The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This contradicts what you posted above.



Just checking, is this still an accurate statement from you?

I don't see how it contradicts . I wasn't searching for a specific example, I was more discussing how laws should be made. As far as I can tell the genesis of this law isn't from litigation.

Go ahead and find an example of a 2nd grade teacher teaching kids about anal sex and strap on dildos....you realize these are the things supports think are being taught?

[Lathum]

dola- I do see how you could perceive it that way, I wasn't very clear, my head is a bit swollen today

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Do you believe that's the preferred dividing line for FL lawmakers? That all this is to protect that very specific demographic?

I do not. It's a toehold for future legislation.

For DeSantis, it's really for DeSantis to score political points for sure. There are likely other reasons but definitely primarily to score political points in anticipation of him being an alternative to Trump.

Yes, I can see its a toehold for more stuff to come especially if he is going to run for the GOP nomination.

For me and my stance, the word "protect" is too strong. It is more allowing the parents to have those initial discussions with 3rd graders vs public school teachers.

I know not all parents will want to have those discussions. And some will likely do more harm than good. But yeah, I think most caring parents will want to have first crack in setting the stage and letting the 3rd grader know what they believe.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not sure why you have provided the definition of sex? The FL law says below? Let's use your example of the stork. I don't see the law as stopping teacher from say "yes, I'm going to have a baby with my husband/wife/significant other" and stop there (e.g. no instruction)? If I'm mistaken, quote me a passage in the FL law.

You said.

This may have been true for your school, but it certainly wasn't for my school (but mine was a long time ago and overseas anyway). For my kids that went to school here, I don't remember when or ages, but do remember multiple times that parents were informed whenever there would be discussion about sex (and prob other sensitive matters) and were allowed to excuse their kids from those discussions.

I linked the definition to clarify what I meant because I was specifically talking about teachers and kids having those discussions in third grade without parents being informed. Also when you say "stop there", what does that even mean? Where is the instruction? Yes, we can take it the courts to figure out but that means that we are intentionally putting laws on the books to harass our citizens

Sure by third grade kids know pronouns. You are saying by teachers teaching kids I/me/they/them/he/she etc. they have been "instructed" on "gender identity"? I don't think so and don't think any court would agree with that as the intent of the law. But hey, someone wants to bring it up, let's get a ruling and get it on the books.

Of course it is because by definition those are gender identifying terms, no?

I think what you are really saying to me is "look, this law isn't about instructing on all sexual orientation or gender identity, it is really about instructing on LGBTQ sexual orientation or gender identity", I agree with you. It really is that regardless of the more neutral wording in the law. I'm still okay with leaving those discussions for parents to handle for 3rd graders and below.

No it is beyond that. Because of the neutral wording, it is about instructing on all sexual orientation or gender identity. The problem is no one has said what that actually means which places everyone involved in a vulnerable position.

What discussions do you think teachers are having with the third graders that should be left to the parents? That members of the LGBTQ+ community exist in the world? That Mr. White has a husband? That Mrs. White has a wife?

Again, teachers are not discussing the finer details of sexual intercourse between people of the same gender with their third graders. No one is suggesting teachers should be having that discussion with third graders and I feel like you keep driving to the suggestion that this is what is happening and what the law is trying to prevent. I have given you numerous examples of age appropriate discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity that have been a part of teacher-student interactions forever and will continue to happen without some sudden need for parental consent. The fact those interactions involved LGBTQ+ people should not make them illegal. Why can't Mr. White can't tell his third graders what he and his husband did over the summer without parental consent but Mrs. White can? Why can't Mr. White say that he is married to his husband without parental consent but Mrs. White can? Why can't Mr. White have his husband come in and discuss the meaning of Father's Day or Veteran's Day to him without parental consent but Mrs. White can? How is it that when Mr. White does those things, it is grooming but when Mrs. White does the same things using the exact same words it is not? It was and is fine for Mrs White to go into great depth on all those things but Mr. White is supposed to have a stunted one sentence response and stop right there? And if he does not, he runs the risk of being brought up on disciplinary charges? Yeah no thanks.

