Biden presidency and 2024 election campaign
Moderator: bbmods
-
What'sinaname
- Posts: 20095
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:00 pm
- Location: Living rent free
- Has liked: 4 times
- Been liked: 29 times
-
Magpietothemax
- Posts: 8013
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:05 pm
- Has liked: 25 times
- Been liked: 31 times
It is not impossible that the Democrats will get rid of Biden as their contender for the Presidency. They have been thrown into a profound crisis by the release of a report by Special Counsel Hur on his investigation into Biden's mishandling of classified national security documents. His recommmendation was that Biden should not be charged for retaining classified documents at his home and wilfully disclosing national security information to the ghostwriter of his memoirs due to his "limited and hazy memory". In other words, Biden's declining cognitive capacity was the reason to excuse him.
It will be difficult after this for the Democrats to present Biden as a viable candidate.
It will be difficult after this for the Democrats to present Biden as a viable candidate.
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins
Ice in the veins
-
pietillidie
- Posts: 16634
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:41 pm
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 28 times
Yeah, they're trapped because Biden has Trump's measure and his policy platform is driving a strong economic recovery, but he's going downhill quickly. This is the biggest weakness of the presidential system, which unlike parliament with its ministries elevates an office over a party, leaving few viable alternatives waiting in the wings.
From the perspective of global stability and prosperity, I would take Biden's skeleton over Trump. The grand bargain would be for the parties to replace both of them, but the fruitcake and his cult control too many weirdo states.
The alternative for the Dems will have to be a popular wild card people already know, causing more chaos. Damn their idiotic presidential system.
From the perspective of global stability and prosperity, I would take Biden's skeleton over Trump. The grand bargain would be for the parties to replace both of them, but the fruitcake and his cult control too many weirdo states.
The alternative for the Dems will have to be a popular wild card people already know, causing more chaos. Damn their idiotic presidential system.
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
-
Jezza
- Posts: 29501
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
- Location: Ponsford End
- Has liked: 251 times
- Been liked: 337 times
If Biden drops out of the Presidential race, who's the most likely nominee for the Democrats?
No one stands out. Names that I can think of straight off the bat are Harris (VP), Michelle Obama or Gavin Newsom (California's Governor).
No one stands out. Names that I can think of straight off the bat are Harris (VP), Michelle Obama or Gavin Newsom (California's Governor).
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | -
eddiesmith
- Posts: 12392
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: Lexus Centre
- Has liked: 11 times
- Been liked: 24 times
-
Jezza
- Posts: 29501
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
- Location: Ponsford End
- Has liked: 251 times
- Been liked: 337 times
Looks that way.eddiesmith wrote:Well David said Michelle running in place of Biden was insane and no chance in hell and Harris has no hope in hell of winning so they might be pretty $%$ed.
Using DEI to select their VP in 2020 wasn't a good decision.
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | -
pietillidie
- Posts: 16634
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:41 pm
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 28 times
^Any distortions in their system are an inherent weakness of the exultation of the presidential office, Jezza, in combination with other distortionary menaces such as swing states and electoral colleages. Representing important constituencies has absolutely nothing to do with DEI (if you want to learn about DEI in a professional business and economics context, feel free to ask).
The parliamentary system keeps a pool of people in the mix, meaning you can both represent various constituencies (black, Latino, Christian conservative, business, white collar workers, science and technology, etc.), and even pander to outweighted swing groups, and still have genuine leadership options kept prominently in the public consciousnessness. The air time given in the US to those outside the presidential office is ridiculous.
A single VP is nowhere near enough leadership redundancy, particular given vice-leadership roles are rarely considered succession roles, but roles in their own right supporting the presidential and leadership office, as is the case in large organisations.
The whole thing is completely out of date, which of course it rationally would be given when it was originally conceived. No one should be electing either Biden or Trump as standalone demigods.
Entire leadership teams with designated specialties should be up for election as a whole, in my view. It is absurd to elect a whole management team of a powerful branch of government on the basis of a single face and single point of failure. Even worse when it's the superpower, meaning a single mental case like Trump can do us all in.
The parliamentary system keeps a pool of people in the mix, meaning you can both represent various constituencies (black, Latino, Christian conservative, business, white collar workers, science and technology, etc.), and even pander to outweighted swing groups, and still have genuine leadership options kept prominently in the public consciousnessness. The air time given in the US to those outside the presidential office is ridiculous.
A single VP is nowhere near enough leadership redundancy, particular given vice-leadership roles are rarely considered succession roles, but roles in their own right supporting the presidential and leadership office, as is the case in large organisations.
The whole thing is completely out of date, which of course it rationally would be given when it was originally conceived. No one should be electing either Biden or Trump as standalone demigods.
