It seemed like he might be needing to use the restroom or something.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I've posted that chapo clip after Charlottesville in one of these threads. Paraphrasing: "The fascists know what's coming with climate change, so that's why they want the border walls and the guns, while the liberals have no answer because they don't do planning or redistribution."
I think we can see the liberal answer from the admin now.
Yes, he is trying to sit. He does so one second after the clip ends.
Can't believe Posobiec got some of y'all.
He apparently only got one poster in this thread.
Second clip is not Posobiec
My bad, conflated the two for a second. Still a very heavily edited clip.
Looks like he didn't have a chair to sit on, which is apparently breaking news on right wing twitter.
Also, this is the same account that retweeted the clip.
A chair, a chair, my presidency for a chair!
I hear you bro, but it's evident he shouldn't have been sitting at that moment in the ceremony. Notice Macron, the First Lady, and others standing tall. FLOTUS had to cover her mouth and tell him to standup. Without her intervention, it would have been even more awkward.
Being sharp, alert, and self-aware is crucial for leading the nation. It's frustrating to think that Jill or an aide always needs to be there to prompt him.
(and before someone jumps, no 34Felonies is not the answer either)
Well there are news that claimed the video was edited. Mad editing skills if true.
and very scary if true
I wasn't asking you to. It's cool if you want to, but it shouldn't be a prerequisite for you to voice your displeasure with something happening.
The point, also, is that this isn't a general prerequisite for the poster in question either. This is a new routine that has popped up because their preferred people are in power, it's a routine made to defend the status quo without having to defend anything. When the people in power change, this user will revert to acting in the exact same way as before, and the same as the people now being dismissed. That is annoying, and it's why several posters seem to have grown tired of it.
This isn't tenable anymore, he's going to get absolutely murdered by Trump in the debates.
There needs to be someone else surely ?
There needs to be someone else surely ?
We're way past that point now. Unless he has a serious health problem, he will be on the ballot in November. The debates will be a shit-show for sure, but not sure it will hurt Biden all that much. They'll pump him full of meds like for that State of the Union.
It can also be annoying to just complain without ever putting effort into discussing a topic. I think that's what is completely pointless. Which isn't a prerequisite, but it makes for much more interesting and useful discussion.
Immigration is, this year's election, a big topic and it's good to actually discuss potential ways to improve the situation.
I am an immigrant in Spain. I don't think it's particularly hard to live here legally. I think it's easier than in the U.S., from what I know (I also lived there for a while). So it's not necessarily true that immigration is harder in Europe.
Last edited:
This is really a much longer term structural issue.
Brian drain happens for several reasons but it's not surprising and understandable on an individual level. When people come to the West to attend colleges, there will be inevitably some that prefer to stay. There are some initiatives trying to reverse that process. Like Ghana allows anyone with African heritage (not just Ghanian) to obtain a Ghana passport to entice people to come to Ghana to build for the future. I think it's less about preventing brain drain and more about creating incentives to make moving into some developing nations more attractive.
I don't think the macro situation is as simple as the US becoming more isolationist. Some endeavors should definitely not be relocated in the future, yes. but improving the conditions across the developing world is going to also take capital movement/generation. And usually there a few preconditions to this being successful. For instance, a traditional prerequisite is judiciary development and trust in institutions. It's always going to be up for debate but I think each country will need to fight the right internal balance of public and private sector.
Last edited:
Sure, but it's not a discussion, it's an attempt at shutting it down. You won't see a single word spent on actually arguing for or defending the policy.
If we go back to e.g. Trump's proposed Muslim ban, you never saw demands of "solving" immigration policy before you could have a serious opinion on whether or not it was a good idea. Now, with things like Biden launching stronger attacks on American asylum policy than Trump could ever dream of, saying "maybe don't" has suddenly become self-satisfying, simply a gotcha, unnuanced, and more condescending tripe. This is not serious behaviour.
There are two separate critiques, really: of Biden's policies, and of the contrast between his policies and his (and Dems') rhetoric.
The latter is relevant since this is election season and the claim is often made that if you don't vote for Biden then X bad thing will happen under Trump. If X bad thing also happens under Biden despite his rhetoric then that is not good for any pro-Biden arguments.
