SHOULD Biden run for a 2nd term? (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Biden has lost support from many people who voted for him in the past.
He is getting up there in age.
Here are a couple of sites I'd like to share...
*

Octogenarian Biden begins new year facing age-old question on 2024 race

In the coming months, Biden faces a simple question: will he seek a second term at the end of which he would be 86?

www.theguardian.com

*

Biden 2024? Most Democrats say no thank you: AP-NORC poll

A majority of Democrats now think one term is plenty for President Joe Biden, despite his insistence that he plans to seek reelection in 2024. While Biden has trumpeted his legislative victories and ability to govern, the poll suggests relatively few U.S. adults give him high marks on either...

news.yahoo.com

*
WHAT DO ANY OF YOU THINK?
IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEST SERVED BY HAVING PRESIDENT BIDEN RUN FOR ANOTHER TERM OR WOULD A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE BE BETTER?

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

No, I cannot believe you think of polls as “evidence” of a reality. They’re not. They’re more like an opinion of how something is likely to go, and without analyzing those polls you cannot trust them, especially these days.

Republicans have underperformed in nearly every single election, state and national, ever since 2016. Often in direct contrast to what the polls say. That is actual evidence my friend.

Paragraph 1 I disagree. Paragraph 2 I agree. I guess neither of us will change. Yet to recap...I said I based my statement on what I saw on the internet. Now everyone can see that was indeed true.

 

[MT15]

Paragraph 1 I disagree. Paragraph 2 I agree. I guess neither of us will change. Yet to recap...I said I based my statement on what I saw on the internet. Now everyone can see that was indeed true.

I never doubted what you saw in the internet. I can pull up polls that say differently though. You should be careful about believing what you see on the internet.

 

[SystemShock]

Yes, they are very different types of individuals. The difference is more in the mindset and values of the individual, than it is with the skills or on task experiences with the individuals. CEO's who work for legitimate non-profits are more "other serving" individuals. CEO's who work for for-profit companies are more "self-serving" individuals. Legitimate democratic governments are run to be "other serving" not "self serving."

You really think CEO's of non-profits are all Mother Theresas? You don't think they make millions and have golden parachutes like their for profit counterparts? You don't think they care about costs and revenues? You don't think they'd fire people and shut down locations if they can't make enough money to cover overhead? Come on, man.

I mean, don't we all come from a football board, the NFL being a non-profit organization lead by one Roger Goodell (his official title is "commissioner, but he's the de facto CEO of the NFL).

Here. It's from 2022, but should get the point across.

The Highest Paid Nonprofit CEOs | Cause IQ

The highest-paid nonprofit leaders — CEOs, Executive Directors, etc. — all earn at least $900k per year, and into the tens of millions for large hospitals

www.causeiq.com

 

[SystemShock]

Those are your words not mine, why are you putting words in my mouth? Having an ego is just fine I never said it wasn’t. What I don’t like is having an ego where you think you know everything about areas other than what you actually do. So many rich guys think that because they managed to get rich in one area they know everything about everything. Musk is a great example, Trump is another.

Asking you for clarification based on your statements is not "putting words in your mouth".

In one of your posts I quoted, you stated:,
Thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. (Which, BTW, is an opinion based on.... ? )

Quoting that particular statement, I asked:
So? Does the President of the U.S. needs to be humble? Play dumb?

And then you replied to my post:
"Yes, all of these attributes are problems"

So, it begs the question, do you really think the POTUS needs to be humble? Play dumb?

 

[MT15]

Asking you for clarification based on your statements is not "putting words in your mouth".

In one of your posts I quoted, you stated:,
Thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. (Which, BTW, is an opinion based on.... ? )

Quoting that particular statement, I asked:
So? Does the President of the U.S. needs to be humble? Play dumb?

And then you replied to my post:
"Yes, all of these attributes are problems"

So, it begs the question, do you really think the POTUS needs to be humble? Play dumb?

I already answered your question. Did you not see the post? And you‘re misrepresenting what my reply was about now. For whatever reason, I have no idea.

Anyway, yes, my post was my opinion, never said it wasn’t.

Why does it matter so much to you that I have this opinion that you seem to not agree with? My explanation was clear.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You really think CEO's of non-profits are all Mother Theresas?

Why do you misstate what people actually said by using hyperbolic questions? Is it an attempt to create a strawman, red herring argument or do you really view the world in such hyperbolic extremes?

A person doesn't have to assume a life of poverty, like Mother Theresa did, to be someone who is more or equally as driven to help others as they are to help themselves.

Everyone should always put on their oxygen mask first, before helping others put on their masks.

You don't think they make millions and have golden parachutes like their for profit counterparts?

So what if they do? It's not relevant to what I've said and it doesn't negate what I've said.

You don't think they care about costs and revenues?

For most of them, they only care about that in regards to how it impacts their mission of helping others versus the for-profit executives who care about it in regards to squeezing out more profits to be kept for themselves and an elite few.

You don't think they'd fire people and shut down locations if they can't make enough money to cover overhead?

