Joe Biden predicts Republicans will stop obstructing after Trump leaves office
33 replies, posted
Former vice president Joe Biden, at the moment leading the 2020 Democratic presidential field, stopped in New Hampshire on Tuesday, where speaking with voters, he offered a
prediction for how American politics would be reshaped after President Trump is out of office.
“What’s happened is, between gerrymandering and unlimited campaign spending, we found ourselves in a position where an awful lot of Republicans have become intimidated by
the president,” Biden said, according to CNN’s David Wright. “If you notice, most Republicans — leaders, don’t lose from the left. They lose on the right. … I think there is not a middle
ground.” But Biden’s subsequent comments about what will happen once Trump is gone raised some eyebrows.
“I just think there is a way, and the thing that will fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House — not a joke — you will see an epiphany occur among many of
my Republican friends,” he said. “And it’s already beginning. In the House now, you’ve seen people that in fact were not willing to vote for any Democratic initiative, even if they agreed with
it, because they didn’t want to be the odd person out if it wasn’t going to pass. There’s no sense in getting politically beaten for something that’s not going to happen. But you are seeing
the talk, even the dialogue is changing.”
It’s hard to reconcile Biden’s stated optimism with what Democrats have seen on the ground in Washington in recent years. After all, it’s not as though there was broad bipartisan comity
before Trump’s ascension in the party, something that Barack Obama’s vice president should certainly know.
Maybe they'll stop obstructing when they're out of power
i.e. when they have no power to obstruct
Can Joe just go back to being "That guy people know as Obama's vice president" and stop trying to give Trump a 2020 win?
If Biden wins this primary, I'll have lost any faith that most people who vote have even the slightest idea of their chosen candidate's policies and statements.
But they were doing it before Trump was in office and have been doing it for quite a long time.
Trump leaving wouldn't suddenly make them all sane individuals, Republicans have hardly any of those left.
A CNN poll last month found that two-thirds of Democratic primary voters thought it was very important that a Democratic presidential candidate be able to work with Republicans. It was about the same percentage
as believed that a candidate should support progressive policies, something that probably is at odds with a goal of working with Republicans.
as long as mitch mcconnell holds a seat in the senate they will fight. Get that fucker out and then maybe something might change because kentucky not re-electing absolute trash might be the shock they finally need.
How naïve can you be... ? The only reason they're in power is because they obstructed for six years straight then managed to blame it all on Obama.
If Trump wins 2020 because of Biden the Democrat party should just dissolve.
Hello fascist dictatorship?
I'd ask where he was when Obama was in office, but uhh
We'll probably be there if he wins 2020 anyways.
It seems he thinks that Republicans, realizing that their shit brought about someone as bad as Trump to the presidency, will also realize how bad they've been and have a change of heart.
Let's just ignore the fact Republicans have been sucking Trump's dick and protecting him at every opportunity they have.
Biden's been saying that Trump is an aberration and is the problem, not the Republican party.
If they get away with it, they'll keep doing it
Local forum posters predict Biden will never mention the prediction ever again.
Republicans and Republicans called Centrist/Liberal are such a blight on government.
lol no they won't
It doesn't matter who is best suited for the position or who you vote for, the president-elect is already pre-determined by each party. It's one giant game backed by corporate interest, money, and greed. Sure, go out and vote, but it genuinely makes zero difference in the end. The federal government has an agenda of its own and there's jack shit we can possibly do about it short of a revolution, and that's that.
Until there's a massive reform (again, revolution, because it's not going to happen any other way), both parties will continue to dominate the fed. We need a much larger number of parties, candidates, and get rid of the electoral college. Then maybe, just maybe, we can bring some sanity into the fold.
Yeah, they will stop obstructing. Next, he is gonna say that the Republicans will apologize for obstructing Obama from day fucking one, and that they will join the Democrats in reforming elections.
What's next on the stupid shit I would hear? The Republicans will stop supporting war? North Korea will reunite with South Korea peacefully and remove their nukes? The shitbags in government will resign and voluntarily go to prison? Come on Biden, tell us something new that you think will happen, but will never fucking happen even if Hell froze over.
I wonder what it's like to be so fucking naive that you think compromising with Republicans is something you should do at this point.
Voting definitely does make a difference, the most obvious example would be Trump himself who rose to power riding on a wave of populist support and free advertising from mainstream news organisations, with the the Republican establishment and its extended media apparatus (i.e. fox news) initially against him and then opportunistically switching to supporting him once they realized he was going to win the primaries.
Is Biden's strategy basically trying to pick up all the conservative democrat voters and all the republican voters who thought Trump went a little too far or what? Maybe it's not a bad strategy tbh, seems like most of the US population is pretty dang conservative.
