Biden's Farewell Speech

[Big RR]

Did anyone watch Biden's farewell speech last night? It wasn't all that easy to find (i just stumbled on it) but it was one of his best recent speeches. FWIW, I don't think he's ever been a compelling/dynamic speaker, even less so in recent years, but he covered a lot of good issues from the threats to democracy of the developing oligarchy to stating we need a Constitutional amendment to hold the president liable for crimes committed in office. I didn't agree with everything he said, but the man did say what should be said. And, given the way he was treated by his party, I thought he was quite magnanimous to not appear bitter and betrayed although I imagine he does have some of those feelings. But he gave us all some food for thought in how to proceed--not by name calling or throwing up our hands, but to continue the hard work of keeping our democracy and defending our way of life, something we all must be aware of.

It's hard not to see him as a great statesman compared to the clown who will take office soon, but I think this last speech showed exactly how great a statesman he is--a call to arms without finger pointing and personal attack. He has done what he can, and issued a challenge to the rest of us. We will each have to determine how we will respond.

[BoSoxGal]

I will look it up and watch or read later today. I have been hiding from political news pretty much entirely in recent days, I can't stomach watching in close up what is happening to this country. At the end of the month (when my Prime subscription ends) I am donating my TV to the charity shop.

Joseph Biden will be seen by history as the great statesman that he is, I have no doubt. Some of us already see it. Personally I would have the greatest respect for him if the ONLY thing he'd done in his whole career was authoring and sponsoring VAWA and shepherding it through multiple reauthorizations.

[Big RR]

I have been hiding from political news pretty much entirely in recent days, I can't stomach watching in close up what is happening to this country

While understandable, I think that sort of apathy is exactly what Biden was pointing out. I too have had the urge to throw up my hands and say "screw it", but Biden reminds us that this is our country and is worth fighting for. We have to do what we can to protect democracy, because to do anything less is unacceptable.

[Sue U]

I have not yet seen the speech, only some snippets. I don't want to detract from the things Biden has accomplished in his last 740,000 years of public service. But there is not a "developing oligarchy"; the oligarchy is full formed and is now explicitly running the show rather than merely exerting influence with cash behind the scenes, and their obvious agenda is to further enrich themselves rather than make government work for the American people. (First item of business: "Hey, let's cut taxes for billionaires and pay for it by slashing Medicaid, Medicare, ACA and Social Security!") Joe Biden believes that good will and bipartisanship are what makes government work. The GOP has been loudly proving him wrong about that since 2008 (really since 1992, and if we're being honest, since at least 1968). (And I'm just talking about the "modern" partisan alignment; the US government has always been a tool of special interests ever since the "3/5 compromise.") I frankly don't hold out much hope for American politics getting any better than the neo-fascist cesspool it has become -- at least in the near term, and certainly not as long as Trump is alive. But I'm willing to be surprised.

[Big RR]

Sue--the power and influence of the oligarchy can only increase without an opposition and I think that is what Biden is referring to; being a bit trite, we can either light a candle or curse the darkness (or, even worse), become indifferent to it.

In my lifeie we have survived McCarthy and the Vietnam war and turned the tide of minority rights by bipartisanship, and the dixiecrats, the anti communist idiots, the love it or leave it groups and their ilk were as bad as anything Trump spawned (And FWIW, their leaders were much more intelligent than Trump and his minions). We just have to keep pushing against the tide. Short of doing this, we can start a violent response or just give in--and i don't think either of those are acceptable.

[BoSoxGal]

I have been hiding from political news pretty much entirely in recent days, I can't stomach watching in close up what is happening to this country

While understandable, I think that sort of apathy is exactly what Biden was pointing out. I too have had the urge to throw up my hands and say "screw it", but Biden reminds us that this is our country and is worth fighting for. We have to do what we can to protect democracy, because to do anything less is unacceptable.

I am a hospice caregiver. I am volunteering with immigrants and refugees. I am volunteering to transport injured wildlife to wildlife rehabilitators in my area. I am joining the local festival chorus.

I am doing stuff to make my country better, and have done so with my entire adult life - and actually beginning as a preteen volunteer with Special Olympics.

Watching the news and suffering the consequent blood pressure spikes and mental health deterioration does nothing to make my country better. Not watching the news hardly makes me apathetic.

[Sue U]

Sue--the power and influence of the oligarchy can only increase without an opposition and I think that is what Biden is referring to; being a bit trite, we can either light a candle or curse the darkness (or, even worse), become indifferent to it.

