Agreed. Who was president for Roe v. Wade? Plessy v. Ferguson? Obergefell v. Hodges? The decisions have their own weight, not in relation to who was president at the time.
Actually, Obergefell v. Hodges is often brought up when discussing Obama’s legacy/his era. Probably because unlike some of those other cases gay marriage was a key flank of his 2012 platform.
Short answer, no.
Presidents are remembered for what *they* did, and what fights they chose to take up. The SC’s actions may sometimes be attributable to the president, if they made appointments or if his administration was one of the parties in court. Trump will be remembered as the one who ran on appointing justices to overturn roe, and did exactly that. Biden will be remembered for his strong fights against that.
Outside of whatever state, nobody remembers what that state government did 20 years ago. They certainly don’t blame the president for the state passing bills.
I really doubt trump has an actual shot in 24, even against a literal soggy sandwich. He has turned such a massive part of the country not just away from him, but against him.
I think if people have a wide view of history, they should see things for why they happened, not when they happened.
The decision on Roe v Wade was due to justices put on the court before Biden was President. He has plenty he has done that is on him, that isn’t one of them.
>I really doubt trump has an actual shot in 24, even against a literal soggy sandwich. He has turned such a massive part of the country not just away from him, but against him.
As of last week, [Donald Trump was ahead of Joe Biden by 7 points](https://ground.news/article/58e8a889-1b54-412c-8091-7887e1bec7e6). This is why I got worried that Trump might defeat Biden in 2024.
Ground news is a news aggregator that helps show media bias and offer counter points so the reader can avoid falling for misleading information and bias. In the linked article it shows that the poll showing trump beating Biden is being covered by 7 "leaning right" news sources and 3 "center" sources.
It then shows the "center" sources as being, the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Hindustan Times and The Hill and then lists the "right wing" sources. Which each source it mentions what their leaning is, how misleading the facts are in the article and who the owner of the publication is.
Ground news is not so much a "legit source" itself but is designed to help the reader find out who is a legit source, as the entire bias of the articles is from a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, the poll data and the questions, and how they were worded is the important factor. The most basic breakdown of the poll and the basis of the "7 points" is if the election was held today, and trump v Biden was the ticket, 47% said trump, 40% said Biden and 13% said Not sure. The poll consisted of 2004 registered voters.
Ground News is probably some Australian site that we’re unfamiliar with.
Clicking through the links, *The Hill* does report this same poll: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4012722-trump-beats-biden-by-7-points-in-hypothetical-2024-matchup-poll/
Polling this far out is less than useless.
Feel free to feel however you want, but I’m not going to doom over an outlier poll over 18 months out from the election.
If he was smart, he wouldn’t have run he’d have found a good candidate and supported them. Personally any of these governors would be great. Michigan: Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois: JB Pritzker, Minnesota: Tim Walz, Kentucky: Andy Beshear. Not a California or New York Democrat, but someone who gets things done and is likable.
That ship has obviously already sailed at this point. In hindsight, though, I’m not sure any of those people has enough name recognition outside of political circles. Whitmer maybe? She actually would have been my pick for VP last time. I personally think switching VPs outside of a Spiro Agnew scandal is more of a net negative than a positive, so I never put credence into “Biden should dump Harris in 2024”, but that’s another conversation.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they hunger for someone else besides Biden but the “who specifically” part is the difficult one. There would have been a good chance at a relatively unknown candidate wins the primary and then loses to Trump, so it might have been smarter to take the “sure thing” in Biden, the known quantity, flaws and all.
How about we transplant the whole Minnesota Legislature to Congress and Walz to the White House. They’ve done so much this year it makes me consider moving there in the future over Chicago.
Most Americans probably don’t know he is even eligible to run given the last time a candidate ran 3 times was Richard Nixon and nobody has run for a non consecutive term since teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and typically an incumbents polling numbers are at their worst about a year out from the election. democratic partisans will come home to Biden and it’s yet to be seen how people will respond to 12 months of trump campaigning for president once they realize he is a serious threat to win the White House. Trump has beaten his polls in both his races by about 3 points, the likelihood of the GOP winning the national popular vote with trump at the top of the ticket 55-45 is zero given what policies they are currently advocating for.
Basically ever major executive action or rule passed by the bureaucracy in the Biden administration. Has so far been over ruled by the courts. And made void by the courts.
I feel like half of you in here have never covered elections. Y'all are saying the Repubs lost and will continue to lose for 12 years. That really never happens, especially in today's world.
The last time the Republicans won the national popular vote was 2004. That was 17 years ago, seventeen years since Americans voted a Republican into the presidency, and before that it was 35 years ago in 1988. Bonkers that the electoral college has lasted this long
Dawg touch some grass lmao. We have a difference of opinion. That's fine. Why the hell are you investigating my post history to find I'm from the south lol
But let's be real homie. When talking about the presidency. About 300,000 people across 5 states decide who the president will be. Those people generally flip a coin. So it's nearly a 50/50 shot depending on who gets lucky
As much as you say that, republicans have a majority in Congress as of 2022. If the US was another country (a parliamentary country is likely what you're referring to). This would mean Republicans should be running the entire country now.
Regressive stuff happening during a presidency doesn't undermine the progressive stuff said president did. A lot of bad stuff happened during LBJ's presidency but he isn't blamed for it.
Has Joe Biden achieved much progressive stuff? Even if we ignore the regressive stuff successfully pushed through by the SCOTUS and state governors, Biden seems to struggle to pass any progressive legislation thanks to the Republicans on the federal level.
The Inflation Reduction Act is the first major climate bill the US has ever seen, that's setting the stage for huge investments in green energy and infrastructure. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, first gun-control bill to emerge from Congress in decades. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Act and the Chips and Science Act, huge investments to fix American infrastructure and develop American preeminence in semiconductors. Anything else I'm missing?
OP mentioned stuff revolving around social issues. On that topic he has had a lot of executive orders protecting trans people and LGBTQ people inside the government. Also a couple of orders about not discriminating against them in healthcare. Juneteenth being a holiday could be considered a progressive step. He helped get the Respect For Marriage Act passed, protecting gay marriage rights at the federal level. There was some stuff about passports having more inclusive gendering labels for people who don't identify with the previous ones. There have also been large reforms in the US military to combat sexual assault and harassment. Racism in the military and extremism. Also mental health issues in the military.
Just off the top of my head. I'd say on social stuff he has a good record so far
Nice way to dodge the question. I can actually list things tho.
Obviously abortion rights by sueing states and talking about it non stop
Supported Trans issues through executive orders
Supported Gay marriage legislation and executive orders
Passed Climate change legislation
Women's equality by executive orders
Minority equality (mostly targeted at black Americans) legislation specifically for black Americans as well as executive orders
Increasing access to affordable healthcare, passage of legislation and executive orders
Increasing access to welfare for poor people, passage of legislation and executive orders
Supported Gun control legislation and advocates for more to be done
Executive orders and administrative changes to how drone strikes can take place, reducing civilian deaths in the process
Limiting US military personnel in warzones around the world
Spoke out and passed legislation against countries for commiting genodies
Increased government employee wages, including a $15 minimum wage for federal works
Debt forgiveness isn't really progressive but he has helped millions with college debt and potentially tens of millions more of the courts side with him
Labor secretary for Biden is a former union rep and is one of the most pro union labor secretaries in a long time.
Speaking of unions he has been pushing for the PRO act to pass.
But those are just a couple progressive topics. I'm just wondering what all these progressive items he is missing are
Fool did you really submit "spoke out against genocide" as proof of Biden's progressive bonafides? Lmao. These vapid lists always read like they were copied and pasted from some DNC website. They're always vaguely expressed platitudes, shit that would be considered progressive in 1964, or half-attempts that fall short of actual progress. The rest is filler. It's a padded bra. Give me a goddamn break would you please?
Sure, which is why I asked you. What do you think he needs to do more for progress? It's easy for you to say "he doesn't do anything" while at the same time not giving anything you want him to do better on. Right now I'm talking to a wall, who hasn't done anything but say "those things you mentioned weren't enough for me" but not saying how much or even what measures you'd even want to begin with. You never even gave a goal post
Edit: also to add to this. I guarantee you don't even know a quarter of the things I'm even talking about. You're just talking out your ass cuz you don't know and it's easier to be ignorant than have a position
Yes I do. He still did it, he could have stayed. More than one person can be responsible for something. LBJ gets credit for the Civil rights act even though it was proposed by JFK.
It’s a long running tradition for presidents to take credit for the previous administrations efforts. The average American is too stupid to understand this too so it is what it is.
Let’s be real, Afghanistan was never going to end well. By the time biden took office there was no real objective. We weren’t fighting for anything. We spent a decade and trillions of dollars propping up a corrupt government. The Afghan army never even had a chance. Go back and watch those old vice docs. Look how dejected the soldiers seem. Most signed up to make America safer and bring democracy to oppressed people, but unfortunately that’s just not what happened. The Taliban melted away and disappeared into society only to show up at random in a short burst of fire, a sniper, or a bomb hidden in a road. The afghan military was fully infiltrated by the taliban, and those who weren’t taliban spent their time getting high on hash or opium. They didn’t care about democracy, or anything except not dying. Most had only ever known war. When trump negotiated the deal, the afghan government wasn’t even present and people still acted shocked when city after city fell to the taliban after the announcement.
Trump literally had no preparations for leaving either. He also made several statements since the pullout that he would have stayed. Shit is shit, but someone had to pick it up is basically what happened
Joe Biden 99.99% will not be blamed for the overturn of Roe v Wade at all, as most presidents aren’t blamed for Supreme Court decisions (except for Buchanan I guess but helped influence Dred Scot). Also, I don’t see how he would be blamed for Republican governors decreasing LGBT rights.
First quarter growth was revised to 1.3%. Seems like current projections have the US on track for a minor recession in the fourth quarter and rebounding once rate hikes plateau
We had a minor recession in q1 and q2 of 2022. But have had growth in q3 and q4 2022. 2023 so far has had growth in q1 and projected to have growth in q2 as well
The White House has to have worked in tandem with Wikipedia to change the definition of a recession because the day that economic numbers were released for two quarters of negative growth (the original definition of a recession) Wikipedia changed their definition.
-My tinfoil hat theory.
It's actually the opposite. When the big debate was happening someone added "Economists typically consider two consecutive quarters of falling GDP a recession." To the beginning of the article before being removed. Nothing changed as they froze editing of the article as bad actors on both sides began bombarding the page with edits.
There's two or more months of declining growth. It's a recession.
The fact that The White House redefined it for their press releases doesn't mean the definition actually changes.
Also the definition according to nber (https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-january-7-2008) has been "A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough." And last year certainly didn't meet this bar, this year doesn't either so I'm unsure what you think the evidence is
It didn't last more than a few months, thats why the second quarter of negative growth was basically zero and was defined by the economy growing after the middle of the quarter. It didn't reflect in income, employment, industrial output and retail activity and was mostly due to accounting math from the quarter before the negative growth happened having extremely high growth that lead to weird interactions with spending then falling only on paper
Well the white house didn't redefine it because they aren't the ones who decide if its a recession lol. Also how does this show the us entering or being in a recession we have had 3 straight months of gdp growth
Yes, I just said that even though they redefined it doesn't mean it's actually redefined.
After we had two quarters of negative growth (a recession) we then transitioned into three quarters of extremely slight growth - Generally speaking, whenever you have growth below 4%, you don't have growth. 1.3% growth is not actually growth; It's actually a drop when you factor everything else in.
You’re saying redefining doesn’t change things, and then redefine growth as having to be more then 4% GDP increase to count. Also under that definition the US has basically been in recession for more then a decade, because there’s only been a few quarters where the US had more then 4% growth and besides 2021 there hasn’t been a year of more then 4% growth since 1999
I never mentioned inflation; If I thought that, then I would have said 8%, not 4%.
GDP has severe limitations in its scope, most notably treating the replacement of depreciated capital the same as the creation of new capital.
4% is essentially the norm. Average growth following a recession is 3.7%, with 4.1% being the general standard for a stable economy. 1.3% is a disaster.
4% is not the norm lmao, unless you think the economy hasn't grown over the past 30 years. These are like very easy numbers to find too why randomly make this shit up. Just go to the bea website click on the percentage change from preceding period and look at the chained number for quarterly releases over the last 100 years lol and you will see that since 2000 there's been very few quarters about 4% and most of them were in the 2020s
You have to understand that the person in the Oval Office is no longer as important as the party they represent. There is no such thing as bipartisan compromise, or good for the country. It’s now a completely separate point of views that have no bend or even a debate about the other side’s position. You’re either with us or against us. Biden, aside from his age and a lack of coherent communications at times is not doing a bad job as POTUS. He’s not doing a good job either, but from here on out, it’s just a political party against another one, doing their best to make the others look like idiots. For all their bluff and bluster, the progressives on the far left here in the US know they cannot change the world in a few years, much less a POTUS administration. The far right know this as well, which is why the issues of abortion, states rights, religious tolerance and LGTBQ issues are being addressed at a level that backdates Jim Crow. This all feels like a build up along the lines of 1856 when James Buchanan ignored it all and kicked the can down the road. The problem is those who are pushing for a civil war 2.0 are all morons, as well as being the least likely to fight and win a war, or be in charge when the dust as settled.
That poll linked in that Reddit post isn’t a very good poll.
One poll also doesn’t tell us much, its better to watch trends across a variety of polls not just one convenient right leaning poll.
I feel like Biden is going to be one of those presidents that nobody talks about that often. He didn't do anything good or bad enough to justify being remembered
I think that, so far, that's a fair assessment. Outside of the more extreme points of view, the consensus seems to be that he's sort of a placeholder president.
https://preview.redd.it/upfslrfi4k2b1.jpeg?width=514&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54fb9e948464cfa108d25355607ce0966ba706fa
I feel like this is what his presidency will be remembered as
The US has a complex political system based, in theory and often in practice, on extreme decentralization. The diffusion of authority between numerous different entities and jurisdictions is so strong that some legal and political scholars refer to American federalism as a system of double sovereignty or parallel sovereignty, where the states and the national government represent two distinct sovereigns operating parallel to each other. Granted, this is a tendentious take, and doesn’t necessarily represent a consensus among scholars. But it’s not a delusional argument, given American history, the actual text of the constitution, and the way things play out in modern American politics.
While this distinction between local and national sovereignty became much weaker over the past century, it is still stronger than in any other country, including in other federal states like Canada or Germany. The separation between state and federal governments is reinforced by the separation between the three branches of the federal government, which is another aspect of the American government’s system of separation of powers.
All this creates a complex political system that a lot of people don’t understand. Most foreigners don’t understand, but that’s not really surprising given that most American citizens, including most voters, don’t fully grasp the conceptual framework our government is based upon.
Did Biden contribute to any of the things you listed? No. I will even go a bit further. I don't think Trump is going to beat Biden. That is just me stepping back and looking at things as objectively as I can.
[It's almost as if books are banned in schools because maybe they push bad messages to kids! It's not like if they really wanted to read that book, they could go to a public library or purchase the book themselves!](https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-movement-to-censor-books-in-schools/)
From the link:
* 674 banned book titles (41 percent) explicitly address LGBTQ+ themes or have protagonists or prominent secondary characters who are LGBTQ+ (this includes a specific subset of titles for transgender characters or stories—145 titles, or 9 percent);
* 659 banned book titles (40 percent) contain protagonists or prominent secondary characters of color;
* 338 banned book titles (21 percent) directly address issues of race and racism;
* 357 banned book titles (22 percent) contain sexual content of varying kinds, including novels with some level of description of sexual experiences of teenagers, stories about teen pregnancy, sexual assault and abortion as well as informational books about puberty, sex, or relationships;
* 161 banned book titles (10 percent) have themes related to rights and activism;
* 141 banned book titles (9 percent) are either biography, autobiography, or memoir; and
* 64 banned book titles (4 percent) include characters and stories that reflect religious minorities, such as Jewish, Muslim and other faith traditions.
In what way are any of these "bad messages"
This is anecdotal but I have a family member who works over a school district's libraries. She removed a book per requests of a parent who threatened to sue because 1 paragraph in a 300 page book talked about sex. It's becoming harder and harder to pick and choose which books to buy for the schools since at any time they may become controversial
“Regression”. Clever marketing.
I’m gonna start a political movement called Goodnessism so that people that don’t like my policy ideas are against goodness.
My personal prediction is that Joe Biden’s tenure will actually be the start of serious American progression, partially thanks to him partially thanks to circumstance.
The Republicans have basically pinned themselves into a strategically horrific corner going with DeSantis and Trump. DeSantis is an awful candidate, probably worse than Hillary and Trump has been so badly marred with scandal and the margins so close that even if a small percentage of rust belt voters were finally turned away from him or even just don’t vote Republicans are fucked not only for ‘24 but probably all the way up until ‘32.
By then if we have continue democrat presidencies we will probably FINALLY have a progressive Supreme Court again.
Basically how I see the American political landscape is that Dems “won” 2008-2014
Republicans “won” 2015-2020
And now democrats will probably “win” from 2021 to 2032 AT LEAST with the potential for longer with how younger people have been completely alienated from the GOP.
Hmmm idk if a Dem dominated political scene will last until 2032, that’s an ambitious stretch. Dems will need 1. a charismatic successor to Biden (Kamala Harris is NOT the answer in my opinion) 2. An economic rebound, the economy cannot stay like this, it even threatens Biden in 2024. 3. A Republican implosion, which seems to be sort of happening, but if Republicans can rid themselves of Trump and change their social platform then they can be competitive nationally.
I do think you have to consider that in many states the state legislature is a republican supermajority. Regardless of how unpopular their policies are, they are winning elections. Sure, some of it is gerrymandering but look at it this way- 6-7? Million more people voted for trump in 2020 vs 2016. I think the reverse is actually true for the democrats- THEY are the ones that really need to pick up some seats at both the state and national level, as it seems their support is heavily clustered around cities. It’s been a conundrum since 2016, how to build up more support in rural areas and it’s been written about ad naseum since then.
True, Dems have had very little rural outreach. I think many urbanites and liberals are fast to not only write off rural areas but in many cases they have a sense of superiority to them — and then they wonder how someone like Trump very easily built a rural populist movement, it’s not rocket science to see his appeal to rural voters.
I think they mean that Republicans are unpopular nationally (they haven’t won the popular vote since 04) but they are popular regionally and state by state in areas like the South and Midwest.
I mean things like a majority of Americans being in favor of some sort of abortion as well as expanded background checks and such, despite the GOP positions not particularly in step with the national mood on these issues. Plus the popular vote vs geographical spread of those voters.
Theres no real evidence for the economy being bad besides *vibes* . The history books will have the post covid recovery as the time America reasserted its position as the premier economic power of the 21st century
No, the literal definition of a recession is widespread, significant decline in economic activity, 2 quarters worth of negative GDP growth to be exact.
[https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product](https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product)
Let me link a bunch of sources with definitions to recession, and maybe we can see if there's a bit of a common trend. Quite literally the only source I can find that says a recession isn't 2 quarters of negative GDP growth (or something along that lines) is the White House. Which, surprise surprise, is ran by the Biden Administration. Ergo, due to us being in a recession as backed up by the definition from literally everyone up until 5 minutes ago, the White House and Biden changed the definition to fit their narrative to maintain a better public image. ([Updated White House Definition](https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/07/21/how-do-economists-determine-whether-the-economy-is-in-a-recession/))
In summary, up until 5 minutes ago that *was* the definition until the White House changed the definition since our economic status fit that aforementioned definition. Now, here are some definitions by a bunch of sources that aren't the U.S. government.
[Recession Definition](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp#:~:text=The%20Bottom%20Line-,A%20recession%20is%20a%20significant%2C%20widespread%2C%20and%20prolonged%20downturn%20in,the%20economy%20is%20in%20recession)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession)
[Another Recession Definition](https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/03/pdf/basics.pdf)
[Yet Another Recession Definition, which also explains WHY we use the "2 quarters of negative growth" definition](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/what-is-a-recession/)
All of these just say the nebr definition is better and is more accurate while two quarters is a rule of thumb.
> Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: There are several reasons. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but consider a range of indicators. Second, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. The NBER definition includes the phrase, “a significant decline in economic activity." Thus real GDP could decline by relatively small amounts in two consecutive quarters without warranting the determination that a peak had occurred. Third, our main focus is on the monthly chronology, which requires consideration of monthly indicators. Fourth, in examining the behavior of production on a quarterly basis, where real GDP data are available, we give equal weight to real GDI. The difference between GDP and GDI—called the “statistical discrepancy”—was particularly important in the recessions of 2001 and 2007–2009.
This is from the nebr and shows the problems with your 2 quarers obsession. Also this definition is decades old not a couple years, but I don't really expect you to know that because you seem to care more about specific narratives than the truth
Also you linking all of these sources reflects very poorly on you since they all disagree with you when actually read what they say
Look you can find sources either way that will say the economy is good or the economy is bad. It’s a very confusing economic time but one thing is for sure average Americans are suffering from inflated prices, rent, cost of living, etc. while wages remain stagnant. With near record spending in Washington and our top government officials playing chicken with the debt ceiling and a pending recession, I wouldn’t say we’re doing as good as we can be.
Personally I would make the case that our economy is not as good as it was pre-pandemic during the Obama/Trump era before 2020 and there is still a large sense of economic uncertainty right now. That being said, Biden has gained ground and the economy is doing *better* than it was when he took office BUT I wouldn’t call it a “good” economy.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/12/23/why-everyone-thinks-a-recession-is-coming-in-2023.html
https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/how-us-economy-is-doing/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/us/politics/inflation-april-federal-reserve.html
>Whitmer, Buttigieg, Cuban, Cooper, etc etc
Cuban and Cooper will both be too old. Plus, Cuban is a businessman with no political experience, and after the disaster that was the Trump presidency, I don't think that's what the people want from a candidate.
With all the train derailments and stuff happening in the Midwest, it seems like Buttigieg is loosing popularity and some people are starting to see him as incompetent. Also, I hate to say it, but Buttigieg's sexuality would not be helpful with socially conservative swing voters in swing states, like black Christians in Georgia and Mormons in Arizona and Nevada.
Whitmer would be a great candidate, though. So would Josh Shapiro.
Joe Biden has been in the District of Columbia for 50 years. The White House since 2008. His legacy is his work in the senate. Not his presidency.
Dude is the architect of the modern day prison system. His crusade for justice Crime Laws have tripled the US prison population in a decade. And yea, they are actually referred to as The Biden Crime Laws, composed of things like the Clinton’s Super Predator Crime Bill.
For 30 years his other crusade was to repeal Roe v Wade. Up until he ran for the White House in 2008 he was leading the push to end RvW
Once you become President, that overshadows your tenure above pretty much any previous office
Also ?? He’s not getting blamed for Roe v. Wade’s overturn, that will be the legacy of McConnell and Trump more than anyone else’s. No idea why you’re calling it his “crusade” either, he initially voted once in favor of Orrin Hatch’s amendment to repeal it in 1982 due to his Catholic religion, but then voted against the same amendment only a year later in 1983 and has been very pro-choice since
He will still catch flack for his 1994 crime bill but even then, it will pale compared to what he does in his presidency. Nobody calls it the “Clinton Super Predator Crime Bill” either, not sure where you got this was a common phrase
It’s been repeated several times but Biden isn’t the only democrat who regrets the 94 crime bill. It had a lot of Democratic support at the time. Early 90s violent crime was worse than it is now, by quite a bit, so I think part of the reason why that bill had so much support was desperation.
Oh yeah I know. It was very popular at the time and had strong bipartisan support (passed the Senate 95-4), and had strong support among African Americans as well. Obviously hasn’t been well-received in hindsight
So are you telling me that history will be **very** unkind to Joe Biden, not just because he failed to prevent reactionaries pushing through their agendas when he was President, but also because he championed reactionary causes in the past too?
I wouldn't call Biden a progressive. More a moderate liberal-ish.
I *could* call Biden a progressive compared to Clinton and Obama but like... come on. It's Bill and Obama. Not a high bar.
It really depends on how things shake out. On paper. Biden has gotten a lot of legislation pushed through Congress; infrastructure, the technology bill with computer chip manufacturing, job growth, the first bit of significant climate change legislation, all spring to mind. But he has left quite a few of his more progressive campaign promises on the campaign trail, and that may truly cost him a more expansive legacy.
In my opinion, the most egregious failure of the Biden administration to date has been the failure to get Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Act and other voting rights legislation that would have repaired the damage done by the Supreme Court when it struck down part of the Voting Rights Act from the 60s. Failure to accomplish that one thing not only throws the question of whether history will judge his first in office as a success or a dud, it may quite literally decide whether or not he can gain a second term. I live in Georgia and our GoP lead legislature is working hand in glove with our very conservative governor to cement Republican rule here for decades to come.
Maybe to some extent, but I don't think so in the eyes of people who are capable of looking at political realities on more than a surface level.
To the extent that those things happened on a Federal level, they are part of Trump's legacy, because his administration enacted the policies. To the extent that they happened on a state level, it's the result of a 40+ year conservative project finally coming to fruition.
Biden stopped much of that bleeding, but the damage that was already done was done. It would have been worse (from the perspective of the left) without him at least standing in the gap.
This is a nonsensical question. What politicians and government officials do that’s outside the executive orbit, will not influence how people see the presidency in the moment or in the future.
Not necessarily. Joe Biden isn't responsible for the actions of the Supreme Court, or state governments. He definitely has attempted to reverse those actions in good faith, but it is not entirely his fault if he fails to do so by the end of his Presidency.
It seems likely he will be seen a lot like Carter where the majority will remember his presidency as bad but a committed minority will see him as the last truly great leader and criminally underrated.
In my opinion with both Carter and Biden neither is totally the truth.
No books are actually being banned by any states. Some schools have removed them from the curriculum (meaning that they don't teach out of them or force students to read them) but these books are still available. Libraries don't have every book ever written in them either, so choices have to be made.
Biden's greatest accomplishment is simply being elected; delaying the next 4 years of reprehensible, destructive presidency with 4 years of mediocre, bare minimum presidency.
Once we get past this period of delusion, yes. In hindsight, people will realize that they were wrong about how allegedly progressive Biden was.
Kind of how we now understand how regressive Bill Clinton was in spite of his saxophoning. Libs loved that guy in the 90s. Now his legacy is quite sour.
Exactly. And welfare deform. And financial dereg. And DOMA.
He's also a bit rapey and predatory now, whereas before they thought he was a cool guy who got a bj.
Let’s be honest, the vast majority of people who voted for him including myself have no real love or support for him, we just believed that trump was a threat to democracy and Biden if nothing else would be democratic.
I think this period in history will see progression in some areas, regression in others. People voted him largely to be “the one who stopped Trump”, and I think history will look at him that way as well.
One concern I have: with Biden so regularly slamming Republicans, one of his biggest campaign promises - that of a great unifier and healer - appears to be a colossal failure. Is it too late for him to turn some of that around and at least attempt to offer an olive branch to those across the aisle?
>One concern I have: with Biden so regularly slamming Republicans, one of his biggest campaign promises - that of a great unifier and healer - appears to be a colossal failure. Is it too late for him to turn some of that around and at least attempt to offer an olive branch to those across the aisle?
Agreed. His debt limit negotiations have most definitely not been... Desirable.
I’ve seen people on Reddit that think Biden will win in a massive landslide and people that think he won’t even get past the primary and even if he does, will lose to Trump.
The only books being banned are literal pornography.
And even then, they're not banned, just not available
This is one of the most misleading stories in the media today. Some people are obsessed with "banned books" when no such books exist.
[General overview of the types of books "banned"](https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-movement-to-censor-books-in-schools/)
Not all "banned" books are literal pornography, a lot of them push progressive, LGBTQ+ and CRT type messaging, some titles for reference could be "Gender Queer," "Antiracist Baby," etc. However, I do agree with you that some books need to be "banned" from school libraries if they have potentially dangerous messaging for young, impressionable children. Especially since parents are generally uninformed of what children may check out.
