46th President of the United States, Joe Biden
Discussion
HM-2 said:
I don't think it's especially surprising. US interference in the affairs of foreign states has always been rather brazen and overt, which understandably results in negative perceptions. Where the likes of China and Russia have imperialist tendencies, these typically manifest themselves in more covert ways.
I'm sure it would be welcomed should the U.S decide to engage in a more covert manner.PHUSER1 said:
Odd to see someone lurching from citing right-wing libertarian outlets to citing explicitly socialist ones. Almost like you're trying to intentionally pick any critique of Biden, regardless of political affiliation, for some reason.
Not sure of your point HM.
They're points of discussion about Biden on the Biden thread.
Should they all be from left, all from the right or all from the centre?
Which of the articles I've posted do you disagree with and why?
None of them are particularly critical anyway, not unfairly so IMO.
They're points of discussion about Biden on the Biden thread.
Should they all be from left, all from the right or all from the centre?
Which of the articles I've posted do you disagree with and why?
None of them are particularly critical anyway, not unfairly so IMO.
PHUSER1 said:
Not sure of your point HM.
My point is fairly obvious. Were you offering critiques from a particular ideological perspective I'd expect the sources you cite to align with this and offer some coherent underlying narrative. Lurching from citing right wing reporting to left wing reporting, the only point of correlation being that they're critical of Biden, just seems like being argumentative for argument's sake rather than from a perspective of actual ideological disagreement.
PHUSER1 said:
Should they all be from left, all from the right or all from the centre?
I don't particularly care what ideological position people inhabit as part of their arguments, but violent lurching inconsistency in position tends to speak to "I don't like X and so I'll cherry pick lots of different perspectives on why X is bad even if they're contradictory" rather than "I have ideologically coherent contentions with X". The latter is arguing in good faith, the former is not.HM, did you read the Jacobin article?
It's a new article about a current issue, explaining some background behind his proposed vaccination IP waiver, with some information about the interests of his administration that could prove problematic for him.
The article reads quite (mostly) supportive of Biden's stance on the matter so far!
It really doesn't support the point you seem to be trying to make. Maybe you've got my posts mixed up with another's?!
It's a new article about a current issue, explaining some background behind his proposed vaccination IP waiver, with some information about the interests of his administration that could prove problematic for him.
The article reads quite (mostly) supportive of Biden's stance on the matter so far!
It really doesn't support the point you seem to be trying to make. Maybe you've got my posts mixed up with another's?!
PHUSER1 said:
HM, did you read the Jacobin article?
Yes.PHUSER1 said:
It really doesn't support the point you seem to be trying to make.
Not sure we're reading the same article here. The inference I get from it is not going far enough by failing to endorse the wider proposed WTO waver.HM-2 said:
PHUSER1 said:
HM, did you read the Jacobin article?
Yes.PHUSER1 said:
It really doesn't support the point you seem to be trying to make.
Not sure we're reading the same article here. The inference I get from it is not going far enough by failing to endorse the wider proposed WTO waver.Which follows much more praise for Biden's stance on the matter of the vaccine IP waiver.
It also explains some of the resistance coming from the pharma companies and lists some instances of when Biden had previously acted in ways which would have pleased pharma companies but likely angered American progressives.
On the whole a well rounded and informative article.
Now if you want to discuss it fairly then that's great but I'm not buying the angle you're pushing.
The administration's next task.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/07...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-12...
Controlling inflation.
The Covid relief fund will add to the spike in inflation that's hitting the US and is having effects on the world markets as I type.
A sticky wicket to manage the balancing act of ensuring the nation doesn't go skint while also trying to limit the potential inflationary effects of doing that.
One to watch.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/07...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-12...
Controlling inflation.
The Covid relief fund will add to the spike in inflation that's hitting the US and is having effects on the world markets as I type.
A sticky wicket to manage the balancing act of ensuring the nation doesn't go skint while also trying to limit the potential inflationary effects of doing that.
One to watch.
purplepenguin said:
Double Fault said:
purplepenguin said:
True but will it be divisive?
Probably, given the general level of idiocy/paranoia.Who cares though. Get jabbed and get on with it.
McGee_22 said:
purplepenguin said:
Double Fault said:
purplepenguin said:
True but will it be divisive?
Probably, given the general level of idiocy/paranoia.Who cares though. Get jabbed and get on with it.
It’s not a zero sum game.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff