The Biden Presidency 2022

Quote: DRich

A store is not fully stocked after they are, and sell one single item.

Okay...the wording was not exact.

The store stocking levels for many items falls to zero or very low way more often now than it did in the pre-pandemic times or even last year, except for certain items (TP, paper towels, clorox wipes)..

This is evident in the stores we shop in both in the number of items not available for curbside and in our (rare) trips into the store.

Sounds like Sinema, who said she supports the voting rights bill, will not bust the filibuster to allow it to become law. Manchin probably was going to stop it as well. I loved her speech. She basically said that without it the minority party might as well not show up. Sort of like what happens in NY State right now. Republican Assemblymen and Senators are not even allowed to introduce bills!

I have mixed feelings about the filibuster. I am very happy it is blocking the wacko left bills. But conceptually, the idea that the majority can’t pass a bill with a simple majority just seems wrong. I guess when (if) the Republicans control both houses in 2023 and can’t get anything past Biden that doesn’t have both House and senate Democrat support I’ll dislike that too.

I guess if it was up to me I’d keep the filibuster. In general, the fewer bills that get passed the better.

Quote: SOOPOO

Sounds like Sinema, who said she supports the voting rights bill, will not bust the filibuster to allow it to become law. Manchin probably was going to stop it as well. I loved her speech. She basically said that without it the minority party might as well not show up. Sort of like what happens in NY State right now. Republican Assemblymen and Senators are not even allowed to introduce bills!

I have mixed feelings about the filibuster. I am very happy it is blocking the wacko left bills. But conceptually, the idea that the majority can’t pass a bill with a simple majority just seems wrong. I guess when (if) the Republicans control both houses in 2023 and can’t get anything past Biden that doesn’t have both House and senate Democrat support I’ll dislike that too.

I guess if it was up to me I’d keep the filibuster. In general, the fewer bills that get passed the better.

It doesn't seem wrong to me. The filibuster and the SCOTUS are currently the only checks on a single party potentially having complete power for a given amount of time. In order to avoid the SCOTUS, they'd have to just not pass anything that runs afoul of the Constitution and would otherwise have complete power.

Bad enough we have a two-party system. You certainly don't see to like NY's one party system. California's doesn't sound so hot either.

Quote: Mission146

It doesn't seem wrong to me. The filibuster and the SCOTUS are currently the only checks on a single party potentially having complete power for a given amount of time. In order to avoid the SCOTUS, they'd have to just not pass anything that runs afoul of the Constitution and would otherwise have complete power.

Bad enough we have a two-party system. You certainly don't see to like NY's one party system. California's doesn't sound so hot either.

But imagine (it is unlikely to happen) if the Repubs take majority in house and 60-40 in Senate, they still would not have enough votes to get a single bill passed that Biden doesn’t like. Enough to pass as many bills as they like, but not enough to get a single one signed into law. 2/3 to override the veto. Something different to whine about I guess.

Quote: SOOPOO

But imagine (it is unlikely to happen) if the Repubs take majority in house and 60-40 in Senate, they still would not have enough votes to get a single bill passed that Biden doesn’t like. Enough to pass as many bills as they like, but not enough to get a single one signed into law. 2/3 to override the veto. Something different to whine about I guess.

I fail to see the problem with that. That's what the System of Checks and Balances is intended to do. If the Republicans take 60-40, if the Democrats take 60-40, if there's a Republican President, a Democratic President...it all comes back to an aspect of the system actually working as designed. In order to pass your entire agenda, carte blanche, you have to have an overwhelming majority which, by extension, implies that the carte blanche agenda being passed is what an overwhelming majority of citizens actually want.

Why is the VP so unprepared for interviews?

I can't recall a good one she has given and the folks she has them with are hand picked.

I know some will just say "you don't support her"...and they are right. That does not mean that I cannot think her interviews are good or bad.

Who are the politicians that will take an interview with anyone? I have no opinion as to the other statements. I've watched maybe a lifetime total of six minutes of interviews with her since she became VP.

Quote: Mission146

Who are the politicians that will take an interview with anyone? I have no opinion as to the other statements. I've watched maybe a lifetime total of six minutes of interviews with her since she became VP.

So I pointed out the obvious--that the people she grants interviews to are handpicked--and, if you watched her most recent interview, she sometimes lacks basic recall of things the administration says are important. Her job is to present a great case for the administration and I make my judgement based on that, not on whether or not I like their positions.

You may disagree; I am okay with that at all times...

https://www.today.com/video/kamala-harris-on-cdc-covid-testing-voting-rights-130764869573

Quote: RonC

So I pointed out the obvious--that the people she grants interviews to are handpicked--and, if you watched her most recent interview, she sometimes lacks basic recall of things the administration says are important. Her job is to present a great case for the administration and I make my judgement based on that, not on whether or not I like their positions.

You may disagree; I am okay with that at all times...

https://www.today.com/video/kamala-harris-on-cdc-covid-testing-voting-rights-130764869573

Seven minutes...(sigh)...fine.

0:00-1:00: She opens up by showing empathy in that Americans are frustrated and so is the Administration. That's good. Definitely a good thing to acknowledge the frustrations of the populace. She mentions 03/20 with people wiping off boxes which isn't a remarkably intelligent thing to say because, not only did nobody really know anything about the virus then, but nobody could have been expected to know about it. Cheap way to compare something to when Trump was President, but play for your audience, and NBC is a bunch of toadies, so whatever.

She also mentions that the schools are back open. For the most part, I think it was her own party who was inclined to shut them down, so that's a non-mover for me. That's like saying restaurants in Pennsylvania are back open, yeah, but they were only closed because Fuhrer Wolf ordered them closed. That's just celebrating that you were, "Able to," undo the very thing that you yourself effectuated.

1:00-2:00: Masks---timeline unknown for upcoming CDC guidance. She should know that. I couldn't imagine the CDC telling the Administration, "Uhh, we don't know, whenever we get around to it." Stuff about masks. Blah. Don't care. Businesses can have whatever requirements they want and leave it at that.

2:00-3:00: Platitudes to start (bad). Encouraging everyone to get vaccinated (fine). Inability to answer another question with specificity or even an estimate, obviously not good.

3:00-5:00: Opens up by refusing to give a real answer to a direct question. Won't take blame for not getting out the tests soon enough. I'm actually surprised the interviewer would double press that question. Bunch of crap. Doesn't really answer a question and then answers some question that wasn't the one asked.

5:00-END: Direct assault on duly elected Senate Republicans to start. That'll bring the country together.

She's a politician. She's Trump. Different party, different person, same BS...don't know what you want me to take away from it. She's not the best talker and she's not the best at making it sound like she answered the question when she actually didn't, but I don't consider it a remarkable difference between her and anyone else.

The last good President was Obama and I expect him to be the last good POTUS I ever see in my lifetime. Bush wasn't awful. Clinton was great. Too young to have a personal opinion on the first Bush or Reagan.

If we want to bring the country together and all get back on the same page, I think they're going to have to manufacture a war somehow. Like, a real one. Anyone easy to beat that we can irritate enough to take an offensive against us? They have to be strong enough to be perceived as a real threat, of course.

Obviously, I don't want a war with anyone. But, if the goal is unity, I don't really see any other way that happens...so it just depends on which thing the powers that be value more. The current powers that be certainly seem to place no more value on country unity than Trump did, not that such is much of a surprise...at least the current powers that be are quieter and Trump supporters are less annoying (somehow) than the Far Left when they don't get their way.