[RD] Biden v. Biden

[yung.carl.jung]

He's talking about the Bide administration. Marijuana can be re- or de-scheduled by executive order. If Biden wanted to federally decriminalize he could do it now with the stroke of a pen.

that's what I was trying to say, thanks. and isn't it particularly Biden who should feel the responsibility to do this, seeing as how he is partially responsible for so many people's misery? that is why his past is so significant imho, not because it's fun to drag him through the dirt and put him down for things that happened decades ago, but because he now has the possibility to correct some of his past mistakes.

You're distorting what actually happened a bit. These people admitted to the drug use as part of routine security clearance checks, not because Biden specifically targeted users to weed them out. And the regulations are actually pretty clear and binding; dBiden has actually shown lenience by not removing every single past user but instea putting some of them on remote work.

this is probably true, I did not read up much substantially on the check, I had it explained to me by friends and probably misremember some things/had it exaggerated. I mostly just thought it was a funny episode of white house melodrama which showed beautifully that in politics, lieing is always the preferred choice and honesty is not a trait that is desired or helpful.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Honestly I don't have high hopes, so my defense of Biden was more a correction of what happened rather than trying to show he will change.

 

[Modder_Mode]

Except, of course, Biden is not those things.

He is, and when you contrast what he has done compared to Donald Trump it's a lot worse.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

On another Joe Biden related note it is amusing that everything we were told by the left the reasons not to vote for Donald Trump "he's a racist, liar, predator, sexual abuser, tax avoider

corrupt, incompetent, scam artist, autocrat, populist, instigator.

Etc

 

[Cutlass]

He is, and when you contrast what he has done compared to Donald Trump it's a lot worse.

And yet somehow there was never any evidence brought out during the election....

 

[El_Machinae]

He is, and when you contrast what he has done compared to Donald Trump it's a lot worse.

I don't think that follows. Along most of those metrics, Donald Trump is a pretty terrible person. Those flaws, in addition to the way that he cultivated a base, made him a pretty dangerous figure to have in a leadership position.

I can understand conservativism, since there are many branches of the theory that are well-described. Trump wasn't conservative, but he sure appealed to a subset of people who think they're conservative.

 

[BvBPL]

He doesn't need to do anything. Times change as do people. None of us are the same people we were decades ago. He just has to do what is right now. He has two years to push through all the change he can and then he can retire and turn things over to Kamala.

There is no capability to predict what someone will do in future with any certainty, but past behavior tends to be a good indicator. Biden's past behavior, in particular as it relates to the crime bills of the 1990s (the '94 crime bill and the '97 def. auth. sec. 1033 for ex.) and his support of the PATRIOT act, indicate he was interested in legislating based on angry public opinion by arming the state for violence rather than doing the hard work of healing. Which came home to roost in 2020. What frightens me is the possibility President Biden is likely to respond with public-opinion focused short term responses giving American of 2050 the same sort of harvest he sowed in 1994.

What's changed about Biden that should make me think he's not the same "follow the polls of the angry white men" politician he was thirty years ago? Why should I think he's doing something to lay the ground work for the future instead of doing gut-level responses that will be rejected by his own party thirty years later?

Joe Biden is POTUS now.

He served eight years as vice President.

But everyone here seems to want to discuss what he did before even that as a senator.

His career as a senator is simply more consequential than being vice president. As a senator, Biden authored legislation that changed Americans' relationship with law enforcement. Vice presidents' have more limited roles in establishing laws, and what roles the vice presidents have are largely in executing their boss's ideals rather than trailblazing their own. I'm not saying he was a non-entity as a vice president, but in terms of passing laws and making significant changes to the American state, it's more fitting to compare Sen. Biden with Pres. Biden than considering V.P. Biden.

But let's look at what Biden didn't do as VP: anything about guns following Newtown. For a fella that was earnestly committed to addressing violent crime and who had a demonstrated capacity to work across the aisle to pass ground-break legislation, he sure spun his wheels in the mud on that one.

 

[EnglishEdward]

That is a very well reasoned analysis, BvBPL.

I suspect that Joe Biden isn't going to do a great deal domestically.

What is of more interest to me is what line Joe Biden will take internationally.

Donald Trump was a non interventionist.

Do you think Joe Biden is going to do things abroad?

