Talk:Joe Biden

Speech on the Capitol invasion
JB used the term 'big lie' - which of the several usages/associations was being used? Anna Livia (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In American terms that usually refers to the belief that Donald Trump "really" won the 2020 presidential election, while Biden was installed in the White House through fraud.-Flandres (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the UK (and possibly elsewhere in Europe) it has a different association. An example of where 'two logical local usages' can cause confusion. Anna Livia (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting thread archival (why?) Bongolian (talk)

Questionable Nominees
Jim Clyburn is definitely one of Biden's biggest allies in the House, and played a huge role in Biden's campaign turnaround, but referring to him as a "civil rights icon" is a stretch. Clyburn is not known to have actively participated in the movement and doesn't have a major record of Civil Rights Era advocacy comparable to some of his other counterparts within the Congressional Black Caucus.
 * Reload icon.svg Requesting thread archival (why?) -- Techpriest (talk)

Biden is NOT a centrist.
 

P.S. the sources I am using are DEFINITELY reliable. USA Today even has a slight left bias with high factual reporting, and so does National Interest in spite of it's rightish bias. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a centrist indeed, paid by big oil to approve drilling and fracking measures. 107.77.215.52 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are opinion columns. A.k.a. a "hot take". Anyhow he's not a centrist. He's moderate right-wing. If you look at who wrote the first piece, it's Katrina Trinko, a regular writer for conservative outlets like National Review and The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation. Some of her work are partisan culture war hack jobs, with articles like "With ‘Pregnant People’ Tweet, Government Promotes Transgender Agenda", "An Example of How Transgender Rights Affect Women’s Safety". Trinko's garbage opinions is not a reliable source lol. Second dude? Cal Thomas. He's not as an overt hack like Trinko but I read his article. It's not very persuasive, particularly the ending part where he talks about how "centrism" is just "hiding" a "radical liberal agenda." Dude, his problem is that his scope is limited entirely within United States politics. He only goes into surface-level ideas about Biden's policies, such as merely stating about granting 11 million illegal immigrants is probably enough for make him liberal? It does not. I have not heard standing praise by progressives as his record on immigration is arguably mixed, continuing several Trump-era policies cracking down on the immigrants, and this mixed record (which characterizes the rest of the presidency) is somehow left unaddressed by Thomas. Hey, paisanos, please avoid just repeating what you see on Media Bias Fact Check and do critically examine the source, which includes checking the date, checking the authors, and also browsing the rest of the website; furthermore, even your favorite site Wikipedia has said it is not a reliable fact checker. 01:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Biden is center right tbh from where I'm coming from. Historically the man is pretty much the cornerstone of the Dems and I don't think that will change. Centrist stupidity probably still applies (look at the man's exceptionally spotty record from his early days in congress and you'll see what I mean), even if Biden's foot-in-mouth syndrome is a historic artifact. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, it depends on which side you're looking at it. I've always considered myself a centrist, but I am certainly to the right of Biden. Biden's agenda seems progressive.
 * The New York Times does put the Republicans as a far-right party, even further to the right then the Finns Party of Finland, but the Democrats are also quite left. In between the Labour Party of Britain and Socialist Party of France.The Center tends to be Portugal Communist Party.
 * Biden might have been a centrist for 35 years as a Senator, but that's not relevant now. What matters is that he has cozied up to Democrats in his presidency.]
 * Per, the Atlantic Times is reliable, the , CNN is reliable, NY Times is reliable. --Andrew5 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Biden is center-left by any measurable definition based in logic. If you're viewing Bernie/AOC as mainstream left and not extremists, then through this lense Noam Chomsky may look like a moderate. Also, the whole spitting hairs about "believe women" vs. "believe all women" article segment was pedantic and unnecessary. There was absolutely no issue from progressives about believing all women until, of course, it became inconvenient for their political leadership. And comparing it to the obviously bogus "All Lives Matter" pseudo-racist marketing from the right is completely disingenuous.

