Talk:Joe Biden/Archive1

Completeness
That looks like a fairly complete article, save for a few links here and there. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 06:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, just a few. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone update this article as he is no longer Vice President. 31.51.114.58 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Criticism
This article reads like a hagiography, it could definitely be improved. Make sure to point out Biden's support of racist crime bills, and maybe something about Trump. — Oxyaena Harass  16:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Smear
The allegations against Biden are increasingly looking like a Russian-orchestrated smear. Anyone trying to stoke this should read the USA Today piece by Michael J. Stern first. I'll get to this on the main page later. Bongolian (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing the should be removed from the article, or are you just telling us this?(if the latter you should probably go to the saloon for that)-Flandres (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the allegation(s) should be there, but it needs better context than a list of allegations and Biden's flat denial. There are reasons why the allegations as we've seen them so far are not particularly believable. Bongolian (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, but please wait to edit the article until more users have chimed in here. Did you not see what happened to the last user who took an opposing view on this? Community Consensus looks to be against you.-Flandres (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My edit would be specifically about the Tara Reade accusations, so I don't see that as an issue with regard to whatever the concensus was about before. Bongolian (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You acted too hastily, and there is evidence to support Tara Reade's accusations. I put them in WIGO. Wait until others chime in before acting unilaterally, . — Oxyaena Harass  20:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I support readding Bongolian's edits. Maybe add extra sources, but the substance is good. 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I object to removal of material that is relevant and not factually disputed. Bongolian (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Except add the evidence in favor of Tara Reade, Bongolian. — Oxyaena Harass  01:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Which you have yet to present, or is just her ever changing word? There's a good reason why prosecutors and journalists like to see consistency from witnesses. Bongolian (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Check the election WIGO, . — Oxyaena Harass  07:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's asinine non-evidence.An anonymous call to Larry King about something happening with some unnamed senator. JFC, it would get laughed outta court. Bongolian (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was about her daughter reporting an "incident" and getting fired for it, having therefore no justice or recourse. It is very serious evidence. — Oxyaena Harass  09:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Aka this is a smear against Tara Reade. — Oxyaena Harass  09:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Further, multiple independent people have confirmed Tara Reade's account. — Oxyaena Harass  09:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . — Oxyaena Harass  09:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm topic banned from this. Please don't test that requirement.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Bongolian, what do you mean by Russian orchestrated smear? Are you she is making false accusations and the Russians are taking advantage of her or are you saying she is actually a knowing agent of the Russian Federation? You should not bandy about such serious charges and then not clarify them, especially when they have such important implications.-Flandres (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For once I agree with you, Flandres. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  10:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Something exists called Google and it's pretty easy to use the information that Bongolian provided to Google the referenced article. Since this apparently is difficult for people, I will handily link the article for you. You're welcome.
 * I personally consider the Russia connection possibility a secondary point, to be honest, though other places such as Crooks and Liars are emphasizing this hugely. If you haven't been living under a rock, though, you will know that Russia has specifically hired people to troll the Internet, inflame the hardheads (on *both* the left and the right), and swamp forums with bullshit. From my perspective, there was a bit of fun to be had using anti-Russia trolling tactics back at them, trying to piss off trolls in the places like the Economist commentary sections enough to out themselves (it worked a couple times, tee hee). But in general it's sad to see the Russian trolls damage social media discourse (even if IMHO the effect is more minor then some would have it) and sad to see some people falling for the bullshit. I don't know whether Tara Reade is telling the truth (on one hand) or at an NRA level of collusion with Russia (on the other) at this point, but #MeToo doesn't mean that women can't be lying asshole scums too. That is all I will say for now.Soundwave106 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't like, blow up in my face or anything but two small comments for htings I just changed: I added the fact that Biden asked the secretary of senate for a search into the Senate complaint that Reade claimed she filed against him. There are apparently now statements from Reade that they're suddenly not Senate complaints anymore which is explicitly contradictory to her earlier claims, but I haven't looked into that yet. Secondarily, I removed the FOX news reference and replaced it with a more recent CNN one. This because FOX is a blatant propaganda outlet for the GOP at this point and the claim was verified by more reliable sources anyway, which IMHO we should prefer using. 10:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

GC's take
I'm going to preface this by pointing out that the US has a sex crime apologism problem. We as a nation are less likely to believe a woman who reports being a victim of sexual assault or rape, both in public opinion and in courts of law. This has been obvious as recently as the Kavanaugh hearings. We have a press that is all too willing to drag people through the mud if they go up against those in power, and pouncing on every tiny inconsistency as a smoking gun. Is that reality clear? If so, good. If not, go read up on this shit and rethink your life. So, this subject has a lot of gravity, and we should be careful how we treat it.