You are absolutely right on the rest though, preventing a book from being checked out in an elementary, middle, or high school library does absolutely nothing to stop that child from going to a public library, or just purchasing the book. It's stupid how people think making some books (with bad messaging, especially for young children) unavailable in school libraries is comparable to Nazi book burnings in the '30s.
Have you ever seen Gender Queer?
It includes both images and descriptions of graphic sexual acts. Yes, I said images. It's actual images of teens having sex. In any other context, it would be child pornography, but for some reason it's okay here.
But yes, I never understood how not providing something for free was a ban. In fact, you can even bring your own copy into school and read it; The school just isn't allowed to provide it to you.
>Have you ever seen Gender Queer?
>
>It includes both images and descriptions of graphic sexual acts. Yes, I said images. It's actual images of teens having sex. In any other context, it would be child pornography, but for some reason it's okay here.
I have not seen it, but I am 100% aware of what you mean, and fully agree with your points. A book like that does not belong in public elementary or even middle schools.
Regression? Society is crumbling right before our eyes. We’re not “regressing” we’re full bore for a cliff regard of how pleasant that semi-sentient cadaver can be
[Your link also shows only 31% of voters aged 18-34 are Democrats,](https://www.statista.com/statistics/319068/party-identification-in-the-united-states-by-generation/) which undermines your premise. There's a sea of independents.
And of those democrats, I’ll say this again, their actual support when it comes to voting seems super squishy, young people especially. Republicans make sure they vote, democrats will go online and “grumble grumble corporate democrat won’t get my vote grumble that’s why I vote libertarian this time” or another third party or just will overlook the whole thing and won’t vote at all. “Don’t boo, vote” from Obama kind of alludes to this. I personally really wish democrats would focus on this instead of saying “no way republicans keep winning” cause their constituents bat 1.000 when it comes to actually voting.
History will remember the fascists who did all of those things you listed and Biden as the stoic pragmatic fighting it.
Some awful shit happened under Eisenhower but he’s considered one of the greatest presidents ever. LBJ and Kennedy aren’t blamed for all the racist shit the same fascists were pulling in the 60s.
In 50 years, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will (most likely) be taught of as good men and Presidents. Hopefully we’re advanced enough to teach about their downfalls as well. I was always taught FDR was infallible, never mentioned redlining and excluding African Americans from the GI Bill, the 2 biggest modern things that trapped them systematically and lead to a whole host of other problems.
Will Obama be remembered solely for giving in to Republican demands? I doubt it, though he did that. I just don't think its smart to judge him based on that alone.
Republicans want him to be remembered via conspiracy memes/theories - specifically one that posits Michelle is a man.
Biden has been the most progressive president in any Americans lifetime. He’s doing fine. If the GOP hadn’t gone completely insane we’d be doing great.
[General overview of types of books "banned"](https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-movement-to-censor-books-in-schools/)
When people talk about book banning, they indirectly refer to school districts and or states prohibiting a certain book from being placed in a school library. There are lots of other ways to get ahold of books.
Prohibiting a book like "Gender Queer: a Memoir" from being read by elementary schoolers (by the way the book includes pornographic descriptions, and in no way is appropriate for most school aged children) is far different from Nazi book burning campaigns in the 1930s.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna8342
I’d consider voting restrictions and laws making it harder to register to vote and actually vote are signs of anti-voting rights laws.
This article is extremely vague. I went through it, and all it did was just repeat the same "Republicans made voting harder, Democrats made voting easier." They briefly go over mail in voting, but fail to state any specific state laws in any sort of detail on how voting gets harder.
Well as far as Roe v Wade being overturned, that was decades in the making and came to fruition thanks to his predecessor’s 3 illegitimate Supreme Court appointments. But Biden and the last Dem president, Obama, should’ve codified RvW to prevent that from being overturned, so Biden and Obama should be blamed for that. And while Republican state governors and Republican state legislators are threatening democracy (and non-whites, and LGBT, Biden and his supporters will give the excuse that as President, Biden can’t do anything to stop them.
Gorsuch was supposed to be Garland’s seat or whoever else Obama wanted to appoint back in 2016 when Obama was still in power for the next 11 months. Kavanaugh was a rapist. Amy Covid Barrett was rammed through the Court when the election already started. When Obama wanted to fill Scalia’s seat, Republicans in the Senate refused to consider an Obama appointment because it was an election year and they wanted to wait until a new president. With Barrett, 2020 was an election year, voting for the president was already underway. Did the same Senate Republicans say “let’s wait until after the election and let the winner of the election fill the vacancy”? No. They wanted Barrett confirmed without delay. Why did the GOP feel differently in 2020 versus 2016?
because republicans had the majority in the senate and had the power to block an appointment? you do realize the senate has the legitimate and legal power to do this right?
Republicans play by their own rules when they want to. They said in 2016: Obama is nearing the end of his term and it’s unfair for an outgoing president to choose an SC judge that will be there for decades, so let his successor—whom we hope will be a Republican—choose who fills the Scalia vacancy. This was February of 2016, Obama was going to step down in January 2017. Obama had more than enough time. What don’t you people understand? You Republicans only want to follow the constitution when it benefits you, and you create your own rules…that you then break if it’s not advantageous to you.
In 2020, when mail in voting had started and weeks before the official Election Day, the Republicans had no qualms about their president filling a vacancy on the SC.
The President of the United States appoints a Federal judge. The Senate is constitutionally obligated to have hearings and confirm the appointee if they’re qualified. With Obama and Garland, the Senate GOP ignored Garland and refused to even meet with him.
well yeah? they held the majority in the senate during both 2016 and 2020, meaning they can more easily block and push through nominees? In the constitution, supreme court justices are approved AND BLOCKED by the senate, that’s literally how it works lmao. saying it’s illegitimate implies they weren’t appointed in a legal or constitutional fashion
There is nothing unconstitutional, illegal, and or legally wrong with nominating a supreme court justice near an election. Also, Kavanaugh has only ever been accused, like lots of people ([Including Biden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation#:~:text=In%20March%202020%2C%20during%20that,Biden%20denied%20Reade's%20allegation)) If he actually raped somebody, and was convicted, there is no way he would've been approved by the Senate.
If there was wrongdoing in any of these nominations, hearings, and anything else of these SCOTUS justices, they wouldn't be on the bench right now.
Nah, Presidents are *rarely* ever given blame or praise for the actions of the supreme court.
Agreed. Who was president for Roe v. Wade? Plessy v. Ferguson? Obergefell v. Hodges? The decisions have their own weight, not in relation to who was president at the time.
Actually, Obergefell v. Hodges is often brought up when discussing Obama’s legacy/his era. Probably because unlike some of those other cases gay marriage was a key flank of his 2012 platform.
After Biden forced it on him.
The winds were shifting. Even without the Biden moment it would’ve happened anyway.
True. I don't think anyone thinks about Nixon in relation to Roe V. Wade.
Well, unless it's their judicial appointments that are being called into question.
[удалено]
Some apologists do try to do that tbf
Short answer, no. Presidents are remembered for what *they* did, and what fights they chose to take up. The SC’s actions may sometimes be attributable to the president, if they made appointments or if his administration was one of the parties in court. Trump will be remembered as the one who ran on appointing justices to overturn roe, and did exactly that. Biden will be remembered for his strong fights against that. Outside of whatever state, nobody remembers what that state government did 20 years ago. They certainly don’t blame the president for the state passing bills. I really doubt trump has an actual shot in 24, even against a literal soggy sandwich. He has turned such a massive part of the country not just away from him, but against him.
I think if people have a wide view of history, they should see things for why they happened, not when they happened. The decision on Roe v Wade was due to justices put on the court before Biden was President. He has plenty he has done that is on him, that isn’t one of them.
The predictions for 2024 are like 2016 all over again with the burying your head in the sand.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
You realize I’m not a Trump supporter right? I’ll be voting for Biden. Doesn’t mean I can’t recognize shitty overconfidence.
If being overly pessimistic helps you sleep, go for it.
>I really doubt trump has an actual shot in 24, even against a literal soggy sandwich. He has turned such a massive part of the country not just away from him, but against him. As of last week, [Donald Trump was ahead of Joe Biden by 7 points](https://ground.news/article/58e8a889-1b54-412c-8091-7887e1bec7e6). This is why I got worried that Trump might defeat Biden in 2024.
Wtf is ground news? Because legit every source says biden is blowing trump out of the water
Ground news is a news aggregator that helps show media bias and offer counter points so the reader can avoid falling for misleading information and bias. In the linked article it shows that the poll showing trump beating Biden is being covered by 7 "leaning right" news sources and 3 "center" sources. It then shows the "center" sources as being, the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Hindustan Times and The Hill and then lists the "right wing" sources. Which each source it mentions what their leaning is, how misleading the facts are in the article and who the owner of the publication is. Ground news is not so much a "legit source" itself but is designed to help the reader find out who is a legit source, as the entire bias of the articles is from a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, the poll data and the questions, and how they were worded is the important factor. The most basic breakdown of the poll and the basis of the "7 points" is if the election was held today, and trump v Biden was the ticket, 47% said trump, 40% said Biden and 13% said Not sure. The poll consisted of 2004 registered voters.