Biden is never on the left-wing. But Biden is never even a centrist. The most accurate description of him is the centre-left. So '''I don't think the category "Centrist Stupidity" or "Left-wing activists" is appropriate when describing him. Also, I think it's good to remove the 'Liberals' category.''' American politics is polarized, Biden seems more like a center-left social democrat, but I don't think it's a good idea to use categories related to ideological or political spectrum for him because the term is radical in the United States.--Umaru16 (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Social liberalism is an ideology close to center-left in centrism. Barack Obama will be close to this side. Joe Biden is a little more to the left than he is. However, since he is not a democratic socialist or hard-line progressive, I think the expression "left-wing" is as inappropriate as the expression "centrist".--Umaru16 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * # As I said here, I think Joe Biden should never be described as centrist. But on the contrary, I don't think it's good to describe it as a left-wing. Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are left-wing, Because they are socialists or at least more of a social-democrat left. Biden is a social-democrat right, not liberal or socialist. (Of course, social democracy is also an ideology derived from socialism, but what I'm talking about now is socialism in a narrow sense.)--Umaru16 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The term "liberal" (=leftist) in the United States is now too old, and unlike in the past, libertarians/classical liberals have also increasingly called themselves "liberals". I think calling hardline social democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders "liberals" is absolutely ridiculous. Socialism or social democracy is no longer a taboo in the United States, so there is no need to use American exceptional political terms such as "liberal"  (=leftist) or "conservative." Now Americans must regain the original meaning of liberalism. Liberalism is a centrist ideology that is economically centre-right and socially centre-left. (In Europe, Canada, Latin America, Africa, and many other regions, liberalism is used in this sense.) --Umaru16 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a different story, but unlike the United States, politics in South Korea and Japan are rather being conservative over time. Until the 2000s, socialism and social democracy were not taboo in South Korean politics, but after the Sunshine Policy failed and North Korea continued to provoke, anti-communist sentiment intensified as the South gradually intensified to China and North Korea. In the 2000s and early 2010s, socialist parties such as the Democratic Labor Party and the New Progressive Party had considerable power in South Korea, but now there is no socialist party in the South, and not even a single member of the Justice Party, which is close to social democracy. (Exactly, there are socialist parties outside the House, but not a single seat in Parliament.) More to the right, the Democratic Party of Korea is more conservative in labor and economic issues than the real U.S. Democratic Party, and is virtually right-wing in social issues. In Japan, the LDP, which is far far far right than the GOP, is in power for a long time. On the other hand, in the United States, socialism is no longer a taboo word and many socialist politicians are increasing. I really envy America. The United States is no longer a conservative country. Democratic Party of Korea and South Korean mainstream liberals are too discriminatory against minorities, and the only real progressive people on this issue are socialists or social democrats. And now publicly identifying as a socialist in South Korea could put personal security at risk. Japan is more of a mess. Japanese people's perception of LGBT rights is relatively more progressive than South Koreans, but the far-right nationalist LDP is in power for a long time, far-right than the U.S. Republican Party and no moderates are found in the party. In the U.S., socialism was a taboo word until the 2000s, but not now. (As a supporter of left-wing socialist politics in South Korea, I was close to anti-Americanism in 2010 because of the extreme antipathy and social oppression of American socialism, but now, on the contrary, I hate South Korean and Japanese politics so much and am very pro-American.) --Umaru16 (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But I am still critical of American politics. The United States is a complete two-party system and excludes minority parties. Paradoxically, the only way to effectively curb far-right forces, including Trumpism, is a multiparty system. It's a pity that the Democratic Party of America suppresses the Green Party and other minor parties. A two-party system makes politics conservative, resulting in the absorption of far-right forces into the mainstream conservative party. There is no proportional representation system in the United States, and I think it is good to introduce it into the United States. It will be a big opportunity for minority parties, and growing parties such as the Libertarian and Green parties will help check ultra-nationalist and extreme social conservative far-right forces. (Look at the FDP or the Greens in Germany!) --Umaru16 (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean FDP in Germany 21:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Chicken hawk
How is Biden NOT chickenhawk? He supported nearly every military action since Vietnam and didn’t serve at all &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2603:6000:9940:574A:19C5:9EF6:7017:C7F1 / talk
 * He was nothing compared to trump 21:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The category of chickenhawk is no better than a taunt as today less than one in five members of congress are veterans. 74 in the House. 17 in the senate. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggested cognomen
I think the name "Dark Brandon" should be added because it so beutifully turns the tables on the LGB dipshits. Also, "big fucking deal" is dated and historically trivial, while "Amtrak Joe" is dated and uninteresting.UncleKrampus (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding a middling Joe category and maybe reviewing some of the entries in each category
Reading some of these entries, I think only have "good" and "bad" is treating some topics as rather black and white rather than being a mixed bag. Also, some of these "Bad one Joe" entries seem very low quality and pretend nothing exists in our government besides the Biden presidency and that things like congressional and judicial politics, precedent, procedure, retaliation, and economic outcomes are an afterthought. One example is the "Abandoning a minimum wage increase" entry which focuses heavily on dismissing the filibuster and Senate Parliamentarian in order to pass such measures while ignoring things like a significant part of his own party not supporting such an action and pretending the consequences of such an action don't exist. Another gripe is the student loan forgiveness since it makes perfect the enemy of good enough by ignoring the fact this is the first time a president has actually gone through with such a thing which I think he deserves more credit for (also continues to ignore things like the political and economic realities when factoring in the limitations of a move which we're seeing right now due to that lawsuit). And dismissing it by saying "he should have forgiven $50000" and downplaying by saying it's a "drop in the bucket" is such a bad take when that's more than a third of the average undergraduate debt and completely ignores that Pell Grant recipients get another $10000 taken off their student loan, essentially, helping lower income students more. You don't have to like him, but don't treat him like a omniscient, all-powerful god who has the power to help everyone all at once and fix all your problems, but doesn't because he's a big meanie.-Ryan1257 (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree there is a degree of unrealistic sentiment reflected in some of the criticisms. If you are up to editing the article, do give it a try. I'll keep an eye on it.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)