Excuse me joe were you too distracted by sniffing hair and forcing yourself on women to notice the 6 years of nonstop obstruction your pal Barack experienced
Imagine actually believing that drooling idiots hell bent on supporting only their vision of america (an america for white, evangelical, christian persons only) should be worked and reasoned with. No, fuck off, I've had enough of "but-but-but we shouldn't push them away", these people can't be reasoned with and won't even come to a negotiating table without it being skewed in their favor. As far as i'm concerned, this won't change until the boomers all return to the earth to clear the way for a more progressive generation.
When was Fox ever anti-Trump? He literally was a guest on Fox and Friends multiple times from 2011 onward. Rupert Murdoch even deliberately kept him close well before the election despite finding him to be a complete idiot strictly because he knew he could help in making him a nominee.
Pretty much every major news station had Trump on the air at some point before he started his presidential campaign, he wasn't even a Republican at that time and was just a celebrity real estate mogul, he only became a Republican after he started running for president. What I'm talking about is how Fox News in 2015 was initially propagandizing for establishment candidates but flipped to supporting Trump by 2016 when it looked like he was going to win the primary.
News stories from around that time show what I'm talking about:
It was the most intense confrontation yet between two mutually dependent but increasingly antagonistic powerhouses of media and politics. Mr. Trump, who has made the presidential race into a riveting television spectacle, was overtly exploiting the ratings leverage his candidacy has created to try to bend Fox News to his will.
“Let’s see how much money Fox is going to make on the debate without me,” he said at a news conference here.
Fox News said Mr. Trump’s refusal to debate his rivals was “near unprecedented.”
“This is rooted in one thing — Megyn Kelly, whom he has viciously attacked since August and has now spent four days demanding be removed from the debate stage,” the network said in a statement.
On her program Tuesday night, Ms. Kelly observed that “what’s interesting here is Trump is not used to not controlling things, as the chief executive of a large organization.”
“But the truth is, he doesn’t get to control the media,” she added.
Mr. Trump’s animus toward Ms. Kelly dates to August, in the first presidential primary debate, when she questioned him about his past comments denigrating women. Afterward, he suggested that Ms. Kelly had been angry at him, so much so that she had blood pouring out of her “wherever” — a remark many saw as a reference to menstruation.
In the months since, Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticized Ms. Kelly as a “third-rate” reporter. And as Thursday’s debate approached, Mr. Trump began disparaging Ms. Kelly as if he were a prizefighter promoting a rematch. He called her dishonest, accused her of bias and a conflict of interest, and said flat-out that he did not like her.
On Monday, Fox News responded to Mr. Trump, tauntingly saying it was “surprised he’s willing to show that much fear” about being questioned by Ms. Kelly. And on Tuesday, after the network’s president, Roger Ailes, declared that Ms. Kelly would “absolutely be on the debate stage,” the network issued yet another taunting statement, this one mocking two of Mr. Trump’s go-to rhetorical crutches.
“We learned from a secret back channel,” the statement said, “that the ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.”
This political calculus might help explain why Baier opened the debate by asking all of the candidates to raise their hands if there was a chance they would not support the eventual Republican nominee or run as a third-party spoiler. After a beat, Trump’s hand was the only one to go up. The packed crowd inside the Quicken Loans Arena instantly started booing him. Baier then tightened the noose by laying out all the implications for the audience.
“Mr. Trump, to be clear, you’re standing on a Republican primary debate stage,” Baier said.
“I fully understand,” Trump replied.
“The place where the RNC will give the nominee the nod.”
“I fully understand.”
“And that experts say an independent run would almost certainly hand the race over to Democrats and likely another Clinton. You can’t say tonight that you can make that pledge?”
“If I’m the nominee, I will pledge I will not run as an independent. But — and I am discussing it with everybody, but I’m, you know, talking about a lot of leverage.”
The audience howled and hissed. Trump glared back like he was negotiating a thorny contract dispute. Whether Ailes scripted this or not, it was a triumph. While Trump may see politics as a negotiation, Ailes surely knew that the thousands of Republicans packed into the stands do not. So far, Trump has succeeded by presenting himself as the anti-politician who would save the country. Tonight, he looked like a spoiler. It could be that the visual of Trump being denounced onstage will prove to be every bit as devastating as Rick Perry’s “oops” or Mitt Romney “self-deportation” gaffes from the 2012 primaries.
On August 10, 2015, Donald Trump might have done the impossible: fight Fox and win. The leader in the Republican presidential primary opinion polls, Trump, has been warring the most powerful arm of the Republican Party, Fox News, for four days. The fight was dividing the whole conservative internet—there were accusations of unmanliness and political correctness and straight-up pay for play. Trump tweeted Sunday night, “It amazes me that other networks seem to treat me so much better than @FoxNews. I brought them the biggest ratings in history, & I get zip!” Obviously, "zip" wasn't quite accurate. In the last three months, Trump got more Fox airtime and appearances (31!) than any other Republican candidate. Fox had created the Trump monster it was now trying to kill. But in a twist on Frankenstein, the mob that appears at the end carrying pitchforks and torches is rooting for the monster.