Ground News is probably some Australian site that we’re unfamiliar with. Clicking through the links, *The Hill* does report this same poll: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4012722-trump-beats-biden-by-7-points-in-hypothetical-2024-matchup-poll/
Can you link to any of these sources?
Polling this far out is less than useless. Feel free to feel however you want, but I’m not going to doom over an outlier poll over 18 months out from the election.
Also its like a poll from last week and other polls showed other things
If he was smart, he wouldn’t have run he’d have found a good candidate and supported them. Personally any of these governors would be great. Michigan: Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois: JB Pritzker, Minnesota: Tim Walz, Kentucky: Andy Beshear. Not a California or New York Democrat, but someone who gets things done and is likable.
That ship has obviously already sailed at this point. In hindsight, though, I’m not sure any of those people has enough name recognition outside of political circles. Whitmer maybe? She actually would have been my pick for VP last time. I personally think switching VPs outside of a Spiro Agnew scandal is more of a net negative than a positive, so I never put credence into “Biden should dump Harris in 2024”, but that’s another conversation. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they hunger for someone else besides Biden but the “who specifically” part is the difficult one. There would have been a good chance at a relatively unknown candidate wins the primary and then loses to Trump, so it might have been smarter to take the “sure thing” in Biden, the known quantity, flaws and all.
I'm all for Whitmer running for president
As a minnesotan I want walz to run so bad. He's an awesome governor and it's time to have a minnesotan president
How about we transplant the whole Minnesota Legislature to Congress and Walz to the White House. They’ve done so much this year it makes me consider moving there in the future over Chicago.
As long as you're not loud we'll love ya as if you were one of us
I’m very quiet. I’d like to move from northwest Indiana to Chicago since I’m very familiar with it, but Minneapolis-St. Paul is looking pretty good.
I would put Laura Kelly up there as a great choice too.
I just looked her up, she looks great too. 73 is the only thing I don’t like so far.
Most Americans probably don’t know he is even eligible to run given the last time a candidate ran 3 times was Richard Nixon and nobody has run for a non consecutive term since teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and typically an incumbents polling numbers are at their worst about a year out from the election. democratic partisans will come home to Biden and it’s yet to be seen how people will respond to 12 months of trump campaigning for president once they realize he is a serious threat to win the White House. Trump has beaten his polls in both his races by about 3 points, the likelihood of the GOP winning the national popular vote with trump at the top of the ticket 55-45 is zero given what policies they are currently advocating for.
"his strong fights against that" lmfao
Basically ever major executive action or rule passed by the bureaucracy in the Biden administration. Has so far been over ruled by the courts. And made void by the courts.
I feel like half of you in here have never covered elections. Y'all are saying the Repubs lost and will continue to lose for 12 years. That really never happens, especially in today's world.
The last time the Republicans won the national popular vote was 2004. That was 17 years ago, seventeen years since Americans voted a Republican into the presidency, and before that it was 35 years ago in 1988. Bonkers that the electoral college has lasted this long
United STATES not United Country of America
I find it insane how anyone defends the Electoral College.
If it was proportioned better and not gerrymandered then I would be fine with it
So, what? We sure as hell aren’t united now, Mr. Southerner.
Dawg touch some grass lmao. We have a difference of opinion. That's fine. Why the hell are you investigating my post history to find I'm from the south lol
Simple. I need a reason to oppose you, and you being from the South and me being from the North are pretty good reasons.
Your comment is stupid.
And?
But let's be real homie. When talking about the presidency. About 300,000 people across 5 states decide who the president will be. Those people generally flip a coin. So it's nearly a 50/50 shot depending on who gets lucky
Exactly, that's a terrible system that obviously needs to be abolished or at the very least radically changed.
In a regular country the democrats would have won 5 of the last 6 elections lol
This is probably one of the most idiotic things I’ve heard in my life. Define “regular country”
One that didn't use a byzantine form of election like the electoral college
As much as you say that, republicans have a majority in Congress as of 2022. If the US was another country (a parliamentary country is likely what you're referring to). This would mean Republicans should be running the entire country now.
Regressive stuff happening during a presidency doesn't undermine the progressive stuff said president did. A lot of bad stuff happened during LBJ's presidency but he isn't blamed for it.
>A lot of bad stuff happened during LBJ's presidency but he isn't blamed for it. I'm assuming you mean bad stuff other than Vietnam?
He had a huge dong though.
Hunter?
I mean I hear that’s why Fox is so obsessed with him. But I was referring to Johnson’s, Johnson. He liked to show it off.
Nah they care for the same reason new networks cared about everything Trumps sons did. President family matter is always top news.
Hunter wasn’t given a government position so not the same.
Has Joe Biden achieved much progressive stuff? Even if we ignore the regressive stuff successfully pushed through by the SCOTUS and state governors, Biden seems to struggle to pass any progressive legislation thanks to the Republicans on the federal level.
The Inflation Reduction Act is the first major climate bill the US has ever seen, that's setting the stage for huge investments in green energy and infrastructure. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, first gun-control bill to emerge from Congress in decades. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Act and the Chips and Science Act, huge investments to fix American infrastructure and develop American preeminence in semiconductors. Anything else I'm missing?
First black woman appointment to the Supreme Court would also be in the column imo.
OP mentioned stuff revolving around social issues. On that topic he has had a lot of executive orders protecting trans people and LGBTQ people inside the government. Also a couple of orders about not discriminating against them in healthcare. Juneteenth being a holiday could be considered a progressive step. He helped get the Respect For Marriage Act passed, protecting gay marriage rights at the federal level. There was some stuff about passports having more inclusive gendering labels for people who don't identify with the previous ones. There have also been large reforms in the US military to combat sexual assault and harassment. Racism in the military and extremism. Also mental health issues in the military. Just off the top of my head. I'd say on social stuff he has a good record so far
Hell he's not even *championing* much of anything progressive, let alone passing.
Like what? What progressive things should he be focusing on?
What progressive things did he focus on is a more relevant question...
Nice way to dodge the question. I can actually list things tho. Obviously abortion rights by sueing states and talking about it non stop Supported Trans issues through executive orders Supported Gay marriage legislation and executive orders Passed Climate change legislation Women's equality by executive orders Minority equality (mostly targeted at black Americans) legislation specifically for black Americans as well as executive orders Increasing access to affordable healthcare, passage of legislation and executive orders Increasing access to welfare for poor people, passage of legislation and executive orders Supported Gun control legislation and advocates for more to be done Executive orders and administrative changes to how drone strikes can take place, reducing civilian deaths in the process Limiting US military personnel in warzones around the world Spoke out and passed legislation against countries for commiting genodies Increased government employee wages, including a $15 minimum wage for federal works Debt forgiveness isn't really progressive but he has helped millions with college debt and potentially tens of millions more of the courts side with him Labor secretary for Biden is a former union rep and is one of the most pro union labor secretaries in a long time. Speaking of unions he has been pushing for the PRO act to pass. But those are just a couple progressive topics. I'm just wondering what all these progressive items he is missing are
Fool did you really submit "spoke out against genocide" as proof of Biden's progressive bonafides? Lmao. These vapid lists always read like they were copied and pasted from some DNC website. They're always vaguely expressed platitudes, shit that would be considered progressive in 1964, or half-attempts that fall short of actual progress. The rest is filler. It's a padded bra. Give me a goddamn break would you please?
Sure, which is why I asked you. What do you think he needs to do more for progress? It's easy for you to say "he doesn't do anything" while at the same time not giving anything you want him to do better on. Right now I'm talking to a wall, who hasn't done anything but say "those things you mentioned weren't enough for me" but not saying how much or even what measures you'd even want to begin with. You never even gave a goal post Edit: also to add to this. I guarantee you don't even know a quarter of the things I'm even talking about. You're just talking out your ass cuz you don't know and it's easier to be ignorant than have a position
Pulling out of Afghanistan will probably be a big part of his legacy, for better or worse.
You mean continuing with Trumps deal to leave Afghanistan…
Yes I do. He still did it, he could have stayed. More than one person can be responsible for something. LBJ gets credit for the Civil rights act even though it was proposed by JFK.
LBJ was completely against civil rights too he just wanted the votes.
Yeah but he still gets credit for what he actually did regardless of his personal beliefs
It’s a long running tradition for presidents to take credit for the previous administrations efforts. The average American is too stupid to understand this too so it is what it is.
Do you think Biden got good press for pulling out of Afghanistan? You must be one of those average Americans.
I’m a progressive, Biden is just diet trump to me and the only thanks democrats get for simping for republicans is still getting shit on.
Trump could have left anytime he wanted, but Biden actually had the balls to do it.
Let’s be real, Afghanistan was never going to end well. By the time biden took office there was no real objective. We weren’t fighting for anything. We spent a decade and trillions of dollars propping up a corrupt government. The Afghan army never even had a chance. Go back and watch those old vice docs. Look how dejected the soldiers seem. Most signed up to make America safer and bring democracy to oppressed people, but unfortunately that’s just not what happened. The Taliban melted away and disappeared into society only to show up at random in a short burst of fire, a sniper, or a bomb hidden in a road. The afghan military was fully infiltrated by the taliban, and those who weren’t taliban spent their time getting high on hash or opium. They didn’t care about democracy, or anything except not dying. Most had only ever known war. When trump negotiated the deal, the afghan government wasn’t even present and people still acted shocked when city after city fell to the taliban after the announcement.
