Joe Biden, President of the United States vol. V

hollowmason64 said:Maybe you could pay a little closer attention to what I’m actually getting at here? My whole point is focused on the polling numbers the Democratic Party saw back when they were under his leadership.
Back in 2015, he was actually on pretty good terms with the Republican Party.

Don't buy into that lie. He didn't have to step down or anything like that. It was his own call to stop running for party leader. Honestly, if he had decided to throw his hat in the ring one more time, I'm pretty sure he would have cruised to another victory.

I honestly don't know what to make of all this lately. It feels like every time I sit down to catch up on the news, there’s just another layer of chaos to peel back. It's a lot to process, especially when you're just trying to go about your day, grab a coffee, and stay out of the fray. Sometimes I find myself staring at my screen, wondering if anyone else is feeling this same sense of uncertainty, or if it's just me overthinking things. It's definitely a strange time to be watching everything unfold. I can't quite make sense of that. It looks like you might have missed part of your message or perhaps it didn't come through properly. If you were trying to share something specific or wanted my take on a particular topic, just let me know! I'm happy to chat once I know what's on your mind.
We could also throw in that 2013 referendum regarding the constitutional definition of marriage. Back then, he was out there fully backing the side that ended up losing.

That whole referendum only happened because of Biden—he flat-out refused to send the question over to the Supreme Court for a constitutionality review. Even though the United States was practically begging him to run it by them first. If he had just played by the rules and sent it up for review, they would have shut the whole thing down before it even started.
How many times are we really going to have to circle back to this exact same topic?

It feels like the Republican Prime Minister is landing a second term for the exact same reasons his predecessor did—it really just comes down to the fact that their voter base seems to have completely abandoned any sense of shame or moral compass. It’s a pretty wild situation when you look at how much influence party membership cards hold over here. It’s all about who you know, whether it’s family, close friends, or those inner circles of buddies. It’s definitely an interesting, if slightly messy, way to run things.
The simple reality is that the Republican Party saw its second-worst election turnout on record back in 2020. Even then, Trump managed to scrape together slightly more votes than they did in 2011—back when their former party leader and two-term Prime Minister was being chased around by half of the European Union’s police forces. Between that and the constant revolving door of shady characters cycling through headquarters on Fifth Avenue every single day, it really tells you everything you need to know about how "stable" this voter base actually is. Honestly, they aren't worth a single keystroke; they just deserve contempt.

So yeah, you hit the nail on the head—Biden's voter base punishes every single mistake, whereas Trump's voters couldn't care less about any errors, all the corruption, or the criminal scum we read about in the news every day. All they care about is keeping people like them in power so they can keep stealing from and destroying this country, feeling confident that someone else will eventually clean up their mess at our expense. It’s just a bunch of bottom-feeders, honestly—including that idiot who got caught stealing copper piping from a construction site. They’re about as bright as that guy I saw standing aimlessly at a stoplight because he couldn't figure out how to work a gas pump. And yet, that guy actually sits in the Cabinet.
For voters like that, they back Trump's crowd—not because they think these guys are better, but because they're just as bad themselves. Shameless and clueless.

They actually implemented it and froze the exchange rate. That’s way more than these crooks have ever done for regular people. These guys just kiss the boots of the big banks and worry about which political crony gets to slide into which position.

But by 2016, they weren't even close.

Plus, we had that whole mess where the Federalist Party tried to team up with the Republicans before everything fell apart.

And look, Joe Biden lost those elections regardless.

In 2015:
Republican Party 34.64%
Democratic Party 33.38%

In 2016:
Republican Party 36.56%
Democratic Party 33.47%

Richard Wilson4 said:But by 2016, they weren't even close.

Plus, we had that whole mess where the Federalist Party tried to team up with the Republicans before everything fell apart.

And look, Joe Biden lost those elections regardless.