Now. We're past the part where we bring up the domestic climate and can somewhat safely go into foreign affairs. Would Russia go to these lengths? Possibly. The Kremlin plays a high stakes game on the world stage, and is notorious for fighting dirty. However, I'd like to caution against jumping on that bandwagon immediately, as it's not the only possible outcome. Possibility A, Biden did the crime. Possibility B, the accuser faked the claim for her own personal reasons without Kremlin involvement. Possibility C, she's a Kremlin patsy. Possibility D, she's a Kremlin operative. Possibility E, she's an operative or patsy for for someone else and the Russia part is incidental or a smokescreen. That last outcome is actually a condensed version of around five miscellaneous outcomes, similar to its predecessors. And given the nature of the current climate, I'm wary of most narratives right now, including option A to some degree. So, with that in mind I'd advise solid sourcing for all claims concerning this matter, as well as considering other outcomes and not jumping to conclusions. 16:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very reasonable take on this situation, GrammarCommie. I would like to add that there is a larger problem on politics-related pages here on RW where ideology takes precedence over reason. This happened on the Bernie Sanders page, where it was basically on a lock-down except for Bernie-supporters. Eventually, Nerd came around and allowed me to add some well-needed criticism, to which no on objected at that point. We now have Oxy, a die-hard Bernie supporter, and Flandres, who are apparently also trying to lock-down the Biden page with Bernie-slanted ideology. Case in point: Oxy thinks the anonymous phone call to Larry King about an anonymous senator is actual evidence. Let me remind everyone, Bernie is not a rationalist: he's continued to promote alt-med up until at least recently. RationalWiki is not an left-wing outlet for your grievances — at least not on mainspace. There are most certainly problems with Tara Reade's claims and timeline: I'm not making any claims about whether or not Biden did anything inappropriate to her, but Reade has not been consistent in some very important ways. Bongolian (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add some suggestions for sourcing. Firstly, no die hard Biden outlets or reporters. Secondly, no die hard Sanders outlets or reporters. Both have reason to distort the truth, even if unintentionally due to conflict of interest. Thirdly, no right-wing sources period. They have a poor track record and have a motive to lie. Relatively centrist outlets like The Independent and CNN should have less reason to misinform, at least to some extent. I also advise running all (or as many as possible) claims through fact checking outlets MB/FC, Snopes, and/or Politifact to further nail them down and present a more robust and accurate picture. That's all I can think of for now. 18:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, fuck you too, Bongolian. I was just telling you this was a controversial subject and you needed to wait for other users to discuss this(what do you know, look what happened when you ignored my advice and edited unilaterally) and I never at any point thought this specific dispute edited the page, and if you could actually read my saloon bar posts you would know I am decidedly NOT a Bernie supporter. Apparently asking you to clarify your views in front of the community on such an important issue makes me a Jacobin fanatic trying to write a hack piece. Nice to know you have max levels in reading comprehension, Mister Civility.-Flandres (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, there is no rule against editing unilaterally on RW, in fact it is encouraged if you read the relevant help page. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not saying that was illegal or something, I was just warning you that on this specific topic a lot of people here have strong opinions that very much differ from yours so you would start and edit war with accompanying talk page drama that tends to get in the way of productive work and leave everyone bitter(some to the point of leaving the site). This is why you don't take a nap when "Reading Comprehension" shows up on the board at school.-Flandres (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, given the sensitivity of this... particular subject, I suggest we snipe any non-solidly sourced content (this includes bad sources like FOX news or outright propaganda outlets like RT, which haven't shown up yet, but I know that RT has been talking about this but at the same time Reade also has been promoting sources like Tucker Carlsons the Daily Caller) or try to find better sources for it, rather than our usual "place fact templates over it". This isn't to say the entire thing is bunk, there have been enough reliable sources on this matter to make it have at least credulent enough for mention in the article. We're not a left-wing echo chamber (contrary to what some folks over at CP might think) and I don't think it's wise to deem the accusations as a "this guaranteed happened" until the reliable sources agree it does. 18:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite my personal inclinations, from a more professional viewpoint you are correct. Fact checking and solid sourcing will at least keep us out of the worst areas of the debate. 19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding on the GC's take I also think whenever there's an update to the story, we shouldn't also jump on them until after the dust settles a bit. It's exciting to get that piece out, hot from the press, but usually reality settles and isn't all that glamorous. 20:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I support GC's & Flandres' proposals on editing this page. You are also correct, LGM -- people don't come to RW for breaking news. Bongolian (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Centrists are not rational
and this rape apologist victim blaming smear is really disgusting. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  20:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not "blaming the victim" if there is no real proof anything happened. It's just pointing out the activities of an enemy agent. 20:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's irrational to jump to conclusions, and for most sexual assault allegations there's gonna be very little evidence. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  20:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxy, you might want to read Kurt Eichenwald's recent Tweet stream about when he was raped vis a vis the Reade story. Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also irrational to jump to the conclusion that Biden is for sure a rapist like you've been doing, Oxy. 21:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While I tend towards belief, blind trust is easily exploited by the powerful. And all outcomes of this dilemma have powerful people's ambitions and reputations riding on it. Staying skeptical to all the narratives, even the ones you lean towards, is a good policy in this case. 21:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is blaming the victim. All that's being said is that we should stick to reliable sources when adding information about this to the page and to avoid being decisive until the reliable sources are as such. (For reference, from my perspective, a reliable source here is anything that Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source although I do suggest blanket excluding blatant right wing sources from their list as well, such as FOX. See for more on that).  08:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Believe all women