I'm not sure why you added & highlighted above. I'm really talking about 3rd graders and below. I will concede I haven't quite pinpointed when is the appropriate time for "instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity". I had earlier said middle school which is 11-13 (vs 3rd grader at 8-9) and this seems right to me.

And I am telling you and have given examples that you have already accepted that we are already providing instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity to third graders and below. You already said that your issue is with that instruction including the LGBTQ+ community. I see no reason or need to other that community in this way.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- I do see how you could perceive it that way, I wasn't very clear, my head is a bit swollen today

Okay, thanks. I thought I was having reading comprehension issues myself and thinking WTF. Appreciate you saying you can see how I read it that way.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I don't see how it contradicts . I wasn't searching for a specific example, I was more discussing how laws should be made. As far as I can tell the genesis of this law isn't from litigation.

Go ahead and find an example of a 2nd grade teacher teaching kids about anal sex and strap on dildos....you realize these are the things supports think are being taught?

I'll ignore the 2nd paragraph since I didn't understand it. I'll wait when you get back to "normal"

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

You said.



I linked the definition to clarify what I meant because I was specifically talking about teachers and kids having those discussions in third grade without parents being informed. Also when you say "stop there", what does that even mean? Where is the instruction? Yes, we can take it the courts to figure out but that means that we are intentionally putting laws on the books to harass our citizens



Of course it is because by definition those are gender identifying terms, no?



No it is beyond that. Because of the neutral wording, it is about instructing on all sexual orientation or gender identity. The problem is no one has said what that actually means which places everyone involved in a vulnerable position.

What discussions do you think teachers are having with the third graders that should be left to the parents? That members of the LGBTQ+ community exist in the world? That Mr. White has a husband? That Mrs. White has a wife?

Again, teachers are not discussing the finer details of sexual intercourse between people of the same gender with their third graders. No one is suggesting teachers should be having that discussion with third graders and I feel like you keep driving to the suggestion that this is what is happening and what the law is trying to prevent. I have given you numerous examples of age appropriate discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity that have been a part of teacher-student interactions forever and will continue to happen without some sudden need for parental consent. The fact those interactions involved LGBTQ+ people should not make them illegal. Why can't Mr. White can't tell his third graders what he and his husband did over the summer without parental consent but Mrs. White can? Why can't Mr. White say that he is married to his husband without parental consent but Mrs. White can? Why can't Mr. White have his husband come in and discuss the meaning of Father's Day or Veteran's Day to him without parental consent but Mrs. White can? How is it that when Mr. White does those things, it is grooming but when Mrs. White does the same things using the exact same words it is not? It was and is fine for Mrs White to go into great depth on all those things but Mr. White is supposed to have a stunted one sentence response and stop right there? And if he does not, he runs the risk of being brought up on disciplinary charges? Yeah no thanks.



And I am telling you and have given examples that you have already accepted that we are already providing instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity to third graders and below. You already said that your issue is with that instruction including the LGBTQ+ community. I see no reason or need to other that community in this way.

Bravo sir.....well stated.

[Edward64]

What discussions do you think teachers are having with the third graders that should be left to the parents? That members of the LGBTQ+ community exist in the world? That Mr. White has a husband? That Mrs. White has a wife?

Again, teachers are not discussing the finer details of sexual intercourse between people of the same gender with their third graders. No one is suggesting teachers should be having that discussion with third graders and I feel like you keep driving to the suggestion that this is what is happening and what the law is trying to prevent.

This is a fair question and agree that I've not answered it well. I do believe it is a reaction of (real or not) wokeness that DeSantis wants to leverage.

Similar to Lathum who asked where are examples of where these "instructions" occurred and if there is no examples, then the legislation is not needed.

