Finally - an end to the Afghan war?

Klinker said:

Such hubris!  

You all can lie to yourselves until the cows come home but, even if Biden had won the primaries with every Democratic vote except mine, I still would not feel constrained from criticizing him when he conveniently forgets campaign promises made to progressives or when he throws our allies under the bus.

And Basil, I am still waiting  for you to thank me for voting for a candidate who I found to be both far too conservative and personally distasteful. I cannot help but wonder whether you "moderates" (conservatives) would do the same if it was a progressive candidate on the ballot.

You should always feel free to criticize anyone you want, even if you fully supported them. And thank you for voting for Biden, even though you dislike him and think he is too conservative.

Having said that, he OVERWHELMINGLY won the primaries, and OVERWHELMINGLY won the general election. Just so we have that straight.

basil said:

You should always feel free to criticize anyone you want, even if you fully supported them. And thank you for voting for Biden, even though you dislike him and think he is too conservative.

Having said that, he OVERWHELMINGLY won the primaries, and OVERWHELMINGLY won the general election. Just so we have that straight.

 Joe Biden's victory in November was historic in a number of ways.  Not only was he the oldest man ever elected President, no previous President had ever secured the nomination, let alone the Presidency after having lost so many of the early primaries and caucuses.  

Look.  No one here is denying that Biden won the race for the Democratic nomination or the Presidency.  What is puzzling is your insistence that he took the nomination in some sort of party wide consensus moment that was accompanied by a beam of light shining down from heaven and a spontaneous recitation of all the verses of Kumbaya. It was a divisive primary contest that was followed by a coming together of the diverse elements of the party to support a candidate who was not the first (or in some cases 15th) choice of most voters.  Why can't that subsequent moment of unity and action be enough for you?  

This insistence on rewriting history, along with the "moderate" (conservative) Democrat penchant for describing themselves as "progressives" is almost Stalinist in its perversity.

Biden was the only one to beat the other guy. Regardless of how you feel about him as a person or progressive. The bottom line is money. This is a capitalist nation, and money is the driving force. The majority of Americans still believe in less government control of their money and their lives. We have to be moderate. This is not a homogeneous society, and we sure as hell won’t be falling in line behind some ideology that even remotely resembles Marxism. That is why the more experienced Democrats selected Biden against a character like this other guy. We don’t live in some utopian commune where we just let the ultra leftist or ultra righteous control us. Don’t forget that millions of naturalized Americans eligible to vote today came here from many socialist and communist and “progressive” countries who are controlled by people who hate capitalism, but have millions stashed away in America. 
you don’t have to love your president, nor do you need a thank you for voting for anyone. What you’re voting for is just being able to raise your kids and live in a comfortable environment. It’s all about economic stability. We don’t achieve that by penalizing successful people who drive the economy. That’s the pitfall of the ultra left.

I'm wondering what you consider to be "ultra leftist".

And do you actually think that any policy proposal by the Dems penalizes the " successful people who drive the economy"? (some people think that workers drive the economy, but that's for another day)

Klinker said:

This insistence on rewriting history, along with the "moderate" (conservative) Democrat penchant for describing themselves as "progressives" is almost Stalinist in its perversity.

You keep using those words.  I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Klinker said:

This insistence on rewriting history, along with the "moderate" (conservative) Democrat penchant for describing themselves as "progressives" is almost Stalinist in its perversity.

It’s like you’re arguing that the Democratic electorate is overwhelmingly progressive and was somehow robbed.

drummerboy said:

I'm wondering what you consider to be "ultra leftist".

And do you actually think that any policy proposal by the Dems penalizes the " successful people who drive the economy"? (some people think that workers drive the economy, but that's for another day)

 I think this is as good a day as any to say that workers drive the economy. 

q=solidarity+forever&sxsrf=ALeKk02qEx7Iyag01ooiNCG0ax1D9OuJoA%3A1619102164299&source=hp&ei

It is we who plowed the prairies, built the cities where they trade
Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid
Now we stand outcast and starving midst the wonders we have made
But the union makes us strong

They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
That the union makes us strong

Klinker said:

 no previous President had ever secured the nomination, let alone the Presidency after having lost so many of the early primaries and caucuses.  

 What is the basis or source for that statement? I am curious.

Many Presidential candidates were chosen before the creation of primaries and caucuses.

STANV said: 

Many Presidential candidates were chosen before the creation of primaries and caucuses. 

Those candidates would be excluded, because they did not lose early primaries and caucuses. 

I guess the 1924 Dem Presidential candidate didn't actually lose any primaries or caucuses. He did not run in any of them. And he wasn't elected President so maybe your statement is accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

It’s a dubious statement anyway. Bill Clinton started 2 for 9. Biden was only 0 for 2 before winning Nevada and South Carolina.

(Someone said something about rewriting history ...)

DaveSchmidt said:

It’s like you’re arguing that the Democratic electorate is overwhelmingly progressive and was somehow robbed.

Yeah, except that's not at all what I am saying.  What I am ACTUALLY saying is that the Democratic electorate is not overwhelmingly conservative in such a way that the election of the most conservative candidate in the primaries would be a balm to the party as a whole.

The Democratic Party contains at least three groups of people, conservatives who love Joe Biden, folks in the center who are happy to be on the winning team, and progressives who are relieved to see Trump gone but disappointed yet again at the endless ascendancy of the Clintonian New Democrat Machine.

Basil would have us believe that the 2020 primaries were an exercise in acclamation. This viewpoint is simply not born out by the facts.

STANV said:

 What is the basis or source for that statement? I am curious.

Many Presidential candidates were chosen before the creation of primaries and caucuses.

