The two big issues that are against Biden now are:
1. His age
2. Israel/Palenstine
Indeed. His age is relevant to his ability to effectively do this job until January 2029. And the Muslims and their useful idiots on the Left might sink him in Michigan. Rashida Tlaib is for example pushing the "undecided" campaign for the upcoming primaries.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib urges Michigan Democrats to vote against Biden in the primary
Dean absolutely IS going after Biden because of his age
Do you know this guy personally? Are you friends? Why are you calling him by his first name?
and is lending credence to concern that the old man just isn’t cutting it. It’s more credible because this is coming from someone within Biden’s party who has voted with him 100% of the time. It’s a selling point: Gee, I like the guy and I agree with him but he’s past his prime and we need a new, younger version of the old man. Say, me. ( that is: Phillips)
I mean, he is past his prime. He should not have ran. And there is still a chance he withdraws after the primaries but before the convention.
Would give us an interesting Convention at the very least.
I understand that you and voters like you might have been more comfortable with Bloomberg who, btw, is the same age as Biden.
I know he is. That's why I used him as a counterexample. They are the same age, but I think he'd be more effective in not getting himself dragged to the left. Unlike Biden, who is a cookie cutter career politician, Bloomchen was an electrical engineer and a successful businessman before he entered politics as mayor of NYC.
Bloomberg simply did not have the experience, the expertise, the relationships that Biden has spent so many years developing. And we’d be hearing about what an old man Bloomberg is.
He did have more executive experience than Biden, running first a business and then a city of >8M people (8x the population of Delaware). nd the fact that he hasn't been in federal politics since Nixon was in office is a plus in my book. It would have made him less calcified.
But yes, both are ancient.
Biden was THE choice for anyone who wanted the antithesis of and antidote to Trumpism. He was a known quantity in a time of deep crises, if not created by, certainly made much worse by loud mouth know nothing burn the whole place down and make me king Trump.
Yes. He ran on a return to normality. But then he governed differently, esp. the $3,500,000,000,000.00 bill that would have heated up inflation even more and was loaded not with infrastructure projects but with tax giveaways to special interests like parents and blue state rich.
Unfortunately he still is. Because Trump is running again.
A younger candidate would be able to use Trump's age and forgetfulness against him. Biden can't. He is even older, and most importantly, appears much older than Trump.
The thing about Biden is that he’s actually evolved in his thinking throughout his career. He served as VP to the first black POTUS—a very progressive move. And by all reports, the two worked very well together. Obama wasn’t a particularly progressive president t—he could hardly afford to be very progressive.
Obama's presidency was better for it. Not that it was perfect - for example his cancelling the Dakota Access Pipeline as a giveaway to radical left. Even though it had already been approved and was mostly finished.
And that scared the shit out of racists so closeted they had no idea they were racist.
Please. "Racist" is one of the most overused words in contemporary discourse.
I think that Biden has become more progressive and that it’s not a case of him being manipulated by pretty young women.
There is also a very old man in the mix. The Squad's regimental commander - Colonel Bernie Sanders.
Him taking on more left-wing positions (you call that "progressive", I think that label is misleading) is not a good thing in my book.
I know you’re not keen on powerful women
Bullshit. The truth is that I am not keen on most politicians. But when I criticize a female one, then suddenly I have a problem with "powerful women". Many people positively despised Margaret Thatcher - are they all also "not keen on powerful women"?
and that you don’t particularly hold the most progressive attitudes about the environment.
Depends on how you define "progressive". In modern parlance, it just means "more to the left than liberals" which in itself is a misnomer these days. But "progressive" policy prescriptions often don't work and are not truly progressive - which is why I often call their proponents "fauxgressives" instead.
I am keen on the environment. But I do not think protesting pipelines is very effective when, if successful, all it would do is make us import more oil (for oil pipelines) and shift energy use back toward coal (for gas pipelines). The marked reduction in our coal consumption is largely due to the greater availability of natural gas due to the shale revolution and fracking.
What I am for would be a robust carbon tax. It would make more carbon-intensive energy sources more expensive than less carbon-intensive ones. But it would not penalize domestic production over imports.
I also think oil production should capture methane, itself a potent greenhouse gas in addition to being energy-dense fuel. But that requires more pipelines to move the methane gas from fields to processing plants and eventually to consumers. But pipelines are anathema to the fauxgressive left.
And don't get me started on nuclear ...
You and I sharply disagree there—but I still eat meat and drive a ( fuel efficient) gas powered vehicle.
Me too. And I am seriously thinking of getting an EV as my next vehicle in a few years time.
But come on: surely you see that we need to make some difficult changes now in our thinking about the environment and what we can do to mitigate climate change—and take very serious actions NOW.
But fauxgressive plans like the Green New Deal are not serious. GND was overloaded with tofu that had nothing to do with climate, not even the environment. Things like federal job guarantees.
I am not going to get into the whole Israel/Palestine thing except to say that I think it’s a nearly no win situation, that both sides have committed tremendous and grave wrongs —and that I don’t think the timing is an accident.
The timing was dictated in Tehran. The theocrats there are Hamas' vassal lords.
Israel must be allowed to destroy Hamas. Even if that means entering Rafah. Of course, civilians should be evacuated as best possible, even if they have to sojourn in Egypt for a couple of months.
Trump