UNLESS IT'S ABOUT JOE BIDEN. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * More accurately its believe all women if it's someone you don't like, ignore them if it's someone you do. It's been the flaw of the whole me too movement from the outset AMassiveGay (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, here's Eichenwald's thread. 15:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A post by an actual survivor of abuse — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Examples of bad sources. Shitty Daily Kos community articles due to lack of oversight, Twitter threads, etc. Or in short, you're making your case look bad by using weak sources. 15:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Quit making a new thread every day with an inflammatory headline, it doesn't help your case at all and it's really annoying to navigate.  15:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the multiple confirmations that you cited Oxy I attempted to address some of the problems with them in my edit that you deleted that led to this discussion. The citation that I used was partisan, so I won't be adding it back, the citation did link out to several centrist news stories, so I will probably add them later.Bongolian (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Oxy, becoming a Putinist is a normal reaction to being raped. 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxy, can you bloody knock it off. I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one do believe Reade. That said, this is a minefield. Making potentially false claims about sexual harassment allegations are well, we have a notice for that stuff in the header of the page to begin with. The situation is also extra prickly given the entire situation with Biden being the presumptive Democratic nominee and from what I can see, the near universal mindset of "Trump is even worse than this guy" that makes discussion of this thorny. (Do I need to point back to the Coop about this very thing in the Bar?) Asking for the information to come from well established, and well fact-checked sources who aren't looking to spin this situation in any particular favor (so no extreme left or right wing sources who have the goal of making Biden seem as unappealing as possible to either try to score a Sanders plurality or to dicincentivize voting in the general election but at the same time also no centrist sources who outright deny the accusations) isn't a super high bar. All of the currently established evidence has as a result of that been included in the article. Your removed segment (assuming you're angry about this diff is already stated in the article itself, with a source to The Independent, so it was redundant to begin with.  17:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What the fuck? The Intercept is hardly "extreme left". — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Media Bias/Fact Check, they are between "left" and "left-center". I checked before I made that edit. Bongolian (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you also see the "mostly factually correct" part of it? Just because something leans to the left politically doesn't mean it is wrong. Is single payer healthcare wrong because it is mostly advocated for in america by left wing people and is thus "Left-biased?" Centrism is just another political ideology, so it should not be taken as synonymous with political objective rationality.-Flandres (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Leans left" and "leans right" both imply some ideological bias. A centrist is someone who doesn't lean one way or the other enough to be called one or the other. That doesn't mean centrists are objective, of course, but centrism is a concept not a general ideology anymore than atheism is an ideology.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Tara Reade situation is a massive fustercluck but, ladies, keep the vitrol to a minimum, thanks. 21:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A search of of Believe all women on our search engine results in bupkis. Perhaps a description with a discussion of reasonable exceptions might be useful. Obviously this rule is not helpful when settling disputes between two women. On one extreme we are asked to offer a sympathetic ear, on the other to uphold an impossible standard. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * People do come here for news, and see what Flandres said, whom I`m actually surprised I agree with a lot now. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  22:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help me out here? How can this article claim that the phrase "Believe all women" originated in 2020 by the right? If you search the phrase in your favourite search engine can find references to both "believe women" and "believe all women" as early as 2017. Wikipedia uses "believe all women" in the page citing an Elle article from 2017. Even if it is used as a bludgeon by the right, or was created by the right, that doesn't have anything to do with the claims presented in this article. CaseInPointFan (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to correct factual errors anywhere you see them. Talk page commentary - as you've provided above - is always a good idea if your corrections will result in a significant change in meaning or emphasis. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you should read the Washington Post piece regarding this. You need a citation of equal or better quality to back up your claim. Bongolian (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally can't and don't read articles which are locked behind a paywall, but I did for this article. Unfortunately whoever wrote this WP piece isn't here, so I won't be able to tell them that their quote "I revisited the history of the phrase because its original meaning is being retroactively altered, amid discussions of Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, to “Believe all women.” And that extra word is a weapon." I really have nothing else to say other than this claim is wrong, because you can clearly see that the phrase has been used in articles since at least 2017, and with my own anecdotal evidence have seen the term used on Twitter over the past two years, by questionable accounts I wouldn't be able to attribute to either the left or the right. Here's the Elle article I mentioned which has the phrase "believe all women." CaseInPointFan (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Believe all editors
This statement:

"However, there was definite voter suppression involved in a lot of cases here, especially in Wisconsin where he lied[8] to voters saying the CDC had said it was "safe to vote" while a pandemic was going on."

Definitely reads rework, because:

A) The GOP spearheaded the suppression attempt big time here. It backfired big time. This is pretty much the standard story (I can find more than one source on this if you wish, this was huge news in politics.)