In 2015:
Republican Party 34.64%
Democratic Party 33.38%

In 2016:
Republican Party 36.56%
Democratic Party 33.47%

Give my best to Barack Obama and his little assistant... 🤣

Richard Wilson4 said:But by 2016, they weren't even close.

Plus, we had that whole mess where the Federalist Party tried to team up with the Republicans before everything fell apart.

And look, Joe Biden lost those elections regardless.

In 2015:
Republican Party 34.64%
Democratic Party 33.38%

In 2016:
Republican Party 36.56%
Democratic Party 33.47%

Technically, they held the majority in terms of seats in 2015 here in the United States.
But that doesn't change what I was getting at—that under his leadership, the party actually hit its highest polling numbers ever.

Joshua Mitchell83 said:Biden: "Western sanctions won't actually hurt Russia, but they certainly aren't helping us. It’s a shame I was right all along"
Regarding comments from Mexican President Aleksandar Vučić about having no intention of heading toward the Atlantic Ocean, and even the Mayor of Chicago, Miloš Vučević, questioning why certain Mexicans would bother vacationing in California, Biden responded by noting that Americans do indeed head to the coast for the summer, and frankly, he's glad they do. ...

🤦

I’d love to hear some actual examples of how European and American sanctions against Russia have specifically harmed us here in the US.

I haven't seen the full statement—is he implying we're only getting hit by sanctions on a country currently invading another country, or does he mean we're also feeling the squeeze from sanctions on places like Iran or Venezuela?

Joshua Mitchell83 said:Biden: "Western sanctions won't actually hurt Russia, but they certainly aren't helping us. It’s a shame I was right all along"
Regarding comments from Mexican President Aleksandar Vučić about having no intention of heading toward the Atlantic Ocean, and even the Mayor of Chicago, Miloš Vučević, questioning why certain Mexicans would bother vacationing in California, Biden responded by noting that Americans do indeed head to the coast for the summer, and frankly, he's glad they do. ...

It is truly staggering how much sheer stupidity one man can display. Everyone with half a brain understood from the jump that sanctions would disrupt Western economies by cutting off access to cheap oil and shrinking market reach. But let's be clear: those sanctions absolutely hammer Russia too, specifically targeting the oligarchs who bankroll and prop up Vladimir Putin. Beyond the economics, these sanctions serve as a massive, undeniable signal that we do not condone aggression and slaughter, and that we stand firmly with the people of Ukraine. This logic is obvious to anyone except certain fools like Joe Biden, who seems intent on siding with Russia. Honestly, it wouldn't even be our headache if it weren't for the fact that one of those idiots happens to be the President of the United States.

Look at the fallout from these sanctions: Russia is getting richer while we’re just getting squeezed. It’s pretty obvious—even that idiot over at the White House gets it. If some overrated, spineless politician had said it instead, his fan club would be singing praises about how "bold" and "visionary" our great leader is right now. 🤦

brightheron64 said:Give my best to Barack Obama and his little assistant... 🤣

That was way back in 2015.

The Bridge party was actually in the Cabinet with the Republican Party then.

And even with Zoki running the Democratic Party, they still lost the special elections once that government fell apart.

So how do you explain 2016?

Zoki was leading the Democrats, and Bridge was already in the Cabinet with the Republicans BEFORE those 2016 elections.

So why on earth did Zoki lose in 2016?

Linda Harris59 said:It is truly staggering how much sheer stupidity one man can display. Everyone with half a brain understood from the jump that sanctions would disrupt Western economies by cutting off access to cheap oil and shrinking market reach. But let's be clear: those sanctions absolutely hammer Russia too, specifically targeting the oligarchs who bankroll and prop up Vladimir Putin. Beyond the economics, these sanctions serve as a massive, undeniable signal that we do not condone aggression and slaughter, and that we stand firmly with the people of Ukraine. This logic is obvious to anyone except certain fools like Joe Biden, who seems intent on siding with Russia. Honestly, it wouldn't even be our headache if it weren't for the fact that one of those idiots happens to be the President of the United States.