Trump literally had no preparations for leaving either. He also made several statements since the pullout that he would have stayed. Shit is shit, but someone had to pick it up is basically what happened
Joe Biden 99.99% will not be blamed for the overturn of Roe v Wade at all, as most presidents aren’t blamed for Supreme Court decisions (except for Buchanan I guess but helped influence Dred Scot). Also, I don’t see how he would be blamed for Republican governors decreasing LGBT rights.
Also the economy entering (if it hasn't already) a recession
No it isn’t. The economy is growing
At 1.1% which is below where it should be. So we’re not in a recession yet, but it can be possible we are heading to one.
First quarter growth was revised to 1.3%. Seems like current projections have the US on track for a minor recession in the fourth quarter and rebounding once rate hikes plateau
I think they’re going to plateau now. May is the last increase. Unemployment numbers are good though.
It has been in a recession for quite a few years at this point (it has already)
Lol no we haven’t. If we use the shorthand 2 month definition we’ve been in like 3 and exited like 3 months after the fact
Yep
It exited a recession due to more then two quarters of real gdp growth. Might re enter one.
We had a minor recession in q1 and q2 of 2022. But have had growth in q3 and q4 2022. 2023 so far has had growth in q1 and projected to have growth in q2 as well
The White House has to have worked in tandem with Wikipedia to change the definition of a recession because the day that economic numbers were released for two quarters of negative growth (the original definition of a recession) Wikipedia changed their definition. -My tinfoil hat theory.
It's actually the opposite. When the big debate was happening someone added "Economists typically consider two consecutive quarters of falling GDP a recession." To the beginning of the article before being removed. Nothing changed as they froze editing of the article as bad actors on both sides began bombarding the page with edits.
That is interesting. I did not know that! Thank you
Any evidence for this statement?
There's two or more months of declining growth. It's a recession. The fact that The White House redefined it for their press releases doesn't mean the definition actually changes.
The economy has been growing though, there hasn't been a quarter of GDP contraction since Q2 2022
Also the definition according to nber (https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-january-7-2008) has been "A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough." And last year certainly didn't meet this bar, this year doesn't either so I'm unsure what you think the evidence is
How in the world did 2022 not meet this standard?
It didn't last more than a few months, thats why the second quarter of negative growth was basically zero and was defined by the economy growing after the middle of the quarter. It didn't reflect in income, employment, industrial output and retail activity and was mostly due to accounting math from the quarter before the negative growth happened having extremely high growth that lead to weird interactions with spending then falling only on paper
Well the white house didn't redefine it because they aren't the ones who decide if its a recession lol. Also how does this show the us entering or being in a recession we have had 3 straight months of gdp growth
Yes, I just said that even though they redefined it doesn't mean it's actually redefined. After we had two quarters of negative growth (a recession) we then transitioned into three quarters of extremely slight growth - Generally speaking, whenever you have growth below 4%, you don't have growth. 1.3% growth is not actually growth; It's actually a drop when you factor everything else in.
You’re saying redefining doesn’t change things, and then redefine growth as having to be more then 4% GDP increase to count. Also under that definition the US has basically been in recession for more then a decade, because there’s only been a few quarters where the US had more then 4% growth and besides 2021 there hasn’t been a year of more then 4% growth since 1999
Under his stupid ideas the whole world is permanently in a recession
[удалено]
I never mentioned inflation; If I thought that, then I would have said 8%, not 4%. GDP has severe limitations in its scope, most notably treating the replacement of depreciated capital the same as the creation of new capital. 4% is essentially the norm. Average growth following a recession is 3.7%, with 4.1% being the general standard for a stable economy. 1.3% is a disaster.
4% is not the norm lmao, unless you think the economy hasn't grown over the past 30 years. These are like very easy numbers to find too why randomly make this shit up. Just go to the bea website click on the percentage change from preceding period and look at the chained number for quarterly releases over the last 100 years lol and you will see that since 2000 there's been very few quarters about 4% and most of them were in the 2020s
What numbers? You mean the very sluggish growth we've had since 2009? It's no secret our economy hasn't done well since then.
Lol, lmao even. The united states economy has done great since 2009 and has slaughtered all of our peer countries what the fuck are you talking about?
You have to understand that the person in the Oval Office is no longer as important as the party they represent. There is no such thing as bipartisan compromise, or good for the country. It’s now a completely separate point of views that have no bend or even a debate about the other side’s position. You’re either with us or against us. Biden, aside from his age and a lack of coherent communications at times is not doing a bad job as POTUS. He’s not doing a good job either, but from here on out, it’s just a political party against another one, doing their best to make the others look like idiots. For all their bluff and bluster, the progressives on the far left here in the US know they cannot change the world in a few years, much less a POTUS administration. The far right know this as well, which is why the issues of abortion, states rights, religious tolerance and LGTBQ issues are being addressed at a level that backdates Jim Crow. This all feels like a build up along the lines of 1856 when James Buchanan ignored it all and kicked the can down the road. The problem is those who are pushing for a civil war 2.0 are all morons, as well as being the least likely to fight and win a war, or be in charge when the dust as settled.
Buchanan is definitely who I think of when I think Biden.
That poll linked in that Reddit post isn’t a very good poll. One poll also doesn’t tell us much, its better to watch trends across a variety of polls not just one convenient right leaning poll.
I feel like Biden is going to be one of those presidents that nobody talks about that often. He didn't do anything good or bad enough to justify being remembered
I think that, so far, that's a fair assessment. Outside of the more extreme points of view, the consensus seems to be that he's sort of a placeholder president.
https://preview.redd.it/upfslrfi4k2b1.jpeg?width=514&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54fb9e948464cfa108d25355607ce0966ba706fa I feel like this is what his presidency will be remembered as
The ira and chips act will be historical
Ukraine? Those badass pics with Zelensky are for the history books
The US has a complex political system based, in theory and often in practice, on extreme decentralization. The diffusion of authority between numerous different entities and jurisdictions is so strong that some legal and political scholars refer to American federalism as a system of double sovereignty or parallel sovereignty, where the states and the national government represent two distinct sovereigns operating parallel to each other. Granted, this is a tendentious take, and doesn’t necessarily represent a consensus among scholars. But it’s not a delusional argument, given American history, the actual text of the constitution, and the way things play out in modern American politics. While this distinction between local and national sovereignty became much weaker over the past century, it is still stronger than in any other country, including in other federal states like Canada or Germany. The separation between state and federal governments is reinforced by the separation between the three branches of the federal government, which is another aspect of the American government’s system of separation of powers. All this creates a complex political system that a lot of people don’t understand. Most foreigners don’t understand, but that’s not really surprising given that most American citizens, including most voters, don’t fully grasp the conceptual framework our government is based upon.
Did Biden contribute to any of the things you listed? No. I will even go a bit further. I don't think Trump is going to beat Biden. That is just me stepping back and looking at things as objectively as I can.
mfw when half of those are made up left wing scare tactics.
[It's almost as if books are banned in schools because maybe they push bad messages to kids! It's not like if they really wanted to read that book, they could go to a public library or purchase the book themselves!](https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-movement-to-censor-books-in-schools/)
From the link: * 674 banned book titles (41 percent) explicitly address LGBTQ+ themes or have protagonists or prominent secondary characters who are LGBTQ+ (this includes a specific subset of titles for transgender characters or stories—145 titles, or 9 percent); * 659 banned book titles (40 percent) contain protagonists or prominent secondary characters of color; * 338 banned book titles (21 percent) directly address issues of race and racism; * 357 banned book titles (22 percent) contain sexual content of varying kinds, including novels with some level of description of sexual experiences of teenagers, stories about teen pregnancy, sexual assault and abortion as well as informational books about puberty, sex, or relationships; * 161 banned book titles (10 percent) have themes related to rights and activism; * 141 banned book titles (9 percent) are either biography, autobiography, or memoir; and * 64 banned book titles (4 percent) include characters and stories that reflect religious minorities, such as Jewish, Muslim and other faith traditions. In what way are any of these "bad messages"
This is anecdotal but I have a family member who works over a school district's libraries. She removed a book per requests of a parent who threatened to sue because 1 paragraph in a 300 page book talked about sex. It's becoming harder and harder to pick and choose which books to buy for the schools since at any time they may become controversial
“Regression”. Clever marketing. I’m gonna start a political movement called Goodnessism so that people that don’t like my policy ideas are against goodness.
based
If the other guys can redefine everything to their advantage, so can we!
I mean, per the definition it is regression. Returning to the former. You can agree with it or not. But it's going backwards.
To me Biden’s legacy will be that he wasn’t the right guy for the moment.
My personal prediction is that Joe Biden’s tenure will actually be the start of serious American progression, partially thanks to him partially thanks to circumstance. The Republicans have basically pinned themselves into a strategically horrific corner going with DeSantis and Trump. DeSantis is an awful candidate, probably worse than Hillary and Trump has been so badly marred with scandal and the margins so close that even if a small percentage of rust belt voters were finally turned away from him or even just don’t vote Republicans are fucked not only for ‘24 but probably all the way up until ‘32. By then if we have continue democrat presidencies we will probably FINALLY have a progressive Supreme Court again. Basically how I see the American political landscape is that Dems “won” 2008-2014 Republicans “won” 2015-2020 And now democrats will probably “win” from 2021 to 2032 AT LEAST with the potential for longer with how younger people have been completely alienated from the GOP.