B) Joe Biden more or less kind of took a middle of the road, "That's for the Wisconsin courts and folks to decide" kind of approach with the Wisconsin primaries. You can read that early take here. However, he did say on the night of the election that his "gut feel" was not to hold it. It is definitely possible to criticize this stance (and it was criticized then), perhaps in political terms, perhaps in health terms. But "Biden spearheads voter suppression", which is what is implied here, does not seem like a valid take on this. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better way to word it is that "Biden benefited from voter suppression spearheaded by the GOP." — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be better. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also personally change "lied" to "waffled", that to me fits the situation better. (Or maybe something like "pussyfooted around the situation"... basically, he hemmed and hawed while a pandemic was going on.) Soundwave106 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Any evidence Biden cited the CDC? WE don't need to lie do we?Ariel31459 (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Any evidence that Biden actually benefited from the GOP's antics? Remember, the groups most affected by coronavirus are blacks and old people, both of whom overwhelmingly supported Biden. Also remember that Milwaukee county, where turnout dropped the most, was the only county in Wisconsin Bernie lost in 2016. 15:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When someone else commits a crime, and it works out well for you, are you culpable? If so, describe the nature of that guilty association. I don't care if this thing is very negative. I just don't want it to look like a Russian troll wrote it.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added references, you dicks. All demographics under the age of 35 supported Bernie. There's more to voter suppression than the pandemic. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena  <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your reference is shit. CDC is not mentioned, nor is anything about dishonesty., Oxyaena is edit warring. And she is wrong.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oxy, you're just not getting it. Your repeated use of highly-biased sources (Jacobin, a Social Democrat publication) on political pages despite multiple calls not to do so, is not convincing anyone except perhaps Social Democrats. You need to stop it. Take a break from editing political pages. Bongolian (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly recent events suggest a moratorium on all users making political edits, perhaps even nuking the political sections of the Wiki altogether. Politics, especially in our unstable time headed for collapse(unlikely to change if Biden wins the Presidency) just draws out this sort of fanaticism, where edit wars and saloon drama become this moral crusade against the repugnant Other. So long as the feeling of crisis persists(so for the next couple decades) this environment of Knight Templar zeal will only get more intense. These toxic edit wars where nobody leaves convinced so they will all just fight again later will only continue. What does our political wing achieve other than user drama?-Flandres (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Politics is inherently missional and thus should be kept. 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Politics as specifically related to pseudo science maybe(right wingers tend to promote racialism and climate change denial more for instance). The further we go beyond that the more we head towards pointless drama where everybody is convinced they have the monopoly on truth and will never stop edit warring because the feel it is a moral obligation.-Flandres (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do tend to agree with you, Flandres, some of our political pages are awful. Other than pages that specifically deal with authoritarian, bigoted or kook politicians, which are part of our mission, they are not of much value in my view: they're probably covered better by WP as a whole. Bongolian (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This community has a lot of social democrats, there was no consensus. Centrist publications are just as biased as right or left wing ones. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) You're using the argumentum ad populum fallacy ("This community has a lot of social democrats"), but you're not even correct in that statement. The most recent community survey (from 2017) indicates only a small number RW users are social democrat-identified (Forum:2017 Community Survey Results), a total of 8 of 382 respondents (2%). 2) Let's say I wanted to cite a non-opinion piece from a centrist member of the International Fact-Checking Network (e.g. the The Washington Post), but you thought that Jacobin (not a member of IFCN, but also highly biased according to Media Bias/Fact Check) is correct and therefore your statement based on Jacobin should override mine. Does that make sense for RationalWiki? I don't think so. Bongolian (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jacobin is listed as highly factual, what don't you get about that? And that's 2017, quite a few people have joined since then. Most of our prominent and active users have left-leaning sympathies. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact on that sheet you see quite a few lefties, only a few socdems, but quite a few libertarian leftists, general leftists, an anarchist or two, socialists, libertarian socialists, a marxist etc. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  19:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post has problems, most noticeably that its primary shareholder is Jeff Bezos, and that it has its own biases. 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeff Bezos is a Trump enemy. Sounds good so far.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also take the Post over Jacobin by a wide margin, but I must also point out that Bezos is a bad dude. 20:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bezos is a fucking oligarch, what are you talking about it "sounding good?" — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The only things I know about Jeff Bezos I didn't learn in this wiki. There is no concentration of information about him here. He is a billionaire. I guess one of the biggest, next to President Putin. I agree people shouldn't get to be billionaires. But they do. The more of them who oppose Trump, the better. If there is something you think we should know about Bezos, why don't you write an article? @DuceMoosolini: You could actually write an article. If you think he is a bad guy, do tell! Ariel31459 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way are they enemies? From what I've seen, people like Trump, who cut taxes on both the wealthy and their companies, is an ally to them as a whole. And Bezos has jack all in terms of a "man of the people" reputation. 01:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You're grasping at thin air, Oxy. Most lefties do not identify as SocDems. In the US, most identify as Democrats. By most metrics, I would be identified as a lefty. Bongolian (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, most actual leftists do not identify as Democrats, and the modern Democratic Party is not leftist and supports capitalism. It can't be even called center-left.Nabil (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats more a product of the warped USA political spectrum. Most leftists outside of America view the modern USA as having no large left wing party/movement until Bernie Sanders came along. The majority of leftists outside of the USA are either Social Democratic or to the left of that.-Flandres (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know a lot about Bezos GC. But there is a history of antagonism. From the Guardian: "For two and a half years Trump has launched Twitter attacks against Bezos, spuriously claiming Amazon benefits from billions of dollars in subsidies from the US Postal Service while dodging the taxman. Few doubt the president’s animus is truly motivated by Bezos’s ownership of the Post – a bastion of what he calls the “fake news” media – along with, perhaps, envy of his wealth." Trythis, this is a  good one, or the quote came from here. It may all just be genital envy. Lots of stuff about it.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Bezos promised — and by all appearances — has maintained and editorial hands-off on WaPo. This is evidenced by regular and critical news about Amazon on WaPo. Bongolian (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The mainstream media still has an inherent bias in favor of the corporate oligarchy and maintaining the status quo. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  04:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The fucking consensus