Let me find some examples (I'll try today but definitely by Sat) if they are out there and get back to you.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

For DeSantis, it's really for DeSantis to score political points for sure. There are likely other reasons but definitely primarily to score political points in anticipation of him being an alternative to Trump.

Yes, I can see its a toehold for more stuff to come especially if he is going to run for the GOP nomination.

For me and my stance, the word "protect" is too strong. It is more allowing the parents to have those initial discussions with 3rd graders vs public school teachers.

I know not all parents will want to have those discussions. And some will likely do more harm than good. But yeah, I think most caring parents will want to have first crack in setting the stage and letting the 3rd grader know what they believe.

So one thing here that I have issue with: are we allowing parents to dictate their individual teaching standards to educators, or are we allowing educators (state included) to set baseline educational standards that parents need to accept?

Just like intolerance and (I really hate the term) cancel culture (on both the extreme right and left), you've got people who thing they are really too fucking special and should get their way all the time, and if they don't then you are a horrible, horrible person. I'll take this whole trans blowback on the left when very supportive people take stances like "you can't just have a surgery and call yourself a woman" and demand things like equity in sports. Those people are now (in some circles) persona non grata from those very same people. If gender reassignment surgery is that important to you, then you should understand that participating in sports might not be in your future. If it's the other way around, then you need to make decisions. You can't have everything your way all the time. We all have to give here and there, and no, 'living your best life' doesn't mean you get to do whatever, whenever you want, because there's 7 billion people on the planet. So I'll run this back around here. These parents that demand that they have the final say? They are basically those kids who grew up getting participation trophies, who were told they were really special and could do no wrong. There are plenty of very, very shitty parents out there. We've got a whole lot of people who bitch, and have never tried doing. All they do is complain and whine and demand 'something' be done. They don't really want to try and fix the problem, they just want you to know you are wrong and they are right, and you need to fix it right now.

Comedians are the ones leading the war for free speech, not the extreme right, or the left. Which is funny, because when you've got comedians out there going "whoa, you're far too extreme for me, because you've shouted me down time and time again for speaking words that you don't feel 'serve' you' you know we've jumped the shark.

If those parents were on advisory boards, and worked with the district to come up with those policies and best use curriculums, then fine. But they aren't, they just show up and yell and cry about "sexualization" of kids. They can't even be bothered to get the term right. That's a completely different conversation and complaint I have with the right. They love to take these words and gaslight the shit out of people until that word becomes the thing they want it to. We don't have 3rd graders dressed in skimpy outfits, and paraded around grown older boys and men for their sexual gratification now do we? Fuck no. If there's a hot button word out there, 100% it's the right trying to make that word into the cultural buzzword of the day. Fuck that shit.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

We don't have 3rd graders dressed in skimpy outfits, and paraded around grown older boys and men for their sexual gratification now do we? Fuck no. If there's a hot button word out there, 100% it's the right trying to make that word into the cultural buzzword of the day. Fuck that shit.

I mean, we have whatever that whole Toddlers & Tiaras stuff is...

Also, just generally, a reminder from https://medium.com/@_EthanGrey/the-m...u-936037958bce

Here is the Republican message on everything of importance:

They can tell people what to do.
You cannot tell them what to do.

[PilotMan]

Great link. Hits it right on the mark.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This is a fair question and agree that I've not answered it well. I do believe it is a reaction of (real or not) wokeness that DeSantis wants to leverage.

Similar to Lathum who asked where are examples of where these "instructions" occurred and if there is no examples, then the legislation is not needed.

Let me find some examples (I'll try today but definitely by Sat) if they are out there and get back to you.

I can't figure out a way to say this without coming off like an asshole and I really don't me to impend on your patent on the board. It is not my intention but I understand why you may think that is the case.

Is this what you mean?

WOKENESS | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

wokeness
noun [ U ]
mainly US informal
us
/ˈwoʊk.nəs/ uk
/ˈwəʊk.nəs/
a state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality:
His latest record displays his wokeness.
More examples

Wokeness encompasses the need to search for more knowledge, understanding and truth in order to challenge injustice.
The actor and the politician met in a display of mutual wokeness.
Wokeness has to be about more than just saying the right thing.