The latter is relevant since this is election season and the claim is often made that if you don't vote for Biden then X bad thing will happen under Trump. If X bad thing also happens under Biden despite his rhetoric then that is not good for any pro-Biden arguments.
The immigrant / stop the boats bullshit we're seeing in the US and UK / Europe is a bit of a red herring anyway. Blaming foreigners and making them a scapegoat is an easy out for politicians instead of addressing the real issues such as the growing wealth inequality gap. People have less purchasing power, less disposable income, less goods, less financial security now than they have had in previous years and generations, whilst the top 1-x% of society haven't felt the pinch at all.
It's easy to say that the common man is feeling that way because people with different skin tones and languages are taking the same resources as them but that couldn't be further from that truth.
It's easy to say that the common man is feeling that way because people with different skin tones and languages are taking the same resources as them but that couldn't be further from that truth.
It's the oldest trick in the book basically. Find an "other" group that you can demonize to remove focus from material questions. If more voters used the "worker vs. capitalist" frame of reference for how they view the world and thereby vote, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately people generally are too easily swayed by racism and xenophobia.
I'll add a good example of this. In the U.S. many farms and ranches use undocumented immigrant labor, because they can pay them less under the threat of deportation. This drives down wages and provides fewer jobs for people with citizenship, so people easily jump to the conclusion that immigrants are the problem. But in reality it's the bosses that exploit this, and workers, whether they are immigrants or not, pay the price. If these immigrants instead had a pathway to citizenship, they would have the same employee rights and get fair compensation.
Great post and spot on.
For example, in Portugal, the fact that immigrants contributed close to 2 billion euros to social security and our NHS barely gets mentioned. If you get any type of incident with an immigrant it gets non stop coverage from all the channels despite the fact that crime rate remains unchanged even with the so called "mass immigration" from last years. Portugal remains one of the safest countries in the world. But the idiots lap it up. Unsurprising since most interviews target the too many brown people picking up fruits and vegetables gang when natives refuse to do so.
Media and politicians are to blame.
Well, most probably won't notice the clip was doctored, so the damage is done.
He didn’t poop himself and you should probably get the things you see online more thoroughly in this day and age.
yup...and like this and AI will be (not) fun
So you're saying Trump didn't have a mouthful of jizz the other day?
They forgot to doctor that frame. Imagine all the video without being doctored. Imagine it a lot
Is this also edited?
It may be off-topic because this has nothing to do with Biden and his policies, but I am really dreading what AI may be doing in future. Considering the fact that the first one was edited, I have a strong feeling this one is too, and it looks very fecking realistic, which is scary.
It may be off-topic because this has nothing to do with Biden and his policies, but I am really dreading what AI may be doing in future. Considering the fact that the first one was edited, I have a strong feeling this one is too, and it looks very fecking realistic, which is scary.
Video aside, the man in the background between Macron and his spouse (?) has a Medal of Honor around his neck. Respect, Sir.
I think the point about immigration that gets swept under the carpet now is unlike twenty years ago or even ten years ago in Europe during the first tidal wave of backlash to immigration is the advent of camera phones and social media means images are beamed into people's homes in instant. This is the single reason I think there is a huge backlash across America but also closer to home in Europe. So when you have high levels of crossings (which may have happened as much in the past) it didn't have the salience of an issue being projected as the number one issue.
Here in the UK the attack line that Tony Blair ushered in mass immigration is now a stick to beat to win working class small towns and traditional Labour seats post-Blair. He himself did not lose politically on the matter as it was not a highly discussed issue back then. They tried to make it a hot topic. They put up billboards covering it in 2005 all over the country not unlike what the Leave campaign did in 2016. And still he won big by not losing those voters.
I think the same is happening in the US. Biden on day one cancelled a lot of Trump's executive orders and only got heavily negative ratings for immigration handling as the narrative of mass open borders took hold. People didn't like it for 3.5 years. There are polls showing even a significant amount of non-white people now want strict policy. You can argue he was never progressive on it anyway. But most voters oppose him not because he wasn't too strict but because he wasn't strict enough. I don't think you can ignore that. You can argue he didn't (can't) make the case for why he repealed certain orders, ignored the pro-immigration argument as a matter of high importance and let it fester into negativity. I think that is a strong criticism and why the population moved right. But the fact is the population has moved right on immigration and we're seeing the same thing happen in places like Ireland where they were made to look like hypocrites when people were crossing onto their shores. Or even the most left wing city in England (Liverpool) having an anti-immigration backlash.