In my lifeie we have survived McCarthy and the Vietnam war and turned the tide of minority rights by bipartisanship, and the dixiecrats, the anti communist idiots, the love it or leave it groups and their ilk were as bad as anything Trump spawned (And FWIW, their leaders were much more intelligent than Trump and his minions). We just have to keep pushing against the tide. Short of doing this, we can start a violent response or just give in--and i don't think either of those are acceptable.

I am not giving up and I am not (yet) advocating violence (I believe incremental, not revolutionary, Socialism is a better approach for the U.S.). But I have to admit that it is disheartening to see the American people affirmatively vote for oligarchy, authoritarianism, cronyism, racism, xenophobia, Christian nationalism, illiberalism and general stupidity.

[Big RR]

Sue--without a doubt, but it has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. Not sure why people want this, but I have seen the same thing in the past.

[Big RR]

BSG--I didn't mean you were apathetic, but there are many who have become this. We all have to do our part, and you are apparently doing yours. And eventually we will all have to wade back into the cesspool and try to set a better direction. In the meantime, we will do what we can.

[Burning Petard]

I did not. This morning I was in conversation with a few other old geezers like me. That speech was mentioned. A woman who I have heard state that she votes generally Democrat, said she came home last nite and turned on her tv and it was in the middle of the speech. Her first impression was that it was a Saturday Nite Live rerun with a Biden parody. She said it took her a while to realize it was the real thing.

A significant contemporary historian, Timothy Snyder, published a little, very accessable book in 2017 called 'On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From The Twentieth Century' He specializes in 20th Cent Europe and is getting respect as a scholar and careful observer. Wikipedia includes this quote:
"The fact that we have democracies at all is kind of remarkable", democracy means that "the people have to rule, and they have to want to rule", warning against reliance on larger historical forces to bring democracy about.

I believe most of the Trump supporters do not want the responsibility of ruling, and carefully avoid factual data that conflicts with their preferences. That is the secret of the failure of significance in all the contradictory behavior and announced policies of Trump. His followers ignore the parts they don't like and pretend there is no conflict. I see no mandate for any Trump policies or programs. He won the popular vote by a slim majority. There was a majority rejection of promoting the Veep to President. No one has indentified any consensus support for a particular position, policy or even the amorphous goal of 'Making American Great Again'.

snailgate

[Bicycle Bill]

I see no mandate for any Trump policies or programs. He won the popular vote by a slim majority. There was a majority rejection of promoting the Veep to President.

snailgate

That's true ... according to this site Trump received 49.8% of the votes cast, with Harris receiving 48.3% (which means 3rd party and down-ballot candidates received a combined 1.9% of the vote).

But the more telling numbers, in my opinion, are that the total number of votes cast for the two major candidates was 152,283,284 (77284118 for Trump + 74999166 for Harris).   Considering that there were approximately 245 million Americans eligible to vote* (according to data from the University of Florida Election Lab), this means that more than 90 million of the people who COULD have voted did not for one reason or another — quite possibly the result of being fed up with the whole political process and the general feeling of being just a pawn in someone else's game of "Pay To Play Government' and thus effectively excluded from having any real input or determination in the outcome.

So by my calculations, something like 65% of the total number of people who could have voted DID NOT vote for Dumb'old Trump — either by consciously voting against him, or boycotting the election (which in my book is the same as not voting for someone).   That's two out of every three persons you see walking down the street.   Trump needs to remember that before trying to implement Project 2025 and create his MAGAocracy.
_________________
* —This figure is based on the voting-eligible population (not just registered voters) in the United States, which the Election Lab defines as “the voting-age population (those 18 years or older in the U.S.) minus ineligible noncitizens and felons”.   It is considered a “more consistent” measure of voter turnout, according to the lab.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

So by my calculations, something like 65% of the total number of people who could have voted DID NOT vote for Dumb'old Trump — either by consciously voting against him, or boycotting the election (which in my book is the same as not voting for someone). That's two out of every three persons you see walking down the street.

Or sadly, that 65% of the voting public did not recognize the problems/dangers of another Trump presidency and either voted for him or sat on their hands, And that, in itself, is pretty scary. I don't see boycotting the election as being the same as voting for someone else--it's giving up on the democratic process. In my state, NJ, Trump almost won because over 600,000 stayed home. That is scary.

Sure, there are a lot of reasons why people don't vote, but in an election where the stakes are this high, it is unbelievable. Even a third party vote is a vote against Trump, but sitting home means "do whatever you want, I don't care" to the victor. Trump may not have a mandate, but I think he has the ability to do whatever he wants because many just don't give a shit.

[BoSoxGal]

According to Pew research in 2022, USA ranks 31st globally for voter participation. That's pretty awful considering we are meant to believe we are the world's greatest democracy.