Sure they do it in order to maintain their mission of helping others versus the for-profit executives who do it to squeeze out more profits to keep for themselves and an elite few.

Come on, man.

Let's go, man. Uhhmm, quick question, where we going?

I mean, don't we all come from a football board, the NFL being a non-profit organization lead by one Roger Goodell (his official title is "commissioner, but he's the de facto CEO of the NFL).

The NFL is not a legitimate non-profit, though it is a legal one. Didn't you notice I stipulated executives from legitimate non-profits? Some non-profits are a complete sham, like you pointed out with the NFL.

I'm talking about executives from legitimate non-profits like Habitat for Humanity, Innocence Project, or any of the multitude of non-profits that run food and meal assistance programs, services for the elderly, the disabled and so on.

I guess instead of saying legitimate, I should have said non-profits that have a mission to help others and genuinely execute that mission in good faith. That's what I mean when I say legitimate non-profit. My apologies if that caused confusion.

Here. It's from 2022, but should get the point across.

The Highest Paid Nonprofit CEOs | Cause IQ

The highest-paid nonprofit leaders — CEOs, Executive Directors, etc. — all earn at least $900k per year, and into the tens of millions for large hospitals

www.causeiq.com

Your point has been getting across loud and clear. I obviously disagree with your point.

I recognize this is a completely subjective subject. There's no objective truth about who should or shouldn't be president and what the goal of government should or shouldn't be. It's all a matter of personal preference, personal philosophy and personal values.

The compensation of non-profit executives vs for-profit executives is not the fundamental difference between them. The fundamental difference between them is their personal drive and the mission they pursue.

The typical non-profit executive, that works for non-profits with a mission to help people, is driven to help people and they run organizations with a mission to help people. Some of those executives are highly compensated for their work, but their high compensation doesn't negate the fact that they are driven to help people.

There are executives in the non-profit world that are mostly self-serving. Those dudes shouldn't be considered for president of the US either.

The typical for-profit executive is driven to take from people and keep what they take for themselves and for an elite, statistically few people. They are driven to take from people and keep what they take and they run organizations with that mission.

Of course, some for-profit executives aren't like that. They should be considered for president of the US. Dean Phillips is not one of those type of executives and he shouldn't be considered for president of the US, unless the goal is to continue the march towards fascism.

Personally, I'd like us to do an about face and start marching back towards a much more democratic society. But, hey, I'm funny like that.

 

[SystemShock]

I already answered your question. Did you not see the post? And you‘re misrepresenting what my reply was about now. For whatever reason, I have no idea.

I am not misrepresenting anything.

Anyway, yes, my post was my opinion, never said it wasn’t.

No kidding.

Why does it matter so much to you that I have this opinion that you seem to not agree with? My explanation was clear.

I thought this was a discussion forum, but ok, I'll will not engage you again unless you engage me.

 

[SystemShock]

Why do you misstate what people actually said by using hyperbolic questions? Is it an attempt to create a strawman, red herring argument or do you really view the world in such hyperbolic extremes?

I am not misrepresenting anything... it's just a little hyperbole to spice up the conversation... and in reality, I think Mother Theresa was a wretched individual, but I know many hold that evil angel of misery troll in high regard.

In any case, you are trying to draw a difference between profits and nonprofits based on your biases and prejudices, between what you perceive as benevolent ("non-profits help people"), and what you perceive as greedy or even evil ("for profits help themselves").

But whether they head a profit or a non-profit, CEO's missions aren't different; they have to deal with the very same issues (infrastructure, distribution, payroll, technology, regulations, etc. ), whether they pay out dividends to stockholders or put every cent of revenue back into the business... and they still get paid big bucks, and have golden parachutes, and get huge bonuses based on the company's performance, and fire people, and close locations to cut costs...

 

[CoolBrees]

First off "non-profit" is a misnomer.

They are "Not for Profit" and that tiny distinction is massive.

NFP absolutely can and do generate profits. Millions of dollars in profits. It is what is done with those profits that is the only difference. That money must be either saved for future projects, or spent. It cannot be reinvested in money generating avenues or work outside their charter (WWF can't start a child trafficking NFP) for example). But it can be doled out as bonuses. Or company cars, real estate, new offices, etc.

as long as the profit is reinvested in the company and is shown on their ledger, they maintain their not for profit status.

Non profit doesn't exist in a free market.

So I would agree with NFP are not discernibly different than other CSuites. They still are there to make money.

Their product is charity but it still has to be marketed, packaged and sold. All opposite of what the POTUS needs to understand imo.

professionally, outside of the military, lawyers, consumer advocates and maybe other civil service jobs, are who are best suited for the role. Because their jobs are baes on the betterment and protection of society and the laws that ensure it, not the health of the bottom line.

 

[MT15]

I worked for both “for profit” and “not for profit” hospitals. I probably wouldn’t recommend using a “for profit” hospital just as a general rule of thumb and only going from my personal experience at both.

We had newer and better equipment at the “not-for-profit”, and our pay was slightly better. Just a whole different atmosphere.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I am not misrepresenting anything...