Entire leadership teams with designated specialties should be up for election as a whole, in my view. It is absurd to elect a whole management team of a powerful branch of government on the basis of a single face and single point of failure. Even worse when it's the superpower, meaning a single mental case like Trump can do us all in.
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
-
What'sinaname
- Posts: 20095
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:00 pm
- Location: Living rent free
- Has liked: 4 times
- Been liked: 29 times
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54821
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 123 times
- Been liked: 159 times
^
The US system is far from perfect, but what is?
Their constituion and system of government was put together in the aftermath of winning a war of independence against Britain and so naturally it has all sorts of checks and balances to try to prevent a tyrant taking over.
And, as Ptiddy says, remember when it was all put together. The US Constitution and system of government pre-dates the arrival of the first fleet in Australia by around a decade.
They are pretty unique in democracies as I understand it in that the President is the head of state and also the commander in chief of the Military, but the real work of Government is supposed to happen in Congress which is unfortunately so constipated with self serving idiots that very little actually ever happens.
So, considering that the POTUS doesn't actually run the day to day government and is elected in what is largely a nationwide popularity contest, the ideal criteria should be something like this:
1. Intelligent. Not clinically insane or demented but someone able to recognise the gaps in their own knowledge and surround themself with experts and ask the right questions before making decisions
2. A servant of the people. This should go without saying as a prerequisite for any politician, someone who isn't there because of ego but someone who genuinely wants to make the lives of people better
3. Open minded, not a slave to any idealism but be prepared to do what is the right thing even if they don't personally like it
4. A good manager of people and a leader
There's probably a couple more I could throw in but just on that list, not only do Biden and Trump fall short, I can't think of a current Australian politician who ticks all the boxes.
The US system is far from perfect, but what is?
Their constituion and system of government was put together in the aftermath of winning a war of independence against Britain and so naturally it has all sorts of checks and balances to try to prevent a tyrant taking over.
And, as Ptiddy says, remember when it was all put together. The US Constitution and system of government pre-dates the arrival of the first fleet in Australia by around a decade.
They are pretty unique in democracies as I understand it in that the President is the head of state and also the commander in chief of the Military, but the real work of Government is supposed to happen in Congress which is unfortunately so constipated with self serving idiots that very little actually ever happens.
So, considering that the POTUS doesn't actually run the day to day government and is elected in what is largely a nationwide popularity contest, the ideal criteria should be something like this:
1. Intelligent. Not clinically insane or demented but someone able to recognise the gaps in their own knowledge and surround themself with experts and ask the right questions before making decisions
2. A servant of the people. This should go without saying as a prerequisite for any politician, someone who isn't there because of ego but someone who genuinely wants to make the lives of people better
3. Open minded, not a slave to any idealism but be prepared to do what is the right thing even if they don't personally like it
4. A good manager of people and a leader
There's probably a couple more I could throw in but just on that list, not only do Biden and Trump fall short, I can't think of a current Australian politician who ticks all the boxes.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
What'sinaname
- Posts: 20095
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:00 pm
- Location: Living rent free
- Has liked: 4 times
- Been liked: 29 times
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54821
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 123 times
- Been liked: 159 times
-
What'sinaname
- Posts: 20095
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:00 pm
- Location: Living rent free
- Has liked: 4 times
- Been liked: 29 times
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54821
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 123 times
- Been liked: 159 times
^
Interesting concept. While locking in the PM for a full term has apeal, it also prevents the party from replacing them if they go off the reservation. The fact that that power has been used mostly in recent times to dump a leader who the party thinks has become unpopular (with the exception of Krudd who retained public popularity despite being a world class tool) is somewhat beside the point. Our system is that the party choses the PM and they can choose to replace them if the party sees fit, and that sort of works for me.
Again, it's not perfect, but no system is. If there was a perfect system, everyone would use it. And before MTTM chimes in with his "perfect" variation on socialism/communisim, there's a reason it's never been tried anywhere. It's fundamentaly fkn flawed and won't work.
Interesting concept. While locking in the PM for a full term has apeal, it also prevents the party from replacing them if they go off the reservation. The fact that that power has been used mostly in recent times to dump a leader who the party thinks has become unpopular (with the exception of Krudd who retained public popularity despite being a world class tool) is somewhat beside the point. Our system is that the party choses the PM and they can choose to replace them if the party sees fit, and that sort of works for me.
Again, it's not perfect, but no system is. If there was a perfect system, everyone would use it. And before MTTM chimes in with his "perfect" variation on socialism/communisim, there's a reason it's never been tried anywhere. It's fundamentaly fkn flawed and won't work.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.