 

[Berzerker]

Biden's a mixed bag on foreign policy. I think he opposed Bush 41's war to expel Iraq from Kuwait but voted for war the 2nd time with Bush 43. He apparently expressed opposition to attacking Libya but not Syria. I dont know if I'd call him a knee jerk neo-con. So far he attacked Iranians and has backtracked a bit in Afghanistan. I expect a new president to maneuver back and forth trying to achieve an endgame, but the deep state and establishment want conflict.

The Taliban said if we dont live by Trump's deal they'll resume attacks on us. But the problem with leaving is the civil war might/will continue. Do we leave but still arm our side and risk terrorism from the Taliban or their allies? Bush 41 and Clinton set us up for 9/11, Bush 43 made it worse with his response and then Obama expanded their disaster to even more countries. There's no comparison, Trump is better than all 4. Hopefully he got us far enough down the road to peace Biden cant reverse course.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There is no capability to predict what someone will do in future with any certainty, but past behavior tends to be a good indicator. Biden's past behavior, in particular as it relates to the crime bills of the 1990s (the '94 crime bill and the '97 def. auth. sec. 1033 for ex.) and his support of the PATRIOT act, indicate he was interested in legislating based on angry public opinion by arming the state for violence rather than doing the hard work of healing. Which came home to roost in 2020. What frightens me is the possibility President Biden is likely to respond with public-opinion focused short term responses giving American of 2050 the same sort of harvest he sowed in 1994.

What's changed about Biden that should make me think he's not the same "follow the polls of the angry white men" politician he was thirty years ago? Why should I think he's doing something to lay the ground work for the future instead of doing gut-level responses that will be rejected by his own party thirty years later?

You must be young. The Patriot Act was 20 years ago; The 90s were 30 years ago; In between then and now lots has happened that has shaped and changed people. What were your views in 2001 compared to now? Aging is a pretty interesting process and it does affect people's ideas. In my 20 years here I've seen many posters grow up from their teens to their 30s and, guess what? They change their views. Those views will change more over the next 30 years. Now I'm sure you are smarter than he ever was and can solve all our problems "quick as a bunny" and know full well all of the unintended consequences of what you do today over the next 20 years.

 

[Ajidica]

The Patriot Act was 20 years ago

Stop making me feel old.

 

[caketastydelish]

Biden's a mixed bag on foreign policy. I think he opposed Bush 41's war to expel Iraq from Kuwait but voted for war the 2nd time with Bush 43. He apparently expressed opposition to attacking Libya but not Syria. I dont know if I'd call him a knee jerk neo-con. So far he attacked Iranians and has backtracked a bit in Afghanistan. I expect a new president to maneuver back and forth trying to achieve an endgame, but the deep state and establishment want conflict.

The Taliban said if we dont live by Trump's deal they'll resume attacks on us. But the problem with leaving is the civil war might/will continue. Do we leave but still arm our side and risk terrorism from the Taliban or their allies? Bush 41 and Clinton set us up for 9/11, Bush 43 made it worse with his response and then Obama expanded their disaster to even more countries. There's no comparison, Trump is better than all 4. Hopefully he got us far enough down the road to peace Biden cant reverse course.

I actually have mixed feelings for Iraq. We probably shouldn't have been their in the first place and war crimes were committed. OTOH Saddem Hussein was 100% a fascist strongman who committed genocide against the Kurds with no concern for morals or human rights whatsoever. The government which we helped prop up is still the same government they have no, which is a better government than the Saddam Hussein Regime (even if that's not a bold statement.)

One thing that separates Iraq from Vietnam is that in Vietnam it was obviously all for nothing and we lost the war - they fell to the communists pretty much as soon as we left.

In Iraq, the government we helped to formulate is still running the country, and still friendly with the US and better to its own citizens and more democratic than Saddam's regime (again, not a bold statement but still.)

Vietnam was a complete failure, in Iraq we were about as successful as we could reasonably hope for. Yes, there was ISIS, but they were swiftly defeated with international support, and now things are better for them. ISIS was only a short-term problem.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There's no comparison, Trump is better than all 4. Hopefully he got us far enough down the road to peace Biden cant reverse course.

The road to peace was paved with bombs.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

President Donald Trump has revoked a policy set by his predecessor requiring US intelligence officials to publish the number of civilians killed in drone strikes outside of war zones.

The 2016 executive order was brought in by then-President Barack Obama, who was under pressure to be more transparent.

Since the 9/11 terror attack, drone strikes have been increasingly used against terror and military targets.

The Trump administration said the rule was "superfluous" and distracting.
[...]