The recent intramural war was shocking becuase conservative media usually easily unites around partisan memes. Mitt Romney's 47 percent comment was a version of an idea popularized by RedState editor and talk radio host Erick Erickson, who created a blog titled "We Are the 53%." In 2009, shortly after President Obama's inauguration, Karl Rove created the meme that Obama had conducted an international "apology tour" for America's sins, and it's never died. Mitt Romney titled his 2010 campaign book No Apology; in May, Mike Huckabee announced he was running for president and declared, "I will never, ever apologize for America!" But Donald Trump, a sort of living meme, has caused conservative media to turn on itself.
Fox News is now completely devoted to Donald Trump
The political and media world seemed shocked this week when Megyn Kelly sat down for a warm interview with Donald Trump. She tossed him velvety soft questions like, "When did you realize you could be president?", sought to discover whether anyone had ever "hurt [him] emotionally," and peppered him with hard-hitting queries on his favorite book and movie. Kelly can of course do any kind of interview she likes, but it's as good a marker as any that Fox News is now thoroughly behind Donald Trump's candidacy for the White House.
If you've watched the network up until now, you might not have been so sure. But when you understand the function Fox serves for the conservative movement and the Republican Party, you realize that they had to be tough on Trump — at least a little, and at least for a while.
That's because in a presidential primary, it's part of Fox's job to vet the Republican candidates — testing them, probing them, and seeing how they stand up to pressure. That's why it was more than appropriate to have Fox anchors moderating primary debates, where on occasion they were quite tough.
Fox has always been more partisan than ideological: Its hosts certainly advocate for conservative ideas, but its political lodestar is the interests of the Republican Party. And it's the great genius of Roger Ailes, the network's chief for the two decades since it was founded, that he has been able to simultaneously serve both the GOP's interests and the goal of making gobs of money.
Before the primaries are over, the party's interest lies in identifying the strongest possible candidate and weeding out the weak. Once the nominee is chosen, however, everything shifts. That's why you're unlikely to hear anything but the mildest criticism of Trump on Fox from now on. Despite his feuds with the network up until now, he's the party's guy, and they're stuck with him.
Much more so than any liberal outlet does for its side, Fox sets the tone for the entire conservative media, and even the entire conservative movement. If you're a conservative it's where you can go not only to get validation for your beliefs, but also to learn what your leaders want you to know: what issues are important; the key reasons Democrats are wrong about everything; and perhaps most critically, what you're supposed to be angry about.
Why Rupert Murdoch Decided to Back Donald Trump
Call it the media equivalent of Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King: Tonight, Donald Trump finally sits down with his Fox News nemesis Megyn Kelly. The battle between Trump and Fox’s biggest star has been one of the most compelling story lines of the 2016 election, and the subject of much discussion in the run-up to Kelly’s prime-time broadcast special with the GOP frontrunner. But in all the coverage of the Trump-Kelly détente, a more important development has been overlooked: Trump has made peace with Kelly’s boss’s boss, Rupert Murdoch.
According to a half dozen sources familiar with Murdoch’s thinking, the media mogul has signaled he plans to fully back Trump in the general election against Hillary Clinton. Murdoch’s embrace of Trump is a sharp reversal from the hostile view he held over much of the past year. In fact, according to one high-level Fox source, it was Murdoch himself who directed Kelly to hammer Trump during the debut GOP debate, in Cleveland, that sparked the feud in the first place. “Rupert told her to do that,” the source said.
The Murdoch-Trump alliance is the result of at least two private meetings between the billionaires this spring as well as phone calls from Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Murdoch’s view, according to those who’ve spoken with him, is that Trump is a winner whom the “elites” failed to take seriously. “He doesn’t like people to be snobs and treat Trump like a clown,” one person explained. Murdoch’s outlook is also informed by his take on the winnowed GOP field. When it came down to the final three candidates, Murdoch simply saw Trump as the best option. “He never liked Cruz,” the source explained. Kasich made a personal pitch to Murdoch that he could win on a second ballot at the convention, but failed to persuade. In March, Murdoch tweeted that the GOP would “be mad not to unify” behind Trump.
Trump's initial rise to success wasn't just the result of the manipulation of secret behind-the-scenes media manipulators, it was due to having the actual support of a large popular movement, at least initially.
None of this means that Fox was anti-Trump - they're only anti-whatevercanmakethemmoney. That's all they give a shit about. All of the articles you posted blatantly expressed that - even bad press is good press, and they scoop it up in spades.
they're only there to make money. That's all they give a shit about.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Trump's rise was a result of genuine, grassroots support from a large number of voters, the right-wing media conglomerate flip-flopped to supporting him because they care more about money than actually supporting any particular candidate. If a popular movement with the support of regular voters can overturn the right-wing establishment, why can't the same thing be done but with the left-wing establishment? It's a case of regular people getting a candidate that they voted for and not one that was pre-selected by one of the major parties (it just so happens to be not in the direction you might be hoping for), which goes against your argument that voting makes no difference.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.