Sure you are.

...it's just a little hyperbole to spice up the conversation...

I think your spices suck.

...and in reality, I think Mother Theresa was a wretched individual, but I know many hold that evil angel of misery troll in high regard.

Pretty obvious you would.

In any case, you are trying to draw a difference between profits and nonprofits based on your biases and prejudices, between what you perceive as benevolent ("non-profits help people"), and what you perceive as greedy or even evil ("for profits help themselves").

You're doing that thing again were you misrepresent, or maybe genuinely misunderstand, what people actually said.

Misconceiving what I actually said in the context of "benevolent" vs "greedy or evil" is indicative of your biases, prejudices and world view. What I actually said and think has nothing to do with "benevolent" vs "greedy or evil." That's all you, my brother.

But whether they head a profit or a non-profit, CEO's missions aren't different;

The executives I'm talking about objectively have very different missions. One has a mission of maximizing profits, the other has a mission to maximize helping others.

It seems you are confusing missions with the logistics used to carry out the mission. Though executives with the mission to maximize profits and executives with the mission to maximize helping others may use the similar logistic approaches in their missions, their missions are in fact different.

they have to deal with the very same issues (infrastructure, distribution, payroll, technology, regulations, etc. )

Those are the logistics used to carry out the mission, they are not the mission. Just for clarity, I'm referring to the "pre-established and often self-imposed objective or purpose" definition of mission.

...and they still get paid big bucks, and have golden parachutes, and get huge bonuses based on the company's performance, and fire people, and close locations to cut costs...

Some do, but most don't and it's still irrelevant to what I've been saying. You're hung up on the compensation of executives while everything I have said is all about the drive and goals of executives. An executive can be both driven to help others and well compensated. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[UriUT]

A Country Is Not a Company

Why businesspeople don’t necessarily make great economists.

hbr.org

I am not claiming that business-people are stupid or that economists are particularly smart. On the contrary, if the 100 top U.S. business executives got together with the 100 leading economists, the least impressive of the former group would probably outshine the most impressive of the latter. My point is that the style of thinking necessary for economic analysis is very different from that which leads to success in business. By understanding that difference, we can begin to understand what it means to do good economic analysis and perhaps even help some businesspeople become the great economists they surely have the intellect to be.

The government isn't a normal firm. And running a successful business doesn't guarantee understanding macroeconomic principles, and social issues on top of that. This is why it was so frustrating when I had to argue with family about why the freaking trade deficit issue in the 2016 election was such BS.

And I want to add that some firms would use a successful business and leverage that to borrow more money. Then once the business falls on hard times, the money from the leveraged assets is given to the investors, leaving the firm in disastrous states. I hardly believe that's the mindset that we want from someone running the country. IE Trump and his debts.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

If you held the election TODAY...Trump beats Biden and Haley beats Biden.
THAT is NOT my OPINION.
That's just what I read on the internet.

remember that conversation in 2016 Trump vs Clinton? all the numbers were in Clinton's favor. thats why we actually have elections instead of going by poll numbers..

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

remember that conversation in 2016 Trump vs Clinton? all the numbers were in Clinton's favor. thats why we actually have elections instead of going by poll numbers..

Oh....LOL....I didn't know that.

 

[samiam5211]

remember that conversation in 2016 Trump vs Clinton? all the numbers were in Clinton's favor. thats why we actually have elections instead of going by poll numbers..

The 2016 polls showed us that enthusiasm matters.

Trump has never underperformed his poll numbers.

Biden's support isn't excited.

We need to start preparing for what is coming.

 

[coldseat]

The 2016 polls showed us that enthusiasm matters.

Trump has never underperformed his poll numbers.

Biden's support isn't excited.

We need to start preparing for what is coming.

For all of the excitement and enthusiasm that Trump draws from his supporters, there is an equal and opposite motivation and enthusiasm to assure that Trump is never president again.

The difference will be in the middle where voters don't hold a strong enthusiasm for or against Trump. With perceptions of the economy changing among the general American public, I think you'll start to see Biden's numbers improving. I have no idea how things will turn out, but there's a lot of time between here an November.

 

[samiam5211]

For all of the excitement and enthusiasm that Trump draws from his supporters, there is an equal and opposite motivation and enthusiasm to assure that Trump is never president again.

The difference will be in the middle where voters don't hold a strong enthusiasm for or against Trump. With perceptions of the economy changing among the general American public, I think you'll start to see Biden's numbers improving. I have no idea how things will turn out, but there's a lot of time between here an November.

I just don't think that drive to stop Trump we saw in 2020 is still there.

Too many people have forgotten. It's not the same motivation.

MAGA has what we had in 2020.

 

[coldseat]

I just don't think that drive to stop Trump we saw in 2020 is still there.

Too many people have forgotten. It's not the same motivation.

MAGA has what we had in 2020.

If people have forgotten, I'm sure Trump will remind them once they start paying attention to a 2 person race between Trump and Biden.

I don't know for sure, it's just my feeling of how things will play out. The only motivation stronger than love is hate. And a lot of people hate Trump.