If so, it’s weird how you only ever go after one side.

Hey, maybe do a quick google for “Biden COVID patent waiver” and take a look at what comes up.

Wow, you very quickly deflected from where you were wrong to a bunch of other points. Strange also how you don't tune into this right wing media yet make the same point Hannity does a day later. You just both happened to think of this at the same time?

A general loses a battle. It was always a battle he was likely to lose and his command knew that going in..

He replies to his command:

- It was a tough loss but I take no responsibility for the loss. Don't look at me.

- As the leader I have to take responsibility whether or not you think this winnable or not. i took in all the data and expert advice and made my calls to give us our best chance and we still lost


I am instantly firing one of those guys and the other I am not.

DO you understand why lozen??

I actually do not believe you re Hannity et al as that means you come up with such bad takes on your own that mirror the very deliberately mischievous takes they are putting out.

But please answer my question if you see what the difference above is and why one should get someone fired and the other not.

No.

Stop trying to distill everything down so black and white to then squeeze it in to a talking point.

Put Biden and Trump aside for a minute.

Any leader, ANY, when engaging in a battle has to give both caution and a winnable path (hope).

Whether it is Winston Churchill in WW2 or a leader today battling a Pandemic like covid, they will say 'we will win this battle. We will beat this menace'.

What you are doing is trying to nitpick with singular literal words taken out of context or dropping off the more broad context given.

You want Biden's words to be absolute. that if a brand new vaccine evading variant popped up 'too bad for Biden', as he said we would beat covid. Any reasonable person knows that his statements are based on the facts on the ground THEN at the time he made them and any reasonable person will adjust if the facts on the ground adjust.

This is the same argument used by those on the right to demonize the CDC most times by acting asa if any change in a word, as the science and data changes is wrong. You are just doing here pretending this is not a dynamic situation.

That is not what Trump did so there is no comparison no matter how desperate you are to 'whatabout' this and create that link.

When Trump was on office I was critical as well. He's not Biden is

TRUMP IS AN IDIOT I have said it over and over. I could list 100's of reasons why.

You ask me to answer your questions you never answered any of mine
This is a Biden thread not a Trump thread

Weather you want to believe me if I watch Hannity really do not care. I do not

You know I get most of my news from
Breaking Points
Fox Sunday with Wallace
MTP with Chuck

The Dems have been wheeling this one out for decades yet mysteriously never seem to get it done.

there was a certain candidate that was asked why their healthcare platform was better the other candidate. after sayin gone line(which woudl give away the person) was then asked "what if these companies don't play nice" and this candidate responded with "then we let canada and mexico sell theirs and undercut a company from NV, etc"

on paper it makes sense when you look at it that way.

but at teh end of the day, the bigest issue with reds or even dems is lobbysts are too strong. look at sinema. I don't get why people are called tulsi a closet red with sinema is an even BIGGER sellout with what she campaigned a d literally how she voted.


in shout, lobbying needs to be stronger looked at, its disgusting how something in Canada or EU costs 1/4 of the price as ot wold in america. Im all for protecting businesses that are small(not mega giga ones) but that is grade A ****ing bullshit how nobody can riff off an epipen due to "technicalities" or trademarks and gouge something that many many people need health wise. makes no sense

You're saying polarization leads to lower approval rates. I'm saying it's hard to say that for sure because of disfunction of government might be causing the low approval ratings. Truman had the lowest approval rating in history during a time not known for bitter cultural divides (or was there? I don't know for sure). Nixon and Johnson had some time with decent approval ratings even though they presided over a culture war which is probably more intense than what we are seeing today (when you see Leftists getting violent you know stability is threatened), although Nixon obviously had a dip at a certain point.


I consider that one of the fundamental misunderstandings of our political era. Unfortunately it's vey prevalent. The politicians are absolutely unwilling to do anything to substantially improve material conditions for people because their real constituencies are private capital and their is a conflict of interests there. The agendas of that private power are being serviced with bipartisan alacrity so it's absolutely not true that there is no ability to work together. Those people spent a trillion dollars on a 20 year war in Afghanistan which achieved nothing, that itself being quite an achievement which took a lot of cooperation. The poisoning of our politics is intentional as is the unwillingness to defend labor and other institutions from concentrated capital i.e. "do anything". Look what happens when one party actually has control. They do nothing and, in an insult to our intelligence, point to the parliamentarian. I don't know how they made that claim without cracking up laughing. I know I couldn't.

I agree with some of your points and not as much with others, but I think we've both stated our positions and theories clearly enough. One point I'll push back on a bit, though...

It's a pretty thin control at best - a control that can be held up at any time by just a handful (or even one) of their own party, as we've seen a few times now.