Since PM mentioned terms that he absolutely hates, that is mine

[Edward64]

I'll go with the wiki definition. I find wiki provides a lot of more context and many can agree to its definition.

I didn't know about the bolded section in 2nd paragraph.

Absolutely no problems in asking for definitions. I really do believe its important to establish it up front.

Woke - Wikipedia

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.

The phrase stay woke had emerged in AAVE by the 1930s, in some contexts referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans. The phrase was uttered in a recording by Lead Belly and later by Erykah Badu. Following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the phrase was popularised by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. After seeing use on Black Twitter, the term woke became an Internet meme and was increasingly used by white people, often to signal their support for BLM, which some commentators have criticised as cultural appropriation. Mainly associated with the millennial generation, the term spread internationally and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Perhaps if we taught it we would stop churning out generation of intolerant bigots...

BINGO.

[CrimsonFox]

Hoorah. An executive order to provide access to abortion
And taxing the rich

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Galaril

BINGO.

Hold your cards please

[Lathum]

Mortons....oof.

Would be something else to be an employee there today. Especially one who answers the phones.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Mortons....oof.

Would be something else to be an employee there today. Especially one who answers the phones.

“Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner”

The statement is from Morton's, but I would like Kavanaugh to point out to us where in the constitution it states he has a right to congregate and eat dinner.

[PilotMan]

RvW decision unintended consequences ftw

Best part is where one cop tells her if she fights it she'll probably get off. Hahaha

Pregnant Texas woman tells cop Roe repeal lets her fetus count for the carpool lane - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The statement is from Morton's, but I would like Kavanaugh to point out to us where in the constitution it states he has a right to congregate and eat dinner.

The constitution does not mention anything about going out for dinner. It's not even a protected human right.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The constitution does not mention anything about going out for dinner. It's not even a protected human right.

Yes it is. You will pull that piece of Mellow Mushroom pizza out of my cold dead hands. Give me liberty, and supersize the fries!!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Yes it is. You will pull that piece of Mellow Mushroom pizza out of my cold dead hands. Give me liberty, and supersize the fries!!

... and definitely no pineapple

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The constitution does not mention anything about going out for dinner. It's not even a protected human right.

This reasoning is contradicted by the ninth amendment.

[PilotMan]

The 9th amendment mentions going out to dinner?

[cuervo72]

As others have pointed out, if you can harass and protest women walking into a clinic, you can harass and protest a man walking into a steakhouse.

[cuervo72]

Brett Kavanaugh can still eat at restaurants in other states, I don’t know why he’s so upset.

— Jennifer Wright (@JenAshleyWright) July 9, 2022

[albionmoonlight]

I wonder how much we'd still be hearing about the "Baby Formula Crisis" if the President hadn't taken successful action to solve it. As soon as it stopped being something to criticize him about, the media black holed it.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

As others have pointed out, if you can harass and protest women walking into a clinic, you can harass and protest a man walking into a steakhouse.

Maybe he should be forced to watch video of cows being raised and then slaughtered before he's allowed to eat his steak?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The 9th amendment mentions going out to dinner?

The 9th amendment (to my lay knowledge anyways) says that just because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention a right, you can't read it to say that someone denied that right, which is the reasoning you used in your prior post.

Originally Posted by 9th Amendement

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The 9th amendment (to my lay knowledge anyways) says that just because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention a right, you can't read it to say that someone denied that right, which is the reasoning you used in your prior post.



Correct me if I'm wrong.

I mean, that's how I would read it too, but it apparently doesn't apply to abortion, or gay rights to a certain judge. His reasoning being those rights weren't given in the constitution.

[NobodyHere]

Yeah, it is a pretty strange amendment IMO as I have no idea what utility it really has. Not sure if life would be any different without it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Yeah, it is a pretty strange amendment IMO as I have no idea what utility it really has. Not sure if life would be any different without it.

