Jump to content

Joe Biden 2024 thread - Dark Brandon Where Art Thou?


StassneyHorn

Recommended Posts

yup, totally would have won…

 

A real mystery he didn’t do more long form interviews in his 4 years
 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/08/joe-biden-interview-transcript/77490912007/
 

 

PAGE: You talk about your economic successes on jobs and on growth on avoiding a recession which, a lot of people thought that wasn't possible. But one reason that Donald Trump won in November was the support he managed to get from working class voters, voters without a college education, voters who have been part of the Democratic coalition, voters who you as Scranton Joe have long identified with. Why do you think Democrats lost so much of their support in November?

 

BIDEN: Well, number one, I think that, as I said, if you look around the world, almost every democracy out there "lost" this time, number one. Number two, I think that if you, and it's not a criticism of the press, it's a reality... Turn on the news. Do you ever see any good news? I'm not being facetious. I'm not trying, and I don't say that as a criticism. I say that as an observation. The mindset we're in, it seems like you get no click unless there's something negative. And if you think about it, much of what I had, the hardest thing to do for me in the economy was to think through what were the immediate fixes you could do to make people feel better? But what do we do in the long-term? Put America in a position where you continue to be able to lead the world.

 

And much of what we did... For example, we passed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. Hooray, hooray. That sounds great, right? Historians will talk about (how) great the impact was, but it didn't (have) any immediate impact on people's lives. But it didn't have any immediate impact on people's lives. But guess what? There's 66,000 projects already signed out there. Some of them are billion dollar bridges. There are things that are going to create enormous wealth and work out there, but it takes time. Or for example, when... I think I made a bad mistake. I think you wrote something about when I went to Korea to try to bring back the computer chip industry back to the United States. And people looked at me like, "What are you doing?" Well, no one...

 

I never thought, I used to always kid the staff when I started at the beginning, talking about supply chains. Who the hell talked about supply chains in the previous 10, 20, 30, 40 years? Well, guess what? All of a sudden we found out that you need 30 little computer chips [inaudible] to build an automobile. You find you got to do your cell phone, your dishwasher, your washing machine. All of a sudden it was like, we can't get them. We invented the damn things. We modernized them. And so when I went to South Korea and meet with Samsung, I convinced them that it made sense for them to invest in the United States. And we ended up in a circumstance where we had billions of dollars invested over time. But what I said, "Why'd you decide to invest?" I think it was they invested $15 billion outside Columbus, Ohio, to build a fab, which is twice as three times the size of a football field.

 

And there was this response he gave me. He said, "Because you have those qualified workers in the world, number one. And number two, you're the safest place in the world to invest." And what we did, the big sort of conceptual change I made, was I realized that, and I'm embarrassed, I didn't know, that oh, I've been around here a long time. When Roosevelt tried to protect labor unions from being able to be overrun by Corporate America in the thirties, there was a provision in that law that said, in simple terms, when the Congress gives the president money to spend on a project, he should use an American worker, an American product. That was honored in the exception of Democrats and Republicans for all these years. Well, I changed it. I started saying, "No, no, that's what we're going to do." And what's happened is by this invest in America, we've generated a whole lot of...

 

And I know people understand we're critical of my being the most pro-labor president in American history. Well, there's a simple reason for it. And that is that they’re the most qualified people in the world to do the job. And so for example, and I had a meeting out here in the South Lawn. We were doing this, we were trying to get the CHIPS and Science Act passed, and I met with the labor guys and I hadn't laid out my environmental plan. Again, which it started all the way back in the eighties. And I said, "Look, when I think environment, I think jobs. And you should think jobs." And I finally got the IBW to endorse me, endorse the plan and say it's jobs. So what happened was, for example, we got in a situation where I asked the Samsung CEO why he was investing? He said, "Because you have the best workers in America, in the world."

 

It takes five years to become an electrician. The average person you and I grew up with. I, well, I speak for myself. "You think you're going to be an electrician?" "Yeah, I want to be an electrician." You go to school for six months. Five years. And so I guess what I'm saying is that the focus on trying to take and reestablish entire industries, infrastructure, dealing with the cost of how things would, I can get you on Air Force One if you have a prescription from any drug store here in Washington, DC, get in the plane. I'm not taking any capital rule and get it you for 40 to 60% less. Same company, same prescription.