ONLY APPLIES TO TARA READE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS FAIR GAME. FUCK OFF. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  19:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed the references about voter supression with a note that connects some more reliable sources together. Your example didn't add up to the statement given, so I've had to remove it for now, but it could and probably should belong in a section talking about Biden's public gaffes in the 2020 democratic primary. 19:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you stop randomly making new ALL CAPS sections every day. It’s getting tiresome and it’s not helping your case. 19:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade Credibility
So no comment about this? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  10:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As for The Intercept, it was founded by Glenn Greenwald, so I don't see how it should be a problem, as opposed to the corporate-backed shills of the plutocratic establishment. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece (as with anything in their commentisfree folder), not a news article. As for relevant inclusion, mention of the time it took to break the story should probably be mentioned somewhere at least, although I personally don't lend much credence to the opinion piece's insinuation that it took that long because of the outlets supporting/being biased towards the Biden campaign. The Ford situation had a different sense of urgency to it (the Intercept article happened around a week before Kavanaughs hearings) that likely meant that outlets opted to report on it as quickly as possible. There's less of an urgency to report here (the elections aren't until November, and frankly Bernie was out the moment Super Tuesday happened so there's also no urgency for having it decide the nominee), so it makes sense that it took them a couple of days. The reporting errors from my perspective seem to be mostly relegated to "this was poorly phrased" rather than actual malice. The claim that Biden hasn't rejected the allegation has been disproven by well... time. So yeah, it might be useful to mention that the story wasn't picked up by the media quickly and that there was poor phrasing, which seems to be the most useful element of that article that we haven't covered in the article yet. 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's common for sexual assault victims to not reveal all the details of the crime right away. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  12:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything I said. 12:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dropping this new bit here, from Reade's hometown local press. In 1996, Reade's ex-husband corroborates having some traumatizing sexual harassment. It's troubling to continue seeing all this "Russian asset" nonsense about Reade, as it seems increasingly obvious she's a moderately eccentric and fairly troubled person who certainly experienced something while working within Biden's office. https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics-government/article242527331.html Mewnst (talk)

What the fuck?
I saw this page some time back, and it had a decent discussion, including corroborations in favor of Tara Reade's alligations. Now, all that has been completely wiped and replaced with weirdo establishment dems'/bureaucrats' denials and implications such as that supporting Bernie Sanders exempts you from having been raped some years ago, or that not filing a complaint regarding an event means that event never occurred. And without a hint of irony turning around and dismissing "believe [all] women" as a R*publican slant. Just compare this pathetic write-up in comparison to the one on the Brett Kavanaugh page. Guccigucci (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a difference in substance to both allegations. I'm not interested in repeating the slapfights that lead to the current state of the page to begin with (just read the talkpage please), but in simplicity: Our opinion here reflects that of what reliable sources say.
 * You'll find that the article doesn't exonerate Biden, nor does it give full credence to his accuser. Nobody is getting exempted from the validity of their allegations just because they support a candidate. The issue with Reade's allegations is that she referenced a fairly concrete piece of evidence (the senate complaint) and when Biden responded with "alright, let's go looking for it then", her response was to first suggest that it only could be in a private section of Biden's personnel files (which are held by a university), and when that became factually untrue since all complaints also have a permanent audit copy she instead just said the complaint didn't reference sexual assault, effectively making it worthless since sexual harassment was already a part of the known allegations which Biden had addressed. The same goes for her mother calling Larry King. She alleged it was a closed and shut case and that it would prove her accusations, but upon examination it wasn't even close to being that. It's a case of making allegations that don't even consistently hold together when closely examined. I do have quite a high tolerance for story changes, details might sometimes just jumble together in one's mind and it can take a bit to unearth the true story, but Reade's allegations have changed wildly in ways that don't hold together upon examination.
 * As for "Believe All Women", far righters (btw you can say Republican on the internet) have been using it as a cudgel to suggest that Democrats don't actually believe it. Believe All Women means "take it seriously when a women tells you sexual assault happens", not "believe women on sexual assault unconditionally". The reason it's relevant to mention is because Reade has been cozying up with far right types who push this narrative, including ones that throw Ford's allegations under the bus.
 * As for Ford, the situation there is wildly different. Ford's situation was brought forward mostly through legal channels, since the credence of those allegations involved someone taking office, and for the most part Ford's story has remained completely unchanged from her initial allegations, with the only notable change being her narrowing of the timeframe.
 * There's also information that's not reflected in here, such as the fact that she gave an interview in which she explicitly stated that Biden should resign, which while not particularly relevant to whether or not her allegations are true or not is only giving fuel to those who don't believe her allegations (and mind you, I do think her allegations are probably true, I just think she's taking a very wrong approach to publicizing them) to not have to believe them since she's "just interested in getting a Sanders nomination". If it sounds like a dirty argument, that's because it is, but sadly politics sometimes gets rather dirty when it comes to these things.
 * The only change I personally would suggest to the page is changing the question at the end of the Larry King bit to not be a question. It's phrasing is rather suggestive and it's not quite fitting with our tone.
