Biden 2024

Pretty sure the messy pullout was also more Trump's fault than Biden's. Trump put things into motion during his last days that assured that pulling out of Afghanistan was going to go horribly wrong.

 

It was not solely Trump's fault, but he made the biggest contribution by setting a fixed timeline for the pull-out. This practically guaranteed that the things will go wrong, to one degree or another. I saw people online predicting this sort of thing the minute he made that deal.

 

I had this post ready to go yesterday but forgot to post it. It's a bit behind the conversation now, sorry.

I read this opinion piece that seems to do an excellent job covering my opinion of this.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/25/opinions/terrified-trump-dont-love-biden-filipovic/index.html

 

Yes, that is what is I was referring to in that sentence. Thank you

 

President is the only national political role where there is a built-in replacement waiting in the wings. That safety net is there for a reason.

In the military, it is very common to have deputy commanders and vice commanders at higher levels. They know why it's important.

 

Yes that is an excellent point. Along those same lines, there's a large support system built up around the President. They can carry out the daily duties to a large degree. For example, with Ronald Reagan's dementia, they were able to cover for him very well to the point that the public really wasn't aware of his dementia while he was still in office.

Hopefully, Biden gets reelected to a second term and he serves out that term without any such issues!

 

How well did they do in the primaries?

There are many women who can do the job. It's just when they get prominent enough to actually have a shot, it turns out they have "baggage" or are simply "unlikable". If Klobuchar had a shot, she would be hit with same stuff Harris was (a prosecutor who made questionable calls, some unhappy staff members). Stories were out there, just not as prominently. Gillibrand? She'd be painted as a version of Clinton. I like them both. Society does, too - until they are too close to the glass ceiling.

 

She was. As soon as she popped up on the radar, stories started emerging about how she was a tyrant for a boss. Listening to her over the years, that's hard to believe. Unless that's what one wants to hear.

 

Precisely. I don't remember the corresponding coverage of Gillibrand, but won't be surprised. I do remember, though, all the bad press on Clinton, Harris, Warren, and even Stacey Abrams - which are ALL the women who were seriously or semi-seriously considered POTUS or VPOTUS candidates in recent years I can recall. Some too-prominent women in politics get dumped on preemptively (AOC). A lot of it has some absurd premise like "look, she's seeking power", as if it's not the job description of a politician. Or "she isn't authentic". It's almost like systemic bias is a real thing.

 

Do you think that the overall media coverage/discussion is different between men and women or that the “average” person applies a different standard? Both?

My initial thought is that much of what you are talking about (questionable decisions, etc.) is discussed in the media for men too, but the general population doesn’t weigh it nearly as heavily for men as they do for women. Meaning, men do X just “because” and the woman being discussed does/did it because they are a woman, which obviously leads to biased results.

 

It's culture, so there is definitely a double standard people are applying. But I blame the media first and foremost. They believe that this is what the unwashed masses want, and then pander to that. Not just on women. The "fourth estate" do not do their jobs. How often do they talk about the political celebrities in terms of how well are they likely to do their jobs? I had to listen to some YouTuber to hear a tiny blip on how the candidate Biden had assembled an impressive foreign affairs team. The mainstream media was all about little soundbites from the campaign and who scored "points". That, and all the gossip about every woman challenging the men. Remember when Warren endorsed Clinton, and all the reporters talked about how they wore "matching jackets"? Or the mind-numbingly stupid discourse on whether or not Kamala is "Black enough"? I mean, at least it's better than the mordorian state TV, I guess.

 

Yes that is right. I think one of the best examples is that if men are demanding of folks working for them it is good. If women are demanding of folks working for them then they would likely be called hard to get along with or a bitch.

 

If you have a counter-argument, please make it.
Here, let me start: traits people commonly confuse with leadership skills, the ones that help people advance, are precisely the same traits that make women "unlikable", consciously or not. Running for the high office is just the clearest example. Oh, and media outlets are trash and keep pushing simplistic narratives.

 

Biden's Secret Weapon on the Age Issue

 

I agree it's primarily a cultural issue. For example, I've mentioned many times that my parents were racist. They sincerely didn't believe that they were racist. Their racism was primarily cultural. At least that is the way that I would describe it. I believe that most racism is cultural and systemic. Isn't that essentially what Critical Race Theory says?