The Federalists needed enough Anti-Federalists on board to ratify the Constitution. Anti-Federalists didn't like the idea of a strong central government and wanted a Bill of Rights to limit that government. The Federalists were worried that if they spelled out some rights, then people in the future would assume those were the only rights we had. The 9th Amendment was added to clarify the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

[Edward64]

This seems unnecessarily confrontational. He may really believe it but could have taken a more indirect tone.

I wonder if Bedingfield misspoke and if she'll try to walk it back some.

Outrage Erupts as White House Calls Abortion Rights Activists ‘Out of Step’

The apparent jab was made in a statement to The Washington Post responding to criticism of what many Democrats see as a response that has been too little, too late. White House communications director Kate Bedingfield said: “The president has been showing his deep outrage as an American and executing his bold plan—which is the product of months of hard work—ever since this decision was handed down.”

She went on to say that “Joe Biden’s goal in responding to Dobbs is not to satisfy some activists who have been consistently out of step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party” but “to deliver help to women who are in danger and assemble a broad-based coalition to defend a woman’s right to choose now, just as he assembled such a coalition to win during the 2020 campaign.”

Women’s March Director Rachel O’Leary Carmona told activists she hoped to “push [Biden’s] authority to the limit” regarding abortion rights. By Sunday morning, Carmona had changed her Twitter name to “Out of Touch Activist.”

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This seems unnecessarily confrontational. He may really believe it but could have taken a more indirect tone.

I wonder if Bedingfield misspoke and if she'll try to walk it back some.

Outrage Erupts as White House Calls Abortion Rights Activists ‘Out of Step’

The leftists I follow on Twitter have been jumping all over themselves trying to be the most outraged over this.

This is the classic thing that is smart for the administration to believe (he's trying to get re-elected as President of the United States. Not President of Left Wing social media), but silly for them to say out loud (the only people reading/sharing it are the left wing folks who are going to be pissed at it).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The leftists I follow on Twitter have been jumping all over themselves trying to be the most outraged over this.

This is the classic thing that is smart for the administration to believe (he's trying to get re-elected as President of the United States. Not President of Left Wing social media), but silly for them to say out loud (the only people reading/sharing it are the left wing folks who are going to be pissed at it).

Hiw does opposing abortion help him get elected? Polls show a strong majority of the population wants it to be legal.

We will see how his approach plays out in November and 2024

[Edward64]

Yup Joe. Solve the range anxiety issue (and allow for more tax credit quota) and I'll jump to an EV (from my hybrid).

Charging Logistics a Top Barrier to Electric-Car Adoption: Survey

61% of the survey respondents who said they were not entirely sold on buying an electric car said that the logistics of EV charging availability — including when and where to charge the vehicle — would prevent them from buying or leasing an electric car.

The survey was released on Thursday. Respondents said EV range and the cost of buying an electric car could also pose a major barrier. Though, the polled Americans seemed less concerned with being able to fix the car or how it would perform in cold weather.

Increasing charging infrastructure is a top priority for US President Joe Biden. In June, the Biden Administration proposed a $7.5 billion investment in a national network of 500,000 EV charging stations. But, the current number of charging stations in the US is far from ideal. According to the US Department of Energy, there are just over 56,000 public EV charging stations in the country to date.

[GrantDawg]

Wow. That's an ow.

President Biden is hemorrhaging support, with only 26% of Democratic voters saying the party should renominate him in 2024, a New York Times/Siena College poll found. Voters nationwide gave him a meager 33% job approval rating.https://t.co/OMwNkcclrr

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 11, 2022

[Edward64]

538 has him at 38.4 aggregate approval right now, lowest he's been.

It's too late for mid-terms but I'm still rooting for him to turn things around. I don't think he should run in 2024 but if Jul 2024 is same as Jul 2022, the Dems (and presumed new nominee) are in deep doo-doo.