 * 11:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, as I noted on the mainspace page, 'believe all women' is a form of right-wing gaslighting by distorting the original term 'believe women'. The two terms have substantially different meanings. If you're pushing 'believe all women', you've either been gaslit or you're a right-wing troll. Bongolian (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , your edit suggesting that "Believe all women" "is new since 2020" is absolutely false. As I've said in the Believe all women section of this talk page, maybe it was created by the right for bludgeoning purposes, but it was not a phrase coined in 2020. To me it seems your inclusion of this in the Joe Biden page is entirely defensive of him, not informative of "Believe women" and what it should mean or how it should be understood by the average person. CaseInPointFan (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a 2020 thing per se (I've found Reddit references in the JAQ-ing off style as far back as 2018 or so), but from all I can Google, "believe all women" is in general right-wing gaslighting. I've generally only found references to this phrase on right wing media, an example being a couple of 2016 reason.com articles that thoroughly demonstrates why libertarian conventions are "sausage parties". (I know, ad hominem, but can't help myself there, tee hee.) Reason.com of course whines about this turn of events in 2020, because of course they would. This is basically a straw man representation of the original "believe women" phrase. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that the phrase wasn't created in 2020. Its inclusion in the page makes it seem as if this is a new bastardized phrase created by the right solely to attack Joe Biden. That is incorrect. CaseInPointFan (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fair; I removed the specific date reference. Soundwave106 (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bongolian (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I am starting to believe there is no such thing as real lefties and real righties
The accusations made against Biden could likewise be made against Trump or Sanders. And no, I am no fan of Biden. It's clear that all of those men just do it for the money. 89.204.137.127 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What accusations? Please be specific. As for there being "real" leftwingers and rightwingers, there are, though these labels can of course be misapplied. 13:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Page protection
Protected the page from non-sysop edits. We're likely to see an influx of attempts to insert cheap political smears (one I reverted today) as the election approaches and this will hopefully stopgap some stuff. 10:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Neocons
This entry needs more information about Biden and Harris being the favourites over Trump in the eyes of the neocons. Which includes support from GWB, numerous neocons, neocon groups and neocon PACs. That oil pipeline needs to be constructed through Syria and Biden's their man to get it done. Hooray on increased conflict and U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq too! &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2607:5300:203:18B7:0:0:0:0 / talk
 * I mean, not to undermine the point of Biden winning the support of Neo-cons but um... We never actually left the Middle East.... 03:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden’s racism.
While it is definitely true that Trump is a racist bigot, Biden is not unknown to have said some pretty racist quotes in the past. Often the same 4-5 quotes are quote-mined again and again, and some are simply made up. How should they be included in the article? (I got this from your cool kids philosopher Ben Shapiro)

04:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.
 * Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.
 * I don’t want my kids to grow up in a racial jungle (half true)
 * In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.
 * Now I know why he's laughed at/hated by both liberals and conservatives. The 2020 election was a vote he only won because his opponent Trump was a monster. -- Goatspeed. 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * While the new way of interpreting language would suggest a bit of racism in the above statements attributed to Biden, one could as well make the case that they suggest classism more than racism. e.g., "You got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." That is pure classism: lower class person rises on merit to become one of the ruling class. Most Americans would not even recognize that as racism, although it is popular in media these days to do so.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Biden-Presidentism
As there are a number of websites taking this stance, and others - so should there be a subsection on this page, and an article of its own when there is enough material? Anna Livia (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would think so, if it persists. I would wait a few weeks or so to see if it becomes something like a movement. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first link is definitely within RW's remit 'somewhere.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Commas
Any reason there are no commas before the vocative "Joe"? GeeJayK (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a play on his nicknames like Amtrak Joe. 22:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, I got it. GeeJayK (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids|
It is well known that "white" denotes a privileged class. The claim, "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids" is a true statement. Reasons for criticism: some white kids are poor? Response: yes, but they are also privileged. There is nothing really wrong with Biden's statement. It is awkward, for certain. No sociologist would put it like that. There is certainly no reason to feature it at the head of the article. Put it somewhere else. Wait, it already is somewhere else. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It has racist undertones I can't help but note your complete ignorance of. This is well worth documenting outside of some relatively obscure funspace article, just like all of the other cringeworthy quotes by him in this article. We will cover him warts and all whether you can handle that or not. Why are you so keen on whitewashing our Biden article by removing well cited facts that add to it? Are you going to try and remove all other quotes in the article that make your idol look bad?-Flandres (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a gaffe. Is it a gaffe that defines Biden? Well, unless we want to paint him as a white supremacist, probably not (which would probably be slanderous). It bears documentation, along with some of his other more notable gaffes in the mainspace however. For now it's inoffensive enough to keep it in the lede, but once we have a paragraph about his gaffes we can move it out of there. 15:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks gentlefolk. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresenting what 'Believe All Women' means
I'm aware there's already been a lot of debate over the section on Tara Reade, and that's fair. However, I think the current wording is misrepresenting what this argument actually means. It brings up the idea of two women contradicting each other, but it doesn't literally mean 'believe every assertion a woman makes'. During the original MeToo movement, many proponents of the movement argued that *any* rape or harassment accusation by a woman should instantly be believed, no questions asked, we take her at her word. Even if not everyone who uses the term 'believe women' meant that, some did, and the right wing (and indeed, some left wing) people calling hypocrisy are making the point that they abandoned that belief in this case. It isn't purely an argument from the right, so I'd recommend that part be changed, and it's referring specifically to people who argued all rape accusations should be believed then went back on their opinion. &mdash; Unsigned, by: SpaceYote / talk / contribs
