknowledging the main driver of those numbers.

    Typical empty, perfomative nonsense.

    Just how much do you want to acknowledge those numbers?

    Up to and including pointing to black communities and talking about culture maybe?
    But definitely not exploring the historical reasons that led the situation existing as it is today? Definitely not that I warrant. That would be a 'woke agenda' and nothing more I'm guessing.


  • #2


    Just how much do you want to acknowledge those numbers?

    Up to and including pointing to black communities and talking about culture maybe?
    But definitely not exploring the historical reasons that led the situation existing as it is today? Definitely not that I warrant. That would be a 'woke agenda' and nothing more I'm guessing.

    I've no problem talking about assessing issues faced by poor communities. A cursory view of my post history would show my support for measures that would work towards addressing those. I'm sorry the idea that one can be pro-gun and also liberally minded doesn't fit the narrative you want to push.


  • #2


    It's an odd infrastructure deal, one bi partisan and one intended to go with 50+1 and there will be no track 1 without track 2 and vice versa? Trimmed well down too, but if it comes off then fair enough.

    Will see how it all shakes out.

    Have reached the point where enough time has been wasted playing to the gallery looking for bi partisanship, for the sake of it at that.


  • #2


    It's an odd infrastructure deal, one bi partisan and one intended to go with 50+1 and there will be no track 1 without track 2 and vice versa? Trimmed well down too, but if it comes off then fair enough.

    Will see how it all shakes out.

    Have reached the point where enough time has been wasted playing to the gallery looking for bi partisanship, for the sake of it at that.

    Some of the Republicans involved are already distancing themselves from it. Republicans gonna Republican.


  • #2


    For 10+ years at this point there's been no change to GOP tactic when out of power - obstruct, delay, block and run out the clock as much as possible.

    I genuinely have no idea how the penny hasn't dropped at this stage.

    Democrats when they won the election had 24 months maximum to push through policy, Mitch took a month off at the start by delaying the handover and they will still presumably be taking their August off to catch up on their "reading" (Mitch put a stop to that last year of course but can't see the Dems doing it)

    They are in danger of wasting a lot of time they may end up regretting right now. I really hope for their own sake they start to push ahead now and build some momentum. Sinema is a problem but I think she will come along eventually as she won't want to be the lone opposition within party and genuinely am a fan of Manchin, he has surely been indulged enough though at this point with his desperation for bipartisanship for the sake of it?

    Manchin 10 years ago wanted to reform the filibuster. I think he can be brought around to agreeing with the Joe Manchin of 10 years ago when push comes to shove.


  • #2


    For 10+ years at this point there's been no change to GOP tactic when out of power - obstruct, delay, block and run out the clock as much as possible.

    I genuinely have no idea how the penny hasn't dropped at this stage.

    Democrats when they won the election had 24 months maximum to push through policy, Mitch took a month off at the start by delaying the handover and they will still presumably be taking their August off to catch up on their "reading" (Mitch put a stop to that last year of course but can't see the Dems doing it)

    They are in danger of wasting a lot of time they may end up regretting right now. I really hope for their own sake they start to push ahead now and build some momentum. Sinema is a problem but I think she will come along eventually as she won't want to be the lone opposition within party and genuinely am a fan of Manchin, he has surely been indulged enough though at this point with his desperation for bipartisanship for the sake of it?

    Manchin 10 years ago wanted to reform the filibuster. I think he can be brought around to agreeing with the Joe Manchin of 10 years ago when push comes to shove.

    That the Dems haven't siezed the opportunity to secure their long term electoral success is utterly pathetic. They have likely squandered a clear mandate to enact their legislative agenda, for the second time this century. How have they learnt nothing from the debacle of Obama's presidency.

    That Schumer is unable to put the screws to Machin and Sinema is damning indictment of his leadership. The Sock Puppet continues to run circles around the Dems.


  • #2


    This is a video well worth watching imo although it won't shock too many.
    It details, from the horses mouth, just how influential big business is in accessing government law makers and how susceptible they are to this.
    The links to close confidants of Biden cannot be ignored if again, they would have been expected anyway.

    https://twitter.com/UE/status/1410300881761882112

    At a time when records are being broken in North America for highest daily temperatures since recordings began and people are dying daily the climate crisis can no longer be seen as impending but one that is currently active.

    A by topic of this video and the way lobbyists target those who are approaching re-election was a topic discussed on a recent NPR show I listened to in which a guy who has written a book on 'less democracy' was advocating that fewer elections (i.e. longer terms) would free up lawmakers more to act in a morally responsible way than from a fear of what bad press will do to their election chances. An interesting concept given that, in the US, Representatives are nearly always effectively in election cycle given the shortness of their terms.

    I hope to see the topic of the above video raised in Press Conferences with Jen Psaki so that the administration is under no illusion but that what they say, and how they behave most correlate.


Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.