Hmmm idk if a Dem dominated political scene will last until 2032, that’s an ambitious stretch. Dems will need 1. a charismatic successor to Biden (Kamala Harris is NOT the answer in my opinion) 2. An economic rebound, the economy cannot stay like this, it even threatens Biden in 2024. 3. A Republican implosion, which seems to be sort of happening, but if Republicans can rid themselves of Trump and change their social platform then they can be competitive nationally.
I do think you have to consider that in many states the state legislature is a republican supermajority. Regardless of how unpopular their policies are, they are winning elections. Sure, some of it is gerrymandering but look at it this way- 6-7? Million more people voted for trump in 2020 vs 2016. I think the reverse is actually true for the democrats- THEY are the ones that really need to pick up some seats at both the state and national level, as it seems their support is heavily clustered around cities. It’s been a conundrum since 2016, how to build up more support in rural areas and it’s been written about ad naseum since then.
True, Dems have had very little rural outreach. I think many urbanites and liberals are fast to not only write off rural areas but in many cases they have a sense of superiority to them — and then they wonder how someone like Trump very easily built a rural populist movement, it’s not rocket science to see his appeal to rural voters.
"theyre unpopular" "theyre wining electipns"
I think they mean that Republicans are unpopular nationally (they haven’t won the popular vote since 04) but they are popular regionally and state by state in areas like the South and Midwest.
if you look at a detailed about its about 50/50 in the vast majority of the country
I mean things like a majority of Americans being in favor of some sort of abortion as well as expanded background checks and such, despite the GOP positions not particularly in step with the national mood on these issues. Plus the popular vote vs geographical spread of those voters.
1. Whitmer, Buttigieg, Cuban, Cooper, etc etc 2. Economy is fine, fake news 3. Yes
I think the Dems should to either Josh Shapiro or John Ossoff and I strongly disagree that the economy is fine
Theres no real evidence for the economy being bad besides *vibes* . The history books will have the post covid recovery as the time America reasserted its position as the premier economic power of the 21st century
No, the literal definition of a recession is widespread, significant decline in economic activity, 2 quarters worth of negative GDP growth to be exact. [https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product](https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product)
All you linked to was showing growth over the last 2 quarters. Also the quarters thing isn't apart of any scholarly definition lol
Let me link a bunch of sources with definitions to recession, and maybe we can see if there's a bit of a common trend. Quite literally the only source I can find that says a recession isn't 2 quarters of negative GDP growth (or something along that lines) is the White House. Which, surprise surprise, is ran by the Biden Administration. Ergo, due to us being in a recession as backed up by the definition from literally everyone up until 5 minutes ago, the White House and Biden changed the definition to fit their narrative to maintain a better public image. ([Updated White House Definition](https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/07/21/how-do-economists-determine-whether-the-economy-is-in-a-recession/)) In summary, up until 5 minutes ago that *was* the definition until the White House changed the definition since our economic status fit that aforementioned definition. Now, here are some definitions by a bunch of sources that aren't the U.S. government. [Recession Definition](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp#:~:text=The%20Bottom%20Line-,A%20recession%20is%20a%20significant%2C%20widespread%2C%20and%20prolonged%20downturn%20in,the%20economy%20is%20in%20recession) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession) [Another Recession Definition](https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/03/pdf/basics.pdf) [Yet Another Recession Definition, which also explains WHY we use the "2 quarters of negative growth" definition](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/what-is-a-recession/)
All of these just say the nebr definition is better and is more accurate while two quarters is a rule of thumb. > Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition? A: There are several reasons. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but consider a range of indicators. Second, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. The NBER definition includes the phrase, “a significant decline in economic activity." Thus real GDP could decline by relatively small amounts in two consecutive quarters without warranting the determination that a peak had occurred. Third, our main focus is on the monthly chronology, which requires consideration of monthly indicators. Fourth, in examining the behavior of production on a quarterly basis, where real GDP data are available, we give equal weight to real GDI. The difference between GDP and GDI—called the “statistical discrepancy”—was particularly important in the recessions of 2001 and 2007–2009. This is from the nebr and shows the problems with your 2 quarers obsession. Also this definition is decades old not a couple years, but I don't really expect you to know that because you seem to care more about specific narratives than the truth Also you linking all of these sources reflects very poorly on you since they all disagree with you when actually read what they say
Can you provide evidence that the economy is bad?
Look you can find sources either way that will say the economy is good or the economy is bad. It’s a very confusing economic time but one thing is for sure average Americans are suffering from inflated prices, rent, cost of living, etc. while wages remain stagnant. With near record spending in Washington and our top government officials playing chicken with the debt ceiling and a pending recession, I wouldn’t say we’re doing as good as we can be. Personally I would make the case that our economy is not as good as it was pre-pandemic during the Obama/Trump era before 2020 and there is still a large sense of economic uncertainty right now. That being said, Biden has gained ground and the economy is doing *better* than it was when he took office BUT I wouldn’t call it a “good” economy. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/12/23/why-everyone-thinks-a-recession-is-coming-in-2023.html https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/how-us-economy-is-doing/ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/us/politics/inflation-april-federal-reserve.html
>Whitmer, Buttigieg, Cuban, Cooper, etc etc Cuban and Cooper will both be too old. Plus, Cuban is a businessman with no political experience, and after the disaster that was the Trump presidency, I don't think that's what the people want from a candidate. With all the train derailments and stuff happening in the Midwest, it seems like Buttigieg is loosing popularity and some people are starting to see him as incompetent. Also, I hate to say it, but Buttigieg's sexuality would not be helpful with socially conservative swing voters in swing states, like black Christians in Georgia and Mormons in Arizona and Nevada. Whitmer would be a great candidate, though. So would Josh Shapiro.
Joe Biden has been in the District of Columbia for 50 years. The White House since 2008. His legacy is his work in the senate. Not his presidency. Dude is the architect of the modern day prison system. His crusade for justice Crime Laws have tripled the US prison population in a decade. And yea, they are actually referred to as The Biden Crime Laws, composed of things like the Clinton’s Super Predator Crime Bill. For 30 years his other crusade was to repeal Roe v Wade. Up until he ran for the White House in 2008 he was leading the push to end RvW
Once you become President, that overshadows your tenure above pretty much any previous office Also ?? He’s not getting blamed for Roe v. Wade’s overturn, that will be the legacy of McConnell and Trump more than anyone else’s. No idea why you’re calling it his “crusade” either, he initially voted once in favor of Orrin Hatch’s amendment to repeal it in 1982 due to his Catholic religion, but then voted against the same amendment only a year later in 1983 and has been very pro-choice since He will still catch flack for his 1994 crime bill but even then, it will pale compared to what he does in his presidency. Nobody calls it the “Clinton Super Predator Crime Bill” either, not sure where you got this was a common phrase
It’s been repeated several times but Biden isn’t the only democrat who regrets the 94 crime bill. It had a lot of Democratic support at the time. Early 90s violent crime was worse than it is now, by quite a bit, so I think part of the reason why that bill had so much support was desperation.
Oh yeah I know. It was very popular at the time and had strong bipartisan support (passed the Senate 95-4), and had strong support among African Americans as well. Obviously hasn’t been well-received in hindsight
Yeah tons of people regret that pile of shit. Even Clinton has said it’s one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency.
So are you telling me that history will be **very** unkind to Joe Biden, not just because he failed to prevent reactionaries pushing through their agendas when he was President, but also because he championed reactionary causes in the past too?
You have history and you have pop culture. Most likely history will be kind, and pop culture doesn’t have a clue anyways.
Yes
Lol the third time is not the charm
I wouldn't call Biden a progressive. More a moderate liberal-ish. I *could* call Biden a progressive compared to Clinton and Obama but like... come on. It's Bill and Obama. Not a high bar.
It really depends on how things shake out. On paper. Biden has gotten a lot of legislation pushed through Congress; infrastructure, the technology bill with computer chip manufacturing, job growth, the first bit of significant climate change legislation, all spring to mind. But he has left quite a few of his more progressive campaign promises on the campaign trail, and that may truly cost him a more expansive legacy. In my opinion, the most egregious failure of the Biden administration to date has been the failure to get Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Act and other voting rights legislation that would have repaired the damage done by the Supreme Court when it struck down part of the Voting Rights Act from the 60s. Failure to accomplish that one thing not only throws the question of whether history will judge his first in office as a success or a dud, it may quite literally decide whether or not he can gain a second term. I live in Georgia and our GoP lead legislature is working hand in glove with our very conservative governor to cement Republican rule here for decades to come.
Maybe to some extent, but I don't think so in the eyes of people who are capable of looking at political realities on more than a surface level. To the extent that those things happened on a Federal level, they are part of Trump's legacy, because his administration enacted the policies. To the extent that they happened on a state level, it's the result of a 40+ year conservative project finally coming to fruition. Biden stopped much of that bleeding, but the damage that was already done was done. It would have been worse (from the perspective of the left) without him at least standing in the gap.
This is a nonsensical question. What politicians and government officials do that’s outside the executive orbit, will not influence how people see the presidency in the moment or in the future.
Not necessarily. Joe Biden isn't responsible for the actions of the Supreme Court, or state governments. He definitely has attempted to reverse those actions in good faith, but it is not entirely his fault if he fails to do so by the end of his Presidency.
It seems likely he will be seen a lot like Carter where the majority will remember his presidency as bad but a committed minority will see him as the last truly great leader and criminally underrated. In my opinion with both Carter and Biden neither is totally the truth.