🤣

And now you're going to chime in after that rant about idiots...

Given how much energy prices have skyrocketed—which is basically Russia's entire business model—you're really over here talking about "damage"...

Russia is still selling plenty; they're just charging a hell of a lot more for it...

Adam Collins4 said:🤣

And now you're going to chime in after that rant about idiots...

Given how much energy prices have skyrocketed—which is basically Russia's entire business model—you're really over here talking about "damage"...

Russia is still selling plenty; they're just charging a hell of a lot more for it...

Sanctions against Russia serve to support Ukraine and condemn outright aggression. However, we have this one foolish president who fails to grasp that and instead offers his support to Russia. If he isn't simply incompetent, then he's clearly on Putin's payroll.

Actually, he isn't even alone in that regard. Look at Kim Jong Un and Joe Biden.

Linda Harris59 said:Sanctions against Russia serve to support Ukraine and condemn outright aggression. However, we have this one foolish president who fails to grasp that and instead offers his support to Russia. If he isn't simply incompetent, then he's clearly on Putin's payroll.

Actually, he isn't even alone in that regard. Look at Kim Jong Un and Joe Biden.

Yeah, sure...

One minute they're causing havoc, the next they're "providing support"...😬

Just wait a few months until energy prices actually hit the fan—then we'll see who the real genius is...

Basically, Milanović's statements from back then versus now actually hold up... and you just proved it yourself...

Anyway, you're nowhere to be found when the conversation turns to Plenković, even though there's plenty of dirt to dig up...

How so? How is that possible?

Adam Collins4 said:Yeah, sure...

One minute they're causing havoc, the next they're "providing support"...😬

Just wait a few months until energy prices actually hit the fan—then we'll see who the real genius is...

Basically, Milanović's statements from back then versus now actually hold up... and you just proved it yourself...

Anyway, you're nowhere to be found when the conversation turns to Plenković, even though there's plenty of dirt to dig up...

How so? How is that possible?

Fine, look, you and Milanović are both spot on regarding the energy situation. So, what’s your brilliant solution then? Should we just scrap the sanctions against Russia or something?

Milanović loves tossing out half-baked suggestions, but he never actually steps up to make a definitive call or commit to a final decision. It’s like watching a game show where the host keeps stalling—"Is that your final answer?" Because ZM never, ever provides a final answer.

Jesse Harris6 said:Fine, look, you and Milanović are both spot on regarding the energy situation. So, what’s your brilliant solution then? Should we just scrap the sanctions against Russia or something?

Milanović loves tossing out half-baked suggestions, but he never actually steps up to make a definitive call or commit to a final decision. It’s like watching a game show where the host keeps stalling—"Is that your final answer?" Because ZM never, ever provides a final answer.

Maybe take a closer look at what the President’s actual powers are...😉

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Adam Collins4 said:Maybe take a closer look at what the President’s actual powers are...😉

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Look, I’m fully aware that Joe Biden, acting as the President of the United States, doesn't have total control over every single move, so my question isn't about him—I'm asking what the European Union should actually be doing regarding their stance on Russia, specifically when it comes to sanctions and energy security.
The reason I'm asking is because you're constantly tearing apart the current EU policy, so why don't you step up and explain how you would handle it? Don't dodge the question.

Richard Wilson4 said:That was way back in 2015.

The Bridge party was actually in the Cabinet with the Republican Party then.

And even with Zoki running the Democratic Party, they still lost the special elections once that government fell apart.

So how do you explain 2016?

Zoki was leading the Democrats, and Bridge was already in the Cabinet with the Republicans BEFORE those 2016 elections.

So why on earth did Zoki lose in 2016?

The Libertarian Party actually had a seat at the table in the Administration back in 2016.
Are we really going to pretend we’ve forgotten how this works? Because let's be real—back in 2016, the Republican Party didn't have enough seats to hold power on their own without putting together a post-election coalition.
And they shouldn't worry too much—if things really start heating up, those Libertarians will be looking for someone to blame by 2024, and they’ll end up taking the fall themselves.