 

Why is that? Why is the only thing in the world, up until we changed it, only thing that the federal government can't negotiate on is drug prices for Medicare. Do it for the veterans' thing. So we finally got that changed, and we changed things like which I got a profound economic, not just political impact. It used to be that for prescription drug, for insulin, it was 400 bucks a month. Thirty-five. Now no senior in America, no matter what their prescription bills are, can be charged more than $2,000 a year. It's a game changer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/15/politics/cnn-poll-biden-presidency/index.html

 

President Joe Biden will leave office with his approval rating remaining at the lowest level of his term and his favorability rating close to his personal low, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. 

Overall, 36% of US adults say they approve of the way Biden handled the presidency,

Edited by Incredulity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/15/politics/cnn-poll-biden-presidency/index.html

 

President Joe Biden will leave office with his approval rating remaining at the lowest level of his term and his favorability rating close to his personal low, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. 

Overall, 36% of US adults say they approve of the way Biden handled the presidency,

Inflation and price of eggs is, apparently, undefeated.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Incredulity said:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/15/politics/cnn-poll-biden-presidency/index.html

 

President Joe Biden will leave office with his approval rating remaining at the lowest level of his term and his favorability rating close to his personal low, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. 

Overall, 36% of US adults say they approve of the way Biden handled the presidency,

Literally at the top of this page quoted 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2025 at 12:31 PM, Incredulity said:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/15/politics/cnn-poll-biden-presidency/index.html

 

President Joe Biden will leave office with his approval rating remaining at the lowest level of his term and his favorability rating close to his personal low, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. 

Overall, 36% of US adults say they approve of the way Biden handled the presidency,

And the only person that approval ratings matter to is Donald J. Trump.  The people who disapprove of Biden are too stupid to live.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cabowabo said:

rondae hollis-jefferson page GIF

I can at least understand feeling like you had to vote for Donald Trump (again) because it can't possibly get any worse, right? What with the radical woke agenda bringing in surgeons after recess to mutilate your children and then paying $4 for some eggs. 

But I cannot, for the life of me, grasp the stupidity necessary to be legitimately excited for another Trump term. @Incredulity, would you be so kind as to enlighten us?

Edited by aggie08
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, aggie08 said:

I can at least understand feeling like you had to vote for Donald Trump (again) because it can't possibly get any worse, right? What with the radical woke agenda bringing in surgeons after recess to mutilate your children and then paying $4 for some eggs. 

But I cannot, for the life of me, grasp the stupidity necessary to be legitimately excited for another Trump term. @Incredulity, would you be so kind as to enlighten us?

Even if you accept that it was "the economy, stupid," what in the name of God would have made you think Trump would improve it?

Asshole is already crawfishing on consumer prices.

That he's a bidnessmen?  Jeezus jumped-up Christ on a cracker.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, aggie08 said:

But I cannot, for the life of me, grasp the stupidity necessary to be legitimately excited for another Trump term. @Incredulity, would you be so kind as to enlighten us?

This is the Joey Jo-Jo Failboat thread, not the But, but, but, Trump thread.  Pick one of the But, but, but, Trump threads you would like me to respond on and I will gladly do so.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Since @jimmyjazz thread got deleted by Rex being a bitch again and ruining another thread...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/17/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-equal-rights-amendment/

This is fucking stupid, he should have done this in 2021.

Thanks for the reboot.  It's going to be interesting to see how the impending showdown between those who think the 1982 deadline was Constitutional and those who don't, among other things.  And then there are the 5 states who voted to rescind their ratification soon after they had ratified.  Again, Constitutional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Even if you accept that it was "the economy, stupid," what in the name of God would have made you think Trump would improve it?

Asshole is already crawfishing on consumer prices.

That he's a bidnessmen?  Jeezus jumped-up Christ on a cracker.

As someone with lots of working class clients, that is truly what many still think. I learned how to gracefully disengage when they try to suck me into a discussion on the virtues of Dotard, but the garbage that comes out before I can change the subject (usually back to the terrible situation they've made for themselves) has really soured me on humanity. The oligarchy barely has to try to get these folks. We're fucked for a long while.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Since @jimmyjazz thread got deleted by Rex being a bitch again and ruining another thread...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/17/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-equal-rights-amendment/

This is fucking stupid, he should have done this in 2021.

 

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Thanks for the reboot.  It's going to be interesting to see how the impending showdown between those who think the 1982 deadline was Constitutional and those who don't, among other things.  And then there are the 5 states who voted to rescind their ratification soon after they had ratified.  Again, Constitutional?

Yeah, I agree with Brian that it was stupid to wait, but with this timing, I'm guessing Biden is just farting in the elevator before getting off.