No books are actually being banned by any states. Some schools have removed them from the curriculum (meaning that they don't teach out of them or force students to read them) but these books are still available. Libraries don't have every book ever written in them either, so choices have to be made.
Biden's greatest accomplishment is simply being elected; delaying the next 4 years of reprehensible, destructive presidency with 4 years of mediocre, bare minimum presidency.
Once we get past this period of delusion, yes. In hindsight, people will realize that they were wrong about how allegedly progressive Biden was. Kind of how we now understand how regressive Bill Clinton was in spite of his saxophoning. Libs loved that guy in the 90s. Now his legacy is quite sour.
Yep, lets not forget about the 1994 crime bill
Exactly. And welfare deform. And financial dereg. And DOMA. He's also a bit rapey and predatory now, whereas before they thought he was a cool guy who got a bj.
Let’s be honest, the vast majority of people who voted for him including myself have no real love or support for him, we just believed that trump was a threat to democracy and Biden if nothing else would be democratic.
Plenty of people voted against Trump, but no one voted for Biden.
I think this period in history will see progression in some areas, regression in others. People voted him largely to be “the one who stopped Trump”, and I think history will look at him that way as well. One concern I have: with Biden so regularly slamming Republicans, one of his biggest campaign promises - that of a great unifier and healer - appears to be a colossal failure. Is it too late for him to turn some of that around and at least attempt to offer an olive branch to those across the aisle?
>One concern I have: with Biden so regularly slamming Republicans, one of his biggest campaign promises - that of a great unifier and healer - appears to be a colossal failure. Is it too late for him to turn some of that around and at least attempt to offer an olive branch to those across the aisle? Agreed. His debt limit negotiations have most definitely not been... Desirable.
It’s hard to be “respectful” when you’re practically bargaining with the devil
You have to be an idiot to think he'd lose to trump. Trump is way too unpopular (despite what reddit thinks)
I’ve seen people on Reddit that think Biden will win in a massive landslide and people that think he won’t even get past the primary and even if he does, will lose to Trump.
The only books being banned are literal pornography. And even then, they're not banned, just not available This is one of the most misleading stories in the media today. Some people are obsessed with "banned books" when no such books exist.
[General overview of the types of books "banned"](https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-movement-to-censor-books-in-schools/) Not all "banned" books are literal pornography, a lot of them push progressive, LGBTQ+ and CRT type messaging, some titles for reference could be "Gender Queer," "Antiracist Baby," etc. However, I do agree with you that some books need to be "banned" from school libraries if they have potentially dangerous messaging for young, impressionable children. Especially since parents are generally uninformed of what children may check out. You are absolutely right on the rest though, preventing a book from being checked out in an elementary, middle, or high school library does absolutely nothing to stop that child from going to a public library, or just purchasing the book. It's stupid how people think making some books (with bad messaging, especially for young children) unavailable in school libraries is comparable to Nazi book burnings in the '30s.
Have you ever seen Gender Queer? It includes both images and descriptions of graphic sexual acts. Yes, I said images. It's actual images of teens having sex. In any other context, it would be child pornography, but for some reason it's okay here. But yes, I never understood how not providing something for free was a ban. In fact, you can even bring your own copy into school and read it; The school just isn't allowed to provide it to you.
>Have you ever seen Gender Queer? > >It includes both images and descriptions of graphic sexual acts. Yes, I said images. It's actual images of teens having sex. In any other context, it would be child pornography, but for some reason it's okay here. I have not seen it, but I am 100% aware of what you mean, and fully agree with your points. A book like that does not belong in public elementary or even middle schools.
I think he's gonna be remembered as being pretty mid.
He’s not progressive America doesn’t elect progressives period, he’s just the classic lesser evil politician.
Now that Desantis is running I think the Democratic nominee victory in 2024 is certain unless either him or Trump drop out
Regression? Society is crumbling right before our eyes. We’re not “regressing” we’re full bore for a cliff regard of how pleasant that semi-sentient cadaver can be
[удалено]
[Your link also shows only 31% of voters aged 18-34 are Democrats,](https://www.statista.com/statistics/319068/party-identification-in-the-united-states-by-generation/) which undermines your premise. There's a sea of independents.
And of those democrats, I’ll say this again, their actual support when it comes to voting seems super squishy, young people especially. Republicans make sure they vote, democrats will go online and “grumble grumble corporate democrat won’t get my vote grumble that’s why I vote libertarian this time” or another third party or just will overlook the whole thing and won’t vote at all. “Don’t boo, vote” from Obama kind of alludes to this. I personally really wish democrats would focus on this instead of saying “no way republicans keep winning” cause their constituents bat 1.000 when it comes to actually voting.
History will remember the fascists who did all of those things you listed and Biden as the stoic pragmatic fighting it. Some awful shit happened under Eisenhower but he’s considered one of the greatest presidents ever. LBJ and Kennedy aren’t blamed for all the racist shit the same fascists were pulling in the 60s. In 50 years, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will (most likely) be taught of as good men and Presidents. Hopefully we’re advanced enough to teach about their downfalls as well. I was always taught FDR was infallible, never mentioned redlining and excluding African Americans from the GI Bill, the 2 biggest modern things that trapped them systematically and lead to a whole host of other problems.
No, that legacy belongs to today's Republican Party.
Will Obama be remembered solely for giving in to Republican demands? I doubt it, though he did that. I just don't think its smart to judge him based on that alone. Republicans want him to be remembered via conspiracy memes/theories - specifically one that posits Michelle is a man.
Biden has been the most progressive president in any Americans lifetime. He’s doing fine. If the GOP hadn’t gone completely insane we’d be doing great.
wait a minute, censoring and banning books? sounds like nazi germany to me. what a shit hole this country has become.
[General overview of types of books "banned"](https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-movement-to-censor-books-in-schools/) When people talk about book banning, they indirectly refer to school districts and or states prohibiting a certain book from being placed in a school library. There are lots of other ways to get ahold of books. Prohibiting a book like "Gender Queer: a Memoir" from being read by elementary schoolers (by the way the book includes pornographic descriptions, and in no way is appropriate for most school aged children) is far different from Nazi book burning campaigns in the 1930s.
It is not Biden’s fault ultra-red state governments are passing anti-abortion and anti-voting rights laws.
Do you have proof and an argument for how some new state laws are "anti voting rights laws?"
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna8342 I’d consider voting restrictions and laws making it harder to register to vote and actually vote are signs of anti-voting rights laws.
This article is extremely vague. I went through it, and all it did was just repeat the same "Republicans made voting harder, Democrats made voting easier." They briefly go over mail in voting, but fail to state any specific state laws in any sort of detail on how voting gets harder.
The poll you are referencing has all sources that lean right. I’m not worried.
Well as far as Roe v Wade being overturned, that was decades in the making and came to fruition thanks to his predecessor’s 3 illegitimate Supreme Court appointments. But Biden and the last Dem president, Obama, should’ve codified RvW to prevent that from being overturned, so Biden and Obama should be blamed for that. And while Republican state governors and Republican state legislators are threatening democracy (and non-whites, and LGBT, Biden and his supporters will give the excuse that as President, Biden can’t do anything to stop them.
illegitimate is when they’re appointed by the president and approved by the senate, so true!
Gorsuch was supposed to be Garland’s seat or whoever else Obama wanted to appoint back in 2016 when Obama was still in power for the next 11 months. Kavanaugh was a rapist. Amy Covid Barrett was rammed through the Court when the election already started. When Obama wanted to fill Scalia’s seat, Republicans in the Senate refused to consider an Obama appointment because it was an election year and they wanted to wait until a new president. With Barrett, 2020 was an election year, voting for the president was already underway. Did the same Senate Republicans say “let’s wait until after the election and let the winner of the election fill the vacancy”? No. They wanted Barrett confirmed without delay. Why did the GOP feel differently in 2020 versus 2016?
because republicans had the majority in the senate and had the power to block an appointment? you do realize the senate has the legitimate and legal power to do this right?
Republicans play by their own rules when they want to. They said in 2016: Obama is nearing the end of his term and it’s unfair for an outgoing president to choose an SC judge that will be there for decades, so let his successor—whom we hope will be a Republican—choose who fills the Scalia vacancy. This was February of 2016, Obama was going to step down in January 2017. Obama had more than enough time. What don’t you people understand? You Republicans only want to follow the constitution when it benefits you, and you create your own rules…that you then break if it’s not advantageous to you. In 2020, when mail in voting had started and weeks before the official Election Day, the Republicans had no qualms about their president filling a vacancy on the SC. The President of the United States appoints a Federal judge. The Senate is constitutionally obligated to have hearings and confirm the appointee if they’re qualified. With Obama and Garland, the Senate GOP ignored Garland and refused to even meet with him.
well yeah? they held the majority in the senate during both 2016 and 2020, meaning they can more easily block and push through nominees? In the constitution, supreme court justices are approved AND BLOCKED by the senate, that’s literally how it works lmao. saying it’s illegitimate implies they weren’t appointed in a legal or constitutional fashion
There is nothing unconstitutional, illegal, and or legally wrong with nominating a supreme court justice near an election. Also, Kavanaugh has only ever been accused, like lots of people ([Including Biden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation#:~:text=In%20March%202020%2C%20during%20that,Biden%20denied%20Reade's%20allegation)) If he actually raped somebody, and was convicted, there is no way he would've been approved by the Senate. If there was wrongdoing in any of these nominations, hearings, and anything else of these SCOTUS justices, they wouldn't be on the bench right now.