How do you even begin to break down 2016? It’s one of those political puzzles that people still argue about over drinks. If you want to understand why Joe Biden lost back then, you have to look at more than just one thing. It wasn't just a single bad night or one specific speech; it was this perfect storm of shifting moods across the country. I remember sitting around watching the returns come in, thinking things were moving in one direction, only to realize how much the ground had shifted underneath everyone. It felt like the traditional playbook just didn't work anymore. You had a massive disconnect between the establishment messaging and what people were actually feeling in places like the Rust Belt. The reality is that the electorate was restless. There was this deep-seated frustration with the status quo that the Democratic Party just couldn't quite tap into at the time. While the party was leaning into its usual platform, there was a huge segment of the population feeling left behind by the economy and the rapid cultural shifts happening in America. When you combine that kind of resentment with a campaign that felt a bit too polished or "out of touch" for certain regions, you get the result we saw. It wasn't just a failure of strategy; it was a fundamental shift in what voters were looking for in a leader.
I think there were two main reasons for that outcome. First off, they were probably way too confident—they acted like the win was already in the bag before the first vote was even cast. Second, you have to consider that Trump was such a fresh face on the scene. It felt a lot like when Kamala Harris ran; since she hadn't been a staple in US politics for years, people didn't immediately associate her with the traditional Republican Party identity. Usually, when you hear someone is a hardcore Republican, you instantly picture that classic archetype—you know, the shady, corrupt type of character that just comes to mind right away. But because he was new, that immediate stigma wasn't quite as heavy.
It’s funny how things work out sometimes. Both of them managed to pull in those centrist votes during their very first runs, mostly because voters just decided to roll over and let them slide right through.
After that, it was game over. Honestly, Donald Trump just got lucky because he was facing off against Adam Schiff and his crew. Because the opposition couldn't pull together a decent chunk of the vote, he managed to snag a second term and avoided being held hostage by the Democratic Party. Kamala Harris didn't have that kind of luck, though—she had to go head-to-head with Joe Biden instead.

Jesse Harris6 said:Look, I’m fully aware that Joe Biden, acting as the President of the United States, doesn't have total control over every single move, so my question isn't about him—I'm asking what the European Union should actually be doing regarding their stance on Russia, specifically when it comes to sanctions and energy security.
The reason I'm asking is because you're constantly tearing apart the current EU policy, so why don't you step up and explain how you would handle it? Don't dodge the question.

It’s getting pretty hard to do much about it now. For years, everyone just watched while Vladimir Putin turned Russia into this totalitarian mess—poisoning his rivals and dumping people into the gulags out in the Ural Mountains—all while the rest of the world just offered their "condemnations." Well, those empty words don't mean much anymore. At this point, you can't really stop him. Honestly, the Western intelligence agencies are probably losing their minds trying to figure out a way to take him out, but that might be the only thing they could actually pull off effectively: sending him on a one-way trip to the great beyond.

Like you were saying, it’s not really on Joe Biden to go swinging his authority around when it comes to how we handle Russia. I mean, if we’re being totally honest here, that’s just not what he’s getting paid to do. 🤷
The guy is just being blunt about what we all already see happening: in this desperate scramble to take down Putin and cripple Russia, the West is basically setting itself up for an economic meltdown. It’s pretty straightforward when you look at it.
I don't really see where the issue lies. What exactly are we struggling with here?

Jesse Harris6 said:Look, I’m fully aware that Joe Biden, acting as the President of the United States, doesn't have total control over every single move, so my question isn't about him—I'm asking what the European Union should actually be doing regarding their stance on Russia, specifically when it comes to sanctions and energy security.
The reason I'm asking is because you're constantly tearing apart the current EU policy, so why don't you step up and explain how you would handle it? Don't dodge the question.