I'm certainly no lawyer, but a reading of this makes it pretty clear that Congress has been empowered to impose a time limit on ratification since SCOTUS's decision in 1921. This did not apply to the 27th Amendment since that Congress put no time limit on its ratification.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-4-2-1/ALDE_00013054/

Now, I do think there's a valid question about why such a restriction would be put on ratification in the first place. I suppose you could make the argument that if an amendment can't get ratified by X number of states within a certain period of time, then it's not worth passage. Of course, that's a dubious proposition when a chunk of the country is too entrenched in its own prejudices.

Regardless, I applaud shining a light on the issue, so let's see if the Dems can make any hay from it (narrator: they can't).

I'd appreciate it if anyone could point to the ABA language providing an opinion on why the amendment actually should be valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Yeah, I agree with Brian that it was stupid to wait, but with this timing, I'm guessing Biden is just farting in the elevator before getting off.

I'm certainly no lawyer, but a reading of this makes it pretty clear that Congress has been empowered to impose a time limit on ratification since SCOTUS's decision in 1921. This did not apply to the 27th Amendment since that Congress put no time limit on its ratification.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-4-2-1/ALDE_00013054/

Now, I do think there's a valid question about why such a restriction would be put on ratification in the first place. I suppose you could make the argument that if an amendment can't get ratified by X number of states within a certain period of time, then it's not worth passage. Of course, that's a dubious proposition when a chunk of the country is too entrenched in its own prejudices.

Regardless, I applaud shining a light on the issue, so let's see if the Dems can make any hay from it (narrator: they can't).

I'd appreciate it if anyone could point to the ABA language providing an opinion on why the amendment actually should be valid.

It doesn't take a lawyer to understand that the constitution is like the strike zone, except it's 5 people's opinions that matter, not 1. The only real wildcard is whether a couple justices would've held out for a better vacation package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I haven't read it yet . . . hope this link to the pdf works:

ABA Resolution 601

So, the main gist from what I’m reading there is that Article V is silent on the amount of time allocated to ratification; therefore, the imposition of a deadline is unconstitutional. As a result, the 1921 decision by SCOTUS to allow for one on Prohibition was wrong.

Smarty pants lawyers, am I reading that correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden Will Commute Sentences of Nearly 2,500 Drug Offenders
The action, aimed at inmates who received harsher sentences based on old disparities in drug laws, will be the broadest commutation of individual sentences ever issued by a U.S. president.

President Biden announced on Friday that he would commute the sentences of nearly 2,500 inmates serving long prison terms for nonviolent drug offenses, the broadest commutation of individual sentences ever issued by a U.S. president.

The commutations are for offenders who received harsher sentences for drug crimes than they would under current practices, a move aimed at reversing longstanding criminal justice disparities, Mr. Biden said. Those disparities disproportionately affected Black people and fueled mass incarceration, many experts say.

“This action is an important step toward righting historic wrongs, correcting sentencing disparities and providing deserving individuals the opportunity to return to their families and communities after spending far too much time behind bars,” Mr. Biden said in a statement.

The commutations add to Mr. Biden’s sweeping use of his clemency powers as he prepares to leave office. In recent weeks, he has also commuted the sentences of nearly all prisoners on federal death row and set what was a single-day record of 1,500 commutations for those moved to home confinement during the pandemic.

Mr. Biden said he would consider additional pardons, which wipe out convictions, and commutations, which leave the guilty verdict intact but reduce some or all of the punishment, in the coming days. Among others, Mr. Biden has been considering pre-emptive pardons for a number of former elected officials and other people his successor, President-elect Donald J. Trump, may target for political retribution.

Spoiler

Mr. Biden said his latest commutations would help those who received sentences based on now-discredited distinctions between crack and powder cocaine, or faced inflated charges for drug crimes.

Mr. Biden said in his statement that he was following the lead of Congress, which over the past two decades has passed legislation to remedy decades-long disparities spurred by tough-on-crime laws, such as mandatory minimum sentences.

As a senator, Mr. Biden championed one such law, the 1994 crime bill. He has since expressed regret for his support of the legislation, and he committed during the 2020 campaign to addressing the long drug sentences that resulted.

“As Congress recognized through the Fair Sentencing Act and the First Step Act, it is time that we equalize these sentencing disparities,” Mr. Biden said.

The move comes after Mr. Biden faced mounting pressure from advocates and Democratic allies to use his clemency powers in his final days in office to release inmates who are vulnerable or suffered from systemic inequities.

Those calls grew louder last month after Mr. Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon of his son Hunter — after repeatedly insisting he would not do so — erasing years of legal troubles, including a federal conviction for illegally buying a gun and a guilty plea to tax evasion charges.