 * Throwing my comment here so that this thread is properly archived in a while. 11:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel
I know some folks have a hardon for Emanuel, but he hasn't been nominated for a cabinet position. Why is he listed under cabinet nominations? I'm a whinger myself, but I like to have a real thing to whinge about. He might get the Japan ambassador post, but that is speculation about a non cabinet post. Why the premature evisceration? In any event he is under the wrong heading. UncleKrampus (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It specifically says later on in the section Biden WANTS him in a cabinet role, he just has not found a specific role. It speaks poorly of Biden that a man with that resume is being seriously considered at all. Haven't you read the news? Emanuel has pretty much always been on the Biden teams own shortlist. Besides, the section is about more questionable cabinet picks. They don't have to make it(just look at Tanden) -Flandres (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I would think they must have been picked (nominated), before they are picks. The news suggests he is in line for a possible ambassadorship, not a cabinet position. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now. I meant "news from before now," when progressives pressured Biden into not including him in a more grand role. Biden wanted him to be in the cabinet, and technically we have not even determined if he backed down on that yet. He was a questionable choice, and rather than being a utter pedant whole create a whole new subsection just for "people who did not make it off the drawing board" I say we list him here for the sake of simplicity. There is no need to add a comment about "Oh, well if he does pick him than we'll say" because the problem cited is that he was even considering him, not that he was officially picked.-Flandres (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are making a fairly common mistake. Lists are created by staff. Staff also does the vetting, after lists are made. You seem to be suggesting that it is a mark against Biden that his old boss's chief of staff would be put on lists and seriously considered. To be undramatic, I would call that an odd expectation.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * With a Record like Rahm has...it still is a mark against him. Also, Biden has to know at this point. He is pushing for a man with that record.-Flandres (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. It's like an Oh well, we are all human" sort of mark, when it regards unpublished lists. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet he was on that list, and Biden still wants him involved in the administration. You are being ridiculously generous.-Flandres (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know that Biden still wants him on that list (hypothetical list), how do you know? I could say you are being ridiculously sententious, but I am still accustoming myself to the temper for exaggeration here.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rahm has a long history of terrible policies and decisions as well as outright damaging and dangerous records against the black community. Biden considered him for Transportation Secretary before giving it to Mayor Pete, and now is thinking of giving him an ambassadorship. That means he deadass wants a man who covered up the death of a black teenager to be in his administration. So yes, it's worth mentioning. Serocco 20:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you maybe move some of that huge block of text into an article about Rahm? The article is about Joe, and that's a hell of a lot of info about someone he briefly considered for a Cabinet post. 21:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As in make a whole new page for Rahm himself? Serocco 22:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems doable. We also don't need to be as in depth with describing how awful his cabinet picks are-just the highlights.-Flandres (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Like, since there's that much shit about Rahm, just make an article on him and put the stuff there. There's just way too much about Rahm in an article about Joe Biden. Flandres is right, we just need the highlights. 23:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Fighting the press?
This is a questionable topic, at least so far. Asking for questions in advance, it has been claimed, has been done to allow the WH Press Secretary a chance to research questions, not avoid them. Ethically, there is no reason to object to the practice unless a reporter is ignored because of the question she had submitted. So far, that has not happened. Also, asking reporters to pay for testing is a red herring because, the organization a reporter works for will pay for the tests as a cost of doing business. I think the Times can afford it. I sure as hell don't want to subsidize private press operations. Let freaking Breitbart pay for their own damn test. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidently you have not read the above criticism of the subsection. Who do you think they let into the press room at the WH? They are all reporters for big news services, who pay whatever fees are necessary to do business. Do you think pennyless bloggers have ever been allowed in the WH pressroom? Really?UncleKrampus (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a recent(2017) snapshot of the WH pressroom (2017) with names and affiliations. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 170 bucks per day for covid testing, if that was done under Trump, would have been immediately lambasted for effectively privatizing the press. It's 170 bucks per test for each reporter. It's a terrible idea all around and it does limit the press.Serocco 20:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The media can afford to pull its weight. Are you afraid some lone-wolf blogger pretending to be a reporter would be shut out? They don't give those dipshits credentials for the WH briefing room anyway.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Neanderthals
Surely calling people 'Neanderthals' as a negativism is a form of racism/speciesism? Anna Livia (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ...it's a divergence of human evolution that died out 500k years ago that to my understanding died out because it wasn't able to adapt to the progression of human technology and unable to adapt to their habitat changing. I don't quite get the racism angle here, it was said to the governors of Texas and Mississippi; both of whom fall squarely in the "white dudes" category. The comparison seems apt; a decision made by people who don't want to adapt to a new situation and just want to cling to the old one that causes them to die out. However, please do elaborate, because there could be an angle here that I am missing. 11:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an insult. It's not supposed to be nice. One could take a "more highbrow-ish" road and say that Abbott's reckless COVID reopening is truly a great "Major Kong" moment in Texas history. Or one can take a lower brow approach and exclaim, Abbot, what a fucking dumb ignorant rat-licking gobshite. Neither are Joe's style. :) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Substitute (any named group of humans) for 'Neanderthal' and describe them as ignorant - and eg see . Besides Neanderthals had their own culture and persisted as 'a distinct and divergent branch' with a certain culture of their own for several hundred thousand years (and persist in some genetic material in some modern humans). For all we know had they been physically separated from 'modern humans' (islands or continents) they might have persisted and developed to the present day.