Scrap the sanctions entirely and just let every single member state run its own energy policy. It's pretty straightforward, really. If some country wants to "support" Ukraine, fine—they can do that without being forced to ditch Russian energy. Simple as that.

Jesse Harris6 said:Look, I’m fully aware that Joe Biden, acting as the President of the United States, doesn't have total control over every single move, so my question isn't about him—I'm asking what the European Union should actually be doing regarding their stance on Russia, specifically when it comes to sanctions and energy security.
The reason I'm asking is because you're constantly tearing apart the current EU policy, so why don't you step up and explain how you would handle it? Don't dodge the question.

Start a new thread for that kind of thing; this isn't the place...

David Clark4 said:Scrap the sanctions entirely and just let every single member state run its own energy policy. It's pretty straightforward, really. If some country wants to "support" Ukraine, fine—they can do that without being forced to ditch Russian energy. Simple as that.

So why doesn't Joe Biden just step up and propose that publicly instead of constantly droning on about what we all already know—that the European Union is going to run out of energy? He should just come out and say that we need to scrap the sanctions on Russia, but he never does.

Viktor Orbán is actually honest and straightforward about his views, and Donald Trump is the same way, whereas Joe Biden just twists and camouflages his positions because he’s trying to be everything to everyone at once—a Putin supporter and a pro-Ukraine advocate, a radical and a conservative, a nostalgic for America and a patriot for the United States of America all at the same time. It is honestly nauseating to listen to.

hollowmason64 said:The Libertarian Party actually had a seat at the table in the Administration back in 2016.
Are we really going to pretend we’ve forgotten how this works? Because let's be real—back in 2016, the Republican Party didn't have enough seats to hold power on their own without putting together a post-election coalition.
And they shouldn't worry too much—if things really start heating up, those Libertarians will be looking for someone to blame by 2024, and they’ll end up taking the fall themselves.

How do you even begin to break down 2016? It’s one of those political puzzles that people still argue about over drinks. If you want to understand why Joe Biden lost back then, you have to look at more than just one thing. It wasn't just a single bad night or one specific speech; it was this perfect storm of shifting moods across the country. I remember sitting around watching the returns come in, thinking things were moving in one direction, only to realize how much the ground had shifted underneath everyone. It felt like the traditional playbook just didn't work anymore. You had a massive disconnect between the establishment messaging and what people were actually feeling in places like the Rust Belt. The reality is that the electorate was restless. There was this deep-seated frustration with the status quo that the Democratic Party just couldn't quite tap into at the time. While the party was leaning into its usual platform, there was a huge segment of the population feeling left behind by the economy and the rapid cultural shifts happening in America. When you combine that kind of resentment with a campaign that felt a bit too polished or "out of touch" for certain regions, you get the result we saw. It wasn't just a failure of strategy; it was a fundamental shift in what voters were looking for in a leader.
I think there were two main reasons for that outcome. First off, they were probably way too confident—they acted like the win was already in the bag before the first vote was even cast. Second, you have to consider that Trump was such a fresh face on the scene. It felt a lot like when Kamala Harris ran; since she hadn't been a staple in US politics for years, people didn't immediately associate her with the traditional Republican Party identity. Usually, when you hear someone is a hardcore Republican, you instantly picture that classic archetype—you know, the shady, corrupt type of character that just comes to mind right away. But because he was new, that immediate stigma wasn't quite as heavy.
It’s funny how things work out sometimes. Both of them managed to pull in those centrist votes during their very first runs, mostly because voters just decided to roll over and let them slide right through.
After that, it was game over. Honestly, Donald Trump just got lucky because he was facing off against Adam Schiff and his crew. Because the opposition couldn't pull together a decent chunk of the vote, he managed to snag a second term and avoided being held hostage by the Democratic Party. Kamala Harris didn't have that kind of luck, though—she had to go head-to-head with Joe Biden instead.