[PilotMan]

Under no circumstances should he be renominated. He's far too fucking old.

[stevew]

If they got 51 Senators I’d be all about a retirement.

[PilotMan]

One Small Step for Democracy in a 'Live Free or Die' Town

I find this sort of thing to be terrifying in general after having served on an HOA board and see this sort of thing happen at that level (or try to during my tenure). But it also lays the ground work for others to do something else in small towns across the US for very different reasons. The Netflix Doc Wild, Wild Country was an example with the politicking that came into play in Oregon.

I'd say the most legitimate threat is a group of Sovereign Citizens and wacko preppers and Klansmen set up shot in Idaho, declare total independence and watch what the State or Feds do. For a long, long time, the US has supported separatist movements around the world. What happens when we need to put down our own?

[Edward64]

Talking about Biden and 2024 ...

I'm guessing this is bottom quartile historically of all incumbent Presidents and lack of support within own party.

64 percent of Democrats want someone other than Biden to be 2024 nominee: poll | The Hill

Most Democrats surveyed in a poll released early Monday said they would prefer a candidate other than President Biden as the party’s nominee in 2024.

The New York Times/Siena College poll found that 64 percent of Democrats questioned said they would prefer a different candidate. Twenty-six percent of Democrats said they would still support Biden in the next presidential election.

When asked why they would support a new candidate, 33 percent of Democrats cited age as their main reason, 32 percent said job performance, 12 percent said they will prefer someone new and 10 percent said Biden is not progressive enough.

Forty-four percent of all respondents said they would cast their vote for Biden if the 2024 presidential election were held today, while 41 percent of respondents said they would vote for former President Trump if he is a 2024 presidential candidate.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hiw does opposing abortion help him get elected? Polls show a strong majority of the population wants it to be legal.

We will see how his approach plays out in November and 2024

In no way does that statement oppose abortion.

[GrantDawg]

I really always thought he would only serve one term. I was quite upset when suggestions about a year ago suggested he had ever intention of running again. I hope that the number dissuade him, and he doesn't even involve himself in the process of the next presidential elections.

The biggest question has to be who then? I like Harris but I don't think she is popular enough to be a strong candidate. Bernie, Warren, Hillary are just too old. We need a new Obama. Could he grow a beard and just run as Barry?

[Edward64]

Jon Steward? But read that he has said no.

Opinion | If Tucker Runs in 2024, Here’s Who the Democrats Need - POLITICO

[Flasch186]

I think Gavin Newsome has a chance to garner a bunch of hype marketing wise but I’m sure there’s some awful skeletons in the closet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

We need a new Obama. Could he grow a beard and just run as Barry?

" . . . Most fans contend that the show really jumped the shark around the 20th season when the Obama character came back and ran for another two terms as President, successfully arguing that he had not properly presented his birth certificate during his first two terms, making them invalid and allowing him to run for two additional terms. While some fans enjoyed the creative twist of using Trump's 'birther' gambit against him, most concluded that the writers had simply run out of ideas and probably should have stuck with the original plan to end the series with the J6/Emperor Putin finale that was jettisoned at the last minute when the show got surprisingly renewed."

[RainMaker]

Pritzker, Kelly, or Newsom stand the best shot. Harris would be a disaster which means they'll pick Harris.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Pritzker, Kelly, or Newsom stand the best shot. Harris would be a disaster which means they'll pick Harris.

Agreed

I think Pritzker and Newsom would both be excellent choices to run against Trump or DeSantis

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I really always thought he would only serve one term. I was quite upset when suggestions about a year ago suggested he had ever intention of running again. I hope that the number dissuade him, and he doesn't even involve himself in the process of the next presidential elections.

Even if Biden always planned to be President for one term, it would be dumb to make that clear and significantly weaken his position.

And the numbers from that poll have to be taken with a grain of salt as that 33% approval number is way out of line with other numbers. Even Rasmussen, which has consistently had the most R-leaning numbers on Biden's approval, has him 4 points higher at 37.