There have been 2,243 drone strikes in the first two years of the Trump presidency, compared with 1,878 in Mr Obama's eight years in office, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a UK-based think tank.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/28/us-afghanistan-war-bombs-2019

The US dropped more bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 than any other year since the Pentagon began keeping a tally in 2006, reflecting an apparent effort to force concessions from the Taliban at the negotiating table.

According to new figures released by US central command, US warplanes dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions on Afghanistan, a nearly eightfold increase from 2015.

The increasing intensity of the air campaign has been accompanied by an increase in civilian casualties attributed to US forces. According to UN data, the US accounted for half the 1,149 civilian deaths attributed to pro-government forces in Afghanistan over the first three-quarters of 2019.
The Taliban and other insurgent groups were responsible for 1,207 civilian deaths, according to the same figures, as the Taliban also stepped up its attacks over the summer. In July last year, the UN recorded the highest number of civilian casualties in a single month since the organisation began documenting civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I would also like to see Biden reverse course on backstabbing allies who have helped fight ISIS just to suck up to dictatorships.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...kurds-are-much-safer-as-us-troops-leave-syria

Trump claims Kurds 'no angels' as he boasts of his own 'brilliant' strategy

Donald Trump has hailed his decision to withdraw US troops in Syria, paving way for a Turkish offensive, as “strategically brilliant”, declaring that the Kurds he had abandoned were “much safer now” and were anyway “not angels”.

[..]

“I view the situation on the Turkish border with Syria to be, for the United States, strategically brilliant,” Trump said. “Our soldiers are out of there, they’re totally safe.”

The claim was untrue. There are reported to be hundreds of US troops still in the border area, where they have come under fire from Turkish-backed forces. The president seemed unaware or in denial of the precarious and volatile situation in the region for US troops and the Kurdish inhabitants.

As for the Kurds, Trump showed no remorse for abandoning local partners who had lost 11,000 soldiers fighting under US direction against Isis.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Vietnam was a complete failure, in Iraq we were about as successful as we could reasonably hope for. Yes, there was ISIS, but they were swiftly defeated with international support, and now things are better for them. ISIS was only a short-term problem.

Well interesting is that Vietnam in the long run seems to perform far better than Iraq. Iraq have basically had no real economic growth since the invasion or even during Saddam and still seems unstable. Vietnam seems to have the population that is most favorable to US and have one if not the fastest growing economy in relative terms.

I think the issues with Iraq and probably Afghanistan are very deep and hard to solve. 2 decades of conflicts that don't seems to be any more closer to be solved than they was at the start.

I would also like to see Biden reverse course on backstabbing allies who have helped fight ISIS just to suck up to dictatorships.

How much power do the president have over things like that? Maybe they have too much power?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Donald Trump was a non interventionist.

Do you think Joe Biden is going to do things abroad?

Donald Trump literally Drone-struck more people than any other human being in history (and he has tough competition from Obama!) including drone-striking a famous Irani general, war hero and "ally" of the US and almost escalating the US-Iran conflict into a full blown war.

Also, yes, I think Biden will be just as much of a war hawk as all the other democrats before him, maybe even worse than Trump.

happened that has shaped and changed people. [/QUOTE]

Now I'm sure you are smarter than he ever was and can solve all our problems "quick as a bunny" and know full well all of the unintended consequences of what you do today over the next 20 years.

this is peak boomerposting. "better not have critical opinions cause your grandchildren might think you're wrong!"

You must be young.

I am indeed farther from death than most people are, thank you for noticing

I would also like to see Biden reverse course on backstabbing allies who have helped fight ISIS just to suck up to dictatorships.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...kurds-are-much-safer-as-us-troops-leave-syria

yes, 110% agree. America's and Europe's treatment of the kurds is beyond disgusting.

The 90s were 30 years ago; In between then and now lots has changed

you know what hasn't changed since the Clinton Administration? Democrat Party politics

I actually have mixed feelings for Iraq. We probably shouldn't have been their in the first place and war crimes were committed. OTOH Saddem Hussein was 100% a fascist strongman who committed genocide against the Kurds with no concern for morals or human rights whatsoever.

It's a lot more complicated than that. In addition to being a fascist strongman and general sociopath, Hussein also celebrated plenty of political accomplishments, and was for a long time revered, especially in the West:

Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).[42][43]

Similiar to other communist movements, Saddam modernized Iraq but with huge costs of human capital, huge amounts of suffering and opression.

What is also very quickly forgotten is that Saddam received poison Gas and advanced weaponry used to commit genocide from the US and West Germany. so our own roles in the genocide of Kurds for example shouldn't be taken lightly.

I actually fundamentally agree with you insofar that I don't think intervening in Iraq was strictly wrong, though it is abundantly clear that the way American went about doing it, a declaration of war, was not the right choice, neither were the US' war crimes.

 

[stinkubus]

I actually have mixed feelings for Iraq. We probably shouldn't have been their in the first place and war crimes were committed. OTOH Saddem Hussein was 100% a fascist strongman who committed genocide against the Kurds with no concern for morals or human rights whatsoever. The government which we helped prop up is still the same government they have no, which is a better government than the Saddam Hussein Regime (even if that's not a bold statement.)

One thing that separates Iraq from Vietnam is that in Vietnam it was obviously all for nothing and we lost the war - they fell to the communists pretty much as soon as we left.

In Iraq, the government we helped to formulate is still running the country, and still friendly with the US and better to its own citizens and more democratic than Saddam's regime (again, not a bold statement but still.)

Vietnam was a complete failure, in Iraq we were about as successful as we could reasonably hope for. Yes, there was ISIS, but they were swiftly defeated with international support, and now things are better for them. ISIS was only a short-term problem.

Saddam's crimes against the Kurds were perpetrated with material support from the US government. Saddam was taken out because he insisted on keeping control of Iraqi oil. That's it, that's all. Any handwringing about his crimes is nothing but state supported propaganda because the US enabled them all.

 

[Birdjaguar]

this is peak boomerposting. "better not have critical opinions cause your grandchildren might think you're wrong!"

I am indeed farther from death than most people are, thank you for noticing

I certainly am a boomer who is posting! It is not about having critical opinions blah blah. It is about having opinions that are not particularly well rooted and which ignore the impact of of both time and change on people and what they think.

I hope you are a very long way from death. I figure I have as many years behind me as you have in front of you.

 

[caketastydelish]

Saddam's crimes against the Kurds were perpetrated with material support from the US government. Saddam was taken out because he insisted on keeping control of Iraqi oil. That's it, that's all. Any handwringing about his crimes is nothing but state supported propaganda because the US enabled them all.

While this is true, at least the US can honestly say their intention was for Saddam to use it against the Iranians in war, not the Kurds. Against enemy combatants, not innocent and defenseless civilians. To be clear I think giving Saddam those weapons was still wrong at the time, but at least that is worth nothing. I'm also not sure that Saddam insisting to keep control of Iraqi oil was the ONLY reason why he was taken out.

Well interesting is that Vietnam in the long run seems to perform far better than Iraq. Iraq have basically had no real economic growth since the invasion or even during Saddam and still seems unstable. Vietnam seems to have the population that is most favorable to US and have one if not the fastest growing economy in relative terms.

I think the issues with Iraq and probably Afghanistan are very deep and hard to solve. 2 decades of conflicts that don't seems to be any more closer to be solved than they was at the start.

How much power do the president have over things like that? Maybe they have too much power?

I'm not sure if Iraq "has no economic growth" (source?) and ISIS was a problem but quickly taken care of. The current Iraqi government is more democratic than the Saddam regime, even if that isn't a bold statement.

 

[Berzerker]

The road to peace was paved with bombs.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/28/us-afghanistan-war-bombs-2019

"The 2016 executive order was brought in by then-President Barack Obama"

Lol, Trump removing a stink bug left by Obama is just so wrong. But Obama waiting 8 years to sign it is okay. Ofc Trump dropped a lot of bombs, his predecessors left him with a combined half dozen wars or more. Did Trump start more wars and leave Biden with an even bigger mess than what Trump inherited? No, the war in Syria is effectively over (at least our role) and we've had a cease fire with the Taliban for about a year and we're scheduled to leave in a few weeks.

I would also like to see Biden reverse course on backstabbing allies who have helped fight ISIS just to suck up to dictatorships.

Isn't that dictatorship our ally? We've been killing people in Yemen for a decade because another allied dictator doesn't like Iran. Hopefully Biden is working behind the scenes to end that war. As for the Kurds, some of them are at war with the Turks. So its understandable for the Turks to oppose expanding Kurdish control over the Syrian border.

Meanwhile Turkey has been hosting millions of refugees from Syria who want to go home, many from the border region occupied by Kurds. So what would you consider reversing course? Returning control of the border to the Kurds? I dont know how anyone can look at the situation in 1/17 and 1/21 and conclude Trump made it worse.