Where is this backlash coming from? What are the remedies to turn the clock on what has become a widespread theme of every election? Or is it too far gone where the perception of mass immigration through social media is not something you can correct like how crime is not higher than it was thirty years ago but people think it is based on algorithms of stories a long way away?
Here in the UK the attack line that Tony Blair ushered in mass immigration is now a stick to beat to win working class small towns and traditional Labour seats post-Blair. He himself did not lose politically on the matter as it was not a highly discussed issue back then. They tried to make it a hot topic. They put up billboards covering it in 2005 all over the country not unlike what the Leave campaign did in 2016. And still he won big by not losing those voters.
I think the same is happening in the US. Biden on day one cancelled a lot of Trump's executive orders and only got heavily negative ratings for immigration handling as the narrative of mass open borders took hold. People didn't like it for 3.5 years. There are polls showing even a significant amount of non-white people now want strict policy. You can argue he was never progressive on it anyway. But most voters oppose him not because he wasn't too strict but because he wasn't strict enough. I don't think you can ignore that. You can argue he didn't (can't) make the case for why he repealed certain orders, ignored the pro-immigration argument as a matter of high importance and let it fester into negativity. I think that is a strong criticism and why the population moved right. But the fact is the population has moved right on immigration and we're seeing the same thing happen in places like Ireland where they were made to look like hypocrites when people were crossing onto their shores. Or even the most left wing city in England (Liverpool) having an anti-immigration backlash.
Where is this backlash coming from? What are the remedies to turn the clock on what has become a widespread theme of every election? Or is it too far gone where the perception of mass immigration through social media is not something you can correct like how crime is not higher than it was thirty years ago but people think it is based on algorithms of stories a long way away?
You are right that social media magnifies everything but objectively with numbers on hand, immigration had never been higher. But is a problem that the west caused in asignificant percentage, directly or indirectly
I don't disagree with your last point. But people often just say that as a closer to avoid explaining how they would counter this growing backlash in the here and now.
That's the cognitive dissonance I see on this forum a lot in terms of politics over the years. As if in fact the public are exactly where people posting here are on all the issues. No deviation at all. Instead I see politicians moving right on issues like immigration because the public is instead already ahead of them on the right. I don't think it is the other way round anymore and social media I think is the killer. It's the same with crime where statistically urban crime is down yet people feel way more unsafe.
Since this is the Biden thread it's relevant in that until this new policy he signed this week he was massively underwater on immigration for the opposite reason to what posters in this thread are now talking about. Which is that the majority of the public viewed him as letting a record number of people in without restriction for 3.5/4 years, that he is the open borders president.
I don't think this is going to stand up in a court because they will say he has to go through lawmakers not with a pen. I don't think he will appeal and instead say "I tried, now it is up to them to work together" and it is back to square one. But in doing so his people's calculus is he may reduce his deficit on a number 1 or 2 issue which could swing the election. I think it is clear political gamesmanship knowing an EO won't be legal and still doing it, cynical to shore up a few votes, and a waste of time at the end. Yet it is the exact same thing you could argue he did with student loans with one exception: student loans in the polls is not a high topic priority. Most people don't go to a university or even support the policy for their own cynical reason ("i paid mine off"). Immigration is number 2 after inflation or even number 1 in some cases. It is the case in elections all across the map.
The public has a variety of regressive and progressive views. The president can choose to indulge some (like nativism) and ignore others (like universal healthcare or a ceasefire). His choices are a reflection of his politics.
I don't think you are entirely wrong on the effects of social media and how that can feed into a narrative but immigration in the US comes up at various times even before social media. The early/mid-90s were another time when this became a huge talking point (also mostly do the narrative presented by the right wing). In 1994, California ("the most liberal state") passed Prop 187 which limited access to public serves for undocumented immigrants so its not just due to social media. Going back further the whole "reefer madness" narrative was also fueled by anti-immigration activists.
Why is this a bad thing or worthy of a laugh?
It's one more stable long term ally in the region to curb opposition interests and stem influence away from the CCP.