Truman was president during the communist revolution in China, and he lost a lot of popularity over handling it as if was an internal Chinese civil war. The conflict between the countries would later come to a full-fledged war when China attacked the deployed United Nation forces in Korea and in the initial fighting forced the US armed forces stationed in the north into retreat. Leading the United Nation forces at the time was Douglas MacArthur, who did not see his UN force as strong enough to reinforce the US forces. MacArthur was and continued to be a critic of the Truman administrations handling of the affair, and was relieved of his command not long after. So not only do you have an initial embarrassing military loss in Korea, but you have the effective firing of one the US' most lauded WW2 generals and fairly easy criticism of the administration's handling of China prior to the events. That's a bitter pill to swallow for a nation that had kicked the Axis powers to the curb only 6 years prior.

As for bitter divides, on the home front, the Truman administration was pummeled by McCarthy of harboring communists that sought to overthrow the US government complete with accusations of treason against sitting members in the administration. Truman also had a real scandal on his hands, when he had to ask for the resignation of his own attorney general for refusing to comply with a DOJ corruption probe initiated at the president's request.

So you basically have the trifecta. A bad loss in foreign policy, a rabid political opposition that throws out wild accusations and some good old-fashioned actual scandals. That's a good combination for a real sucker punch to the polls.

Personally, I think he is a fascinating American president to study. On one hand you have a series of failures and scandals on the foreign and domestic front that would completely sink his chances at a second term (as an elected president, his first term being a result of being vice president when Roosevelt died). On the other hand you have a president who seems to be by most accounts a very hard-working and good administrator, an administration what very likely helped the US avoid recession after participating in history's biggest war, and which instituted what might very well be the US' finest foreign policy of all the time, the Marshal plan.

sounds like one with lots of opium

I am not answering yoiurs as you are not answering mine and mine was a question on your INITIAL statement.

Saying "trump is an idiot' over and over is not an answer as your goal is to always conflate Biden and his actions with Trump. So 'GOTCHA Biden'.

And i don't mind you being critical of Biden in an honest way as I am super critical. You can see me rail on him.

But these consistent and constant equivalencies you keep drawing between Trump and Biden are just so wrong and off base.

OK fine you don't get it from Hannity or Tucker and just naturally your mind goes to the worst and dumbest and most easily disproved talking points they deliberately use for propaganda and smear purposes. Not sure that is a compliment for you but it is what you are saying. You get that right, as we are pointing out why those talking points are so vey wrong and dumb and you keep saying 'I came up with them on my own' as a defense for them.

Once again, if you have a general on the ground telling his commanders in a battle after assessing the opposing ground forces "I will win this war" but then AFTER things on the ground change with a new country jumping in to fight with your enemy, and he has to change his view most people do not act like that is some type of gotcha. That 'too bad we got our QUOTE and that is all that matters'.

You keep saying you just want Trump and Biden treated the same and they would be if that was the type of 'error' Trump made. If he simply was confounded by an unexpected Delta variant. Reasonable people understand that happens. But that is not what Trump did at all. Trump lied and sabotaged the efforts of his own CDC and no media should act like Biden has done anything equivalent which is what you say you want them to do.

true but that does not really matter and I hope we all recognize that by now.

The Dem's don't have to show their full hand and as such since they only need one and they have Manchin and Sinema happy to be the 'one' to get the benefits of the fund raising, they are happy to allow them to be the face of it. But behind them we know there is Coons and about 8 more in the next layer and even more behind that.

Obama exposed the truth and reality to us that even when the Republicans have zero ability to deny a Dem agenda the Dem's will then just find a reason, any reason, to not follow through.

Ultimately the Dems love if best when they can point their finger and scream 'Give us more seats as it is a GOP villain stopping our agenda we want to implement', but if the GOP has no such power they are fine switching to 'its a Dem moderate stopping our agenda'.

If Trump is not the GOP nominee in 2024 the Dems will be forced to run again on a real agenda and not just Lesser of Two Evils. That agenda will be a finessed version of "We need more seats. Vote for us so we can implement the agenda the Dem's failed to do in 2020, but this time bigger and better for you citizens'.

People probably think I mean that hyperbolically but I do not. A finessed version of that will be their exact campaign. You can mark this down now.

[QUOTE=lozen;57436267] I have no clue what your question was ? I just stated that at one point Biden had asked that Trump resign over 225,000 deaths and curious why he does not think that applies to him. I pointed out there have been more deaths under Biden now than Trump. I never called for him to resign. I have stated it does not matter who is president the results would probably be the same.

And yes I expect your Media on both sides to engage in the same treatment of a President.

Personally if I had to vote in 2024 and my choice was Biden or Trump I may just stay home.

But when I provided the real quote showing that Biden didn't exactly say that, you responded with a bunch of questions such as if Biden called cages bad. Looking at what Biden really said, do you still think he's being hypocritical?