[Big RR]

Usually, I would attribute this to some sort of boredom or just being a little to confortable with the process. But when the differences between the candidates are as stark as they are here and still stay home--I fear people have just given up on the democratic process and don't care. And that leads to the end the end of democracy IMHO. Maybe, as BP suggested, there is a large group of people who don't want to take the responsibility of ruling, but just want to be told what to do, and that is scary as hell. I think it is a truism that totalitarianism does not arrive at the point of a gun, but with cheering masses happy of having no responsibility for the country (we've seen that many times in hisory). And from the behaviors I have seen recently, I fear that that is the path many are taking.

I don't fear Trump per se--he's just too dumb and can't help but shoot himself in the foot, but his cabal has many smarter people there, and with a smarter figurehead (like Vance, perhaps?) who knows what can happen when people won't even exercise their right to vote.

I don't know the answer, and doubt it is making voting a legal obligation as i t is in many countries, I only hope people wake up and see what is happening before it is too late.

[liberty]

Sue--the power and influence of the oligarchy can only increase without an opposition and I think that is what Biden is referring to; being a bit trite, we can either light a candle or curse the darkness (or, even worse), become indifferent to it.

In my lifeie we have survived McCarthy and the Vietnam war and turned the tide of minority rights by bipartisanship, and the dixiecrats, the anti communist idiots, the love it or leave it groups and their ilk were as bad as anything Trump spawned (And FWIW, their leaders were much more intelligent than Trump and his minions). We just have to keep pushing against the tide. Short of doing this, we can start a violent response or just give in--and i don't think either of those are acceptable.

What is wrong with being an anti-communist? You don't think they murdered enough people to deserve resistance?

[liberty]

Our system was supposed to be designed in such a way that no one group could seize power; there would always be another election because of the way the system decentralized control, but all my life I seen Democrats try to concentrate power in DC. Whenever a Democrat administration has the advantage, they want to concentrate more power in Washington, that's dangerous and you guys can't even see why.

[Bicycle Bill]

When we only had thirteen colonies, or fifteen or twenty states, we could have less centralized control ... especially since these early colonies and states were all generally located within a single geographic area and had perhaps a total population of less than ten million — and since slaves and women still weren't considered people, fewer than half of that ten million were allowed to hold office, vote, or have any other sway in matters of government.

Now, we have 50 states and more than a dozen territories and protectorates spread out over a dozen time zones and a total population in excess of 330 million people — with many of these citizens serving in military posts and governmental positions all across the world.   Centralizing the power and control of the government only makes sense.

Or to put it in a way you should be able to understand, since you claim to have so much military expertise ... a regiment consists of roughly two to three thousand men, and each regiment (depending upon the number of companies and platoons within that regiment) could contain dozens if not hundreds of patrols.   Now imagine if each and every one of those patrols made their own decisions, took their own actions, and what-have-you rather than receiving their orders and directives from regimental HQ.   The only result I can imagine would be complete and utter chaos.

Same with government.   We need to have a centralized system to decide what is necessary and what needs to be done without having to hold a plebiscite every time a decision needs to be made or policy needs to be set.

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

https://share.icloud.com/photos/038hiyc ... QB3pbh05IA



I still have not figured out how to post a photo. If someone is able to take that link and make it into a posted photo please go ahead. Anyway I was on the Women's March (now called the People's March because Women's Rights are Human Rights) in NYC today and I took a pic of this sign which says: " I can't believe I still have to protest this fucking shit"

I told them I've been doing it for 55+ years. Which is true and scary. But we're not the ones with the guns.

[Joe Guy]

Here you go...

[liberty]

When we only had thirteen colonies, or fifteen or twenty states, we could have less centralized control ... especially since these early colonies and states were all generally located within a single geographic area and had perhaps a total population of less than ten million — and since slaves and women still weren't considered people, fewer than half of that ten million were allowed to hold office, vote, or have any other sway in matters of government.

Now, we have 50 states and more than a dozen territories and protectorates spread out over a dozen time zones and a total population in excess of 330 million people — with many of these citizens serving in military posts and governmental positions all across the world.   Centralizing the power and control of the government only makes sense.



-"BB"-

If power in this country was centralized in the way you want it to be Trump would be able to take over control of the country, but fortunately you haven't been that successful. Power is still divided between the national government, the states, and the people. The state is people of an area collectively, and the people refers to individuals. As individuals' people can form organizations such as corporations for profit, nonprofit, and municipal. They can form labor unions and Political movements or just about anything else they want. If the national government had total control people would not be able to form an organization without the permission of the federal government. Do you think that's a good idea?