In recent months, Mr. Biden’s staff members have fielded requests from Democrats and criminal justice advocates who have called on him to specifically focus on those who have been imprisoned for decades for drug laws that have changed over time. He faced the most pressure to act to help those imprisoned for crimes associated with crack cocaine who would most likely have been released if it was powder cocaine.

In April, he commuted the sentences of five people convicted of drug-related crimes. That was in addition to commuting the sentences of nearly a dozen such prisoners in December 2023. Many of them were convicted of crimes involving powder cocaine.

Some of Mr. Biden’s closest allies, such as Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, have made the case to the White House that crack cocaine was more widespread among the Black community, while powder cocaine tended to be used by white people.

“I told them that these are some of the inequities that Black people have been caught up with,” Mr. Clyburn said in an interview last month.

Mr. Biden had already issued blanket pardons, including for thousands of people convicted of federal possession of marijuana and veterans convicted of engaging in gay sex. None of those people were in prison at the time.

Some Democrats lobbying the White House said that using clemency to address the sentencing disparities could be a cornerstone of the president’s criminal justice record.

“It’s not a matter of just what is the right thing,” Representative Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts said in an interview last month. “It is also a matter of legacy.”

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't the 27th amendment take 200+ years to be ratified by the states. This is the congress compensation amendment.  The first state ratified it in 1789 and the 38th state in 1992. It's recognized as an official amendment from the US govt.

For those who do not know, a 1982 UT student restarted the process to get this amendment passed in the last few remaining states. Nice bit of trivia there. 

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's an official statement on whitehouse.gov, not "implemented by tweet".  Nice try, though.

ERA statement by President Biden

 

26 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

lol. In terms of the constitutional amendment process that statement is equivalent to a tweet. 

I have to agree with Ana here, it's a joke. If he actually wanted this done he would have done it years ago. This is functionally just a meaningless tweet even though it is technically an official statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to my knowledge the President has no formal role in getting an amendment written into the Constitution.  I think by telling the archivist to do so, he's calling attention to something that has languished, and honestly, probably wasn't the biggest battle he wanted to fight given covid, inflation, Ukraine, Roe v Wade, etc.  

So no, I don't see it as a joke.  I see it as something that should have been done earlier, despite the disagreement over the validity of the vote given timeframes, etc.  In this climate, nothing is easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, to my knowledge the President has no formal role in getting an amendment written into the Constitution.  I think by telling the archivist to do so, he's calling attention to something that has languished, and honestly, probably wasn't the biggest battle he wanted to fight given covid, inflation, Ukraine, Roe v Wade, etc.  

So no, I don't see it as a joke.  I see it as something that should have been done earlier, despite the disagreement over the validity of the vote given timeframes, etc.  In this climate, nothing is easy.

His own DOJ issued an opinion in the last couple years specifically on the topic.  The archivist similarly issued a statement a few weeks ago on the subject: https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2025/nr25-004

This is Joe just wilding out and having some fun, that crazy ole coot. He's probably all worked up and telling Jill he just popped a blue chew and to get ready cause Uncle Joe wants one more run at the ice cream sandwich before they finish packing up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

His own DOJ issued an opinion in the last couple years specifically on the topic.  The archivist similarly issued a statement a few weeks ago on the subject: https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2025/nr25-004

This is Joe just wilding out and having some fun, that crazy ole coot. He's probably all worked up and telling Jill he just popped a blue chew and to get ready cause Uncle Joe wants one more run at the ice cream sandwich before they finish packing up. 

It's literally not a settled issue, despite your "servant leader" anti-woman predilections.  Read and absorb some shit that doesn't support your fucked up perspectives.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Read and absorb some shit that doesn't support your fucked up perspectives.

I read the US Archivist statement Jimmy.  Joey just freestyling. Pull the stick out of your ass and enjoy it for the entertainment. 

 

Statement on the Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Process
Media Alert ·Tuesday, December 17, 2024

Washington, DC

Archivist of the United States Dr. Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko released the following statement today on the Equal Rights Amendment and the constitutional responsibilities for administering the ratification process:  

“As Archivist and Deputy Archivist of the United States, it is our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and ensure that changes to the Constitution are carried out in accordance with the law. At this time, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.

“In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.

“The role of the Archivist of the United States is to follow the law as it stands, ensuring the integrity of our nation’s governing institutions. Personal opinion or beliefs are not relevant; as the leaders of the National Archives, we support established legal processes and decisions.  

“We will continue to serve with transparency and integrity as we move forward in addressing this and all matters related to our Constitution.”

  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...