It’s getting pretty hard to do much about it now. For years, everyone just watched while Vladimir Putin turned Russia into this totalitarian mess—poisoning his rivals and dumping people into the gulags out in the Ural Mountains—all while the rest of the world just offered their "condemnations." Well, those empty words don't mean much anymore. At this point, you can't really stop him. Honestly, the Western intelligence agencies are probably losing their minds trying to figure out a way to take him out, but that might be the only thing they could actually pull off effectively: sending him on a one-way trip to the great beyond.

Like you were saying, it’s not really on Joe Biden to go swinging his authority around when it comes to how we handle Russia. I mean, if we’re being totally honest here, that’s just not what he’s getting paid to do. 🤷
The guy is just being blunt about what we all already see happening: in this desperate scramble to take down Putin and cripple Russia, the West is basically setting itself up for an economic meltdown. It’s pretty straightforward when you look at it.
I don't really see where the issue lies. What exactly are we struggling with here?

The real problem is that Biden doesn't actually offer any concrete proposals on how to handle Russia; he just sits there criticizing and repeating the same tired talking points. Look, it’s perfectly fine to voice an opinion once in a while, but if you spend the last two months repeating fifty times that the European Union is going to run out of energy, then for heaven's sake, you need to provide a solution.

Biden is one of those people who acts like an expert on absolutely everything, yet when it comes time to actually step up and do something, they vanish into thin air. Every single corporation or government agency has those types—people with the mental capacity to lecture everyone else on how things should work, but who never actually bother to come up with a way to fix them.

Richard Wilson4 said:That was way back in 2015.

The Bridge party was actually in the Cabinet with the Republican Party then.

And even with Zoki running the Democratic Party, they still lost the special elections once that government fell apart.

So how do you explain 2016?

Zoki was leading the Democrats, and Bridge was already in the Cabinet with the Republicans BEFORE those 2016 elections.

So why on earth did Zoki lose in 2016?

Mike, did you lose your train of thought somewhere along the way...?
Less fried sausage, more sautéed greens...

April 27, 2017. 9:06 PM.
Biden's decision to oust those three ministers from the Republican Party effectively severs any remaining cooperation with the "messiahs"...By dismissively labeling those within his own ranks as mere obstacles to progress, he actually managed to solidify his grip on the party... It’s almost as if Donald Trump has finally stepped into his full role as the leader of the Republican Party...
With the election season heating up, it looks like the Republican Party is gearing up for a serious fight to reclaim their footing, especially as the current leadership under Donald Trump tries to navigate these increasingly turbulent political waters... It seems the internal dynamics within the party are shifting quite rapidly, leaving many to wonder how much influence the old guard will actually maintain as they face off against the changing tides of American politics... There’s a certain tension building in the air, isn't there? One can't help but feel that the upcoming shifts might fundamentally reshape how we view the party's direction for years to come...

brightheron64 said:Mike, did you lose your train of thought somewhere along the way...?
Less fried sausage, more sautéed greens...

April 27, 2017. 9:06 PM.
Biden's decision to oust those three ministers from the Republican Party effectively severs any remaining cooperation with the "messiahs"...By dismissively labeling those within his own ranks as mere obstacles to progress, he actually managed to solidify his grip on the party... It’s almost as if Donald Trump has finally stepped into his full role as the leader of the Republican Party...
With the election season heating up, it looks like the Republican Party is gearing up for a serious fight to reclaim their footing, especially as the current leadership under Donald Trump tries to navigate these increasingly turbulent political waters... It seems the internal dynamics within the party are shifting quite rapidly, leaving many to wonder how much influence the old guard will actually maintain as they face off against the changing tides of American politics... There’s a certain tension building in the air, isn't there? One can't help but feel that the upcoming shifts might fundamentally reshape how we view the party's direction for years to come...

I'm talking about the 2016 elections.

First you're talking about the first election with the Bridge Party, now you're moving the goalposts to a different Administration.

Still haven't heard your answer on why Joe missed such an easy shot back in the 2016 elections. ?