 

 I probably should have said modern history, although, since Millard Fillmore didn't compete in the NH Primary, he couldn't lose it.

Klinker said:  

 I probably should have said modern history, although, since Millard Fillmore didn't compete in the NH Primary, he couldn't lose it.

Cassie probably should stick to prophecy. 

I'm assuming all of this discussion about party candidates is meant as an extended example of how a conflict like the US involvement in Afghanistan can grind on for years with no clear resolution and with an increasingly difficult-to-discern end goal?

PVW said:

I'm assuming all of this discussion about party candidates is meant as an extended example of how a conflict like the US involvement in Afghanistan can grind on for years with no clear resolution and with an increasingly difficult-to-discern end goal?

 Yeah, I don't think I am going to convert Basil to my POV.  He believes what he believes with religious fervor.

I think it is just enough to say (yet again) that I am disappointed that Biden did not deliver on his promise to revoke Trump's absurd limits on admission of refugees. We are a wealthy and powerful country.  Whatever theoretical action we might take in the future, we can make a difference in the lives of thousands today.  We can save lives today.  For those in dire need, May 15 or October 15 or the 15th of Never may well be too late. 

The Times has a good article on this.

NYT: The attitude of the president was, essentially: Why are you bothering me with this?

And all of this, of course, is in the context of the end of US involvement in Afghanistan which will leave thousands of US allies to suffer and die.

PVW said:

I'm assuming all of this discussion about party candidates is meant as an extended example of how a conflict like the US involvement in Afghanistan can grind on for years with no clear resolution and with an increasingly difficult-to-discern end goal?

 maybe we should a have general purpose politics thread to handle all of these interminably long tangents.

drummerboy said:

 maybe we should a have general purpose politics thread to handle all of these interminably long tangents.

 Maybe we could get Jamie to rename the Rose Garden.

Klinker said:

I think it is just enough to say (yet again) that I am disappointed that Biden did not deliver on his promise to revoke Trump's absurd limits on admission of refugees. We are a wealthy and powerful country.  Whatever theoretical action we might take in the future, we can make a difference in the lives of thousands today.  We can save lives today.  For those in dire need, May 15 or October 15 or the 15th of Never may well be too late. 

Klinker said:

The Times has a good article on this.

NYT: The attitude of the president was, essentially: Why are you bothering me with this?

And all of this, of course, is in the context of the end of US involvement in Afghanistan which will leave thousands of US allies to suffer and die.

If you actually read the article, then you know that your description of what Biden was planning for refugee admissions isn't accurate.

nohero said:

If you actually read the article, then you know that your description of what Biden was planning for refugee admissions isn't accurate.

I read it all the way through. It describes the current status this way:

While Ms. Psaki has insisted that Mr. Biden would most likely increase the number of allowed refugees again by May 15, a senior White House official cast doubt on the timeline. “I don’t think we’re going to hit 15,000 imminently or anything like that,” the official said. “I don’t think anyone can know exactly what the pace is going to be.”

As far as I can tell, that jibes with Klinker’s description: “Biden did not deliver on his promise,” notwithstanding “whatever theoretical action we might take in the future.” 

DaveSchmidt said:

As far as I can tell, that jibes with Klinker’s description: “Biden did not deliver on his promise,” notwithstanding “whatever theoretical action we might take in the future.” 

If you narrow the scope of what "deliver on his promise" means (as in, it didn't happen within the first 100 days) then it's technically correct.  But in a discussion about how "liberal" Biden is or isn't, it's not useful.

nohero said:

If you actually read the article, then you know that your description of what Biden was planning for refugee admissions isn't accurate.

 What Biden is "planning" and a dollar will buy you an ice cream cone at McDonalds. I know that for you this is all theoretical but there are real people being grievously harmed because of Biden's disinterest in this particular campaign promise.

nohero said:

If you narrow the scope of what "deliver on his promise" means (as in, it didn't happen within the first 100 days) then it's technically correct.  But in a discussion about how "liberal" Biden is or isn't, it's not useful.

 Actually, I brought it up in the context of the US withdrawl from Afghanistan. 

Klinker said:

nohero said:

If you narrow the scope of what "deliver on his promise" means (as in, it didn't happen within the first 100 days) then it's technically correct.  But in a discussion about how "liberal" Biden is or isn't, it's not useful.

 Actually, I brought it up in the context of the US withdrawl from Afghanistan. 

 The conversation had swerved away from that before your post.

Klinker said: on April 16 at 4:44pm

 Nor will he.

NYT: Biden Tosses Campaign Promise and Refugees Under the Bus

Actually, it is worse than that because the changes Biden is making will make it harder for people who worked for the US and fought alongside our forces to gain entry.

 It was Basil's insistence that Biden is the universally acclaimed favorite of all Democratic Americans that sent us off down the rabbit hole.

Klinker said:

 What Biden is "planning" and a dollar will buy you an ice cream cone at McDonalds. I know that for you this is all theoretical but there are real people being grievously harmed because of Biden's disinterest in this particular campaign promise.

 Oh, cut the crap.

nohero said:

Klinker said:

 What Biden is "planning" and a dollar will buy you an ice cream cone at McDonalds. I know that for you this is all theoretical but there are real people being grievously harmed because of Biden's disinterest in this particular campaign promise.

 Oh, cut the crap.

 Speak for yourself, you're the one who's boots are sloshing.  It is clear that this is not a priority for Biden and, given his perverse love of consensus, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this back burnered indefinitely.  The lives of real people are on the line here, not some sort of inside the beltway abstraction.

But, hey..... what do you care?

For now though, I've got dishes to do so I will leave this meeting of the MAPSO back slapping club to its members.  Carry on!