[QUOTE=lozen;57437406] Lets deal simply with this in an attempt to be abundantly clear.
What you say in the quote above is a falsehood. It is a statement purposely cribbed by the extreme right with an agenda to spin Biden's comments WRONGLY as an indictment of him.

What is missing from that statement that is key? This "...Anyone who is not responsible for taking control, in fact not saying I take no responsibility initially, ..."

So you keep saying I did not know that Hannity et al were cribbing this dishonestly and I just cribbed it the EXAXCT SAME with the exact same wrong narrative but mine was an honest mistake.

it strains credulitity but it is possible you just did by accident (a dumb thing) that the others did on purpose (a dishonest thing).

You keep coming back to that while IGNORING that the extra context is everything in that statement.

Trump and the CDC can and do get things wrong. Biden does get things wrong. In a dynamic novel virus battle that is spitting out unknown varients it is impossible not to. The CDC or Trump or Biden can make a statement today that ends up not being accurate tomorrow as things on the ground can change.

At that point Trump or the CDC or Biden CAN RIGHTLY then say 'due to this NEW varient (or whatever) we have to revise our prior statements' and that is not some gotcha but the extreme right is trying to pretend it is with the CDC and Biden. That every statment needs to be cribbed and quoted against a changed landscape as if absolute.


But again that misses the point. BIden and the CDC are not saying "I take no responsiblity" as the leader of the country at the time. He is not going against the CDC and the science..


Do you get that lozen?

If Trump chooses to go agaisnt his CDC and the science and ends up with 225k deaths and then says 'I take no responsibility' that IS NOT IN ANY WAY equivelent to Biden going with the CDC and Science and having Omicron pop up and take a bunch more lives and Biden and the CDC saying they are responsible as the leaders at the time.

I cannot say it any cleared and cannot believe you do not understand this distinction and have to believe you are just so wedded to your extreme Right image and not wanting to abodnon that you will gloss over this and just pretend it is all the same in your attept to maintain a 'whataboutism' here and to say Biden is just the same as Trump.

I guess you missed the smiley in my post. I knew it was a typo on his part; ecriture d'adulte is a smart cookie. But it was a rather ironic typo, don't you think?

[QUOTE=Cuepee;57437425]
No I get your point. Lets leave at that. I do not agree with 100 % of it but I get your point and how you see it that way

Did the CDC and experts tell him to restrict travel from all those countries?
Did Joe Biden say travel bans never work

Did Biden say he would not do vaccine mandates?

This is a crucial point but one I suspect falls on deaf ears quite often. There seems to be a large block of Democrat voters who refuse to attribute any dishonesty or sophistry to the Democratic party. They are fully immersed in the "us vs. them" narrative. They are high in partisanship. I've noticed, from my personal experience, that they are usually highly successful from a conventional standpoint and through conventional means. They are professionals with advanced degrees, either in technical jobs or managing people, often in entrenched corporations which aren't subject to actual competition. If life were a poker hand they wouldn't be drawing, and I think the narrative works on a psychological level with them. You can't convince them that they are anything like the people on Krypton who were in denial while the planet was exploding.

Lets also note that I applaud Biden when he first addressed the Omicrom variant and said WE need not panic but be concerned or something like that but than what does he do panics and changes travel to the USA by plane requires a PCR test 24 hours prior.
How is that not panicking?

Its not really a major change to previous policy.

Current travel standards internationally (before Omicron) were to get tested 3 days before flights. When I was travelling to Iceland earlier this year my family and I all had to be tested within 3 days of the flights (both into and out of the US). But because we were vaccinated we were allowed to take a rapid test. That wasn't Icelandic policy it was US policy (I asked).

Now they are allowing everybody to get rapid tested (the only way you can get tested the day before a flight). Which means they are lightening up the travelling protocols for unvaccinated people. It is maybe less convenient for vaccinated people because they can't get rapid tested 2 or 3 days before flying, but I would be happy to do that because it means that fewer people will be flying with Covid.

I'm sure part of the reason for this change in policy is that rapid tests are proving to be very reliable. A year ago they were only estimated to be 50% effective.

My problem with this protocol is that it is only for International flights. Why hasn't the US developed a national flying protocol of rapid testing before flights? Its a simple swab and 15 minute wait basically. For people who can't do it for whatever reason prior to getting to the airport, it could be part of the TSA protocol.

Many countries were set up for the 72 hour window the 24 hour window will be harder to meet. My thought is mandatory vaccines should be required for international travelers and have the rapid test be done on the plane with your Customs declaration

Its almost close to two years we should have this rapid testing thing figured out

So if Biden does noting about COVID you come in and whine that he’s doing nothing. If he does literally anything, you whine about “panicking.”