 * This (being a reputable source) suggest Neanderthals died out 40k years ago.
 * 'Having advanced degrees in stupidity' would be more appropriate. Anna Livia (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Silver
Silver brainstar needs a vote. I for one do not consider this article good enough. 19:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, will undo my other upgrades then, put in votes. 19:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this page documents rapidly evolving current events, I think silver is premature at this time. Beware also of random IPs adding irrelevant crap. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I still despise the bloated wall of text that is the cabinet nominees section. 03:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Centrist stupidity?
Joe Biden thinks there's a lot more liberal tendencies in there than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who are more of a centrist.
 * Biden has attempted to raise the U.S. minimum wage from $7 to $15, although Republicans oppose it.
 * Bernie Sanders is now chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.
 * The current government's Minister of Labor is also part of the DSA.
 * Biden sometimes makes a slip of the tongue, which may be a bit conservative. But gender minority, race-related policies reveal a stronger propensity for center-left social liberalism than Barack Obama did.

In addition to the above mentioned cases, the Biden administration is liberal in many ways. Biden has a stronger left-liberal tendency than previous Democratic presidents who have been on the centrist line since the 80s.--Umaru16 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, Biden is not without a centrist side. Therefore, I think the 'Centrism' category is more appropriate than the 'Centrist stupidity' category.--Umaru16 (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If you still think Joe Biden is Centrist stupidity, let me give you another example. Moon Jae-in, a South Korean liberal politicians from promising to put the 10,000 won(=$8.75) the minimum wage as the presidential election in 2017 was president. But it has yet to keep its promise. In addition, there is no 'tip' culture in South Korea. (For your information, the minimum wage in South Korea was 6,030 won(=$5.27).) In addition, Moon Jae-in of LGBT rights policy is consistently social conservative. Byun Hee-Soo was silent and opposed to serving in the transgender military even though Moon was kicked out of the military for gender transformation. Moon is even criticized for cleverly suppressing South Korea's largest labor union. --Umaru16 (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In South Korea, a democratic socialist left-wing organization similar to the DSA of the United States has a Labor Party, and in South Korea, these left-wing forces have no power at all. The South Korean moderate liberal government has no cooperation with the center-left Justice Party, which is similar to Jim Kenny, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg in the U.S. On the other hand, the liberal government of the United States is actively aligned with left-wing socialists. (U.S. fiscal conservatives incite South Korea's liberal government as if it were implementing a very radical left-wing economic policy, but intervening in the market is not a left-winger. This is proof that the right wing of the United States are very stupid. I wrote it down in the South Korea page, but South Korea has far less human rights and social welfare than the U.S. In addition, 'social conservatism' is much worse in South Korea than in the United States.)--Umaru16 (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden may be a centrist politician, but his administration is in solidarity with the left-wing DSA. Is he really a Centrist stupidity? I do not agree.--Umaru16 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're thinking about this too hard. Leave it at centrist stupidity and/or liberal moonbattery and call it a day. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I'll use both categories. Biden's recent withdrawal from Afghanistan is also not a 'centrist' policy. Rather, it's a 'populist' policy like Trump and Sanders. --Umaru16 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

i get that biden is more liberal than anything else, but most of what he does wrong has little to do with liberalism, even in the american sense. i propose striking the "liberal moonbattery" category from the article and just leaving him with centrist stupidity. it's not even consistent with the policies the article criticizes him on. G Man (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * the point is: biden might be a liberal, but he's definitely not a moonbat. therefore, i don't think "liberal moonbattery" really fits here. G Man (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Joe Biden is more of a social liberal now. I don't see Joe Biden as a third route like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Even if Joe Biden tries to actively expand his finances, there are too many people who interfere. This has nothing to do with Joe Biden's political position. --Umaru16 (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, there was an article like this last year. (America Is Becoming a Social Democracy: The Biden administration is accomplishing what was once thought historically impossible. - Foreign Policy) --Umaru16 (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Third Way, including New Democrats, has some elements of 'fiscal conservative', as seen by Tony Blair of the UK, Matteo Renzi of Italy, and Bill Clinton of the United States. It doesn't seem like Joe Biden is actively supporting the element of 'fiscal conservative'. --Umaru16 (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There were quite a few people on South Korea's Wiki who described Biden and the Democratic Party of the United States as social democracy. The reason was that South Koreans are far more left economically and socially than Moon Jae In, which is called "social liberalism." I never think Biden is a social democratic. But what's certain is that Joe Biden is never a "centrist" by South Korean standards. Of course, it should be taken into account that I live in a very, very conservative country. --Umaru16 (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In Namuwiki, South Korea's largest wiki, modern liberalism of the U.S. Democratic Party was regarded as "Social democracy" category from late 2020, and this classification was maintained for nearly six months, and Jiwoo used to be restored immediately. And by those categories, major Democratic politicians such as Obama and Biden were classified. In the Talk session, my acquaintance expressed the view that modern American liberalism should not be regarded as social democracy, but concluded that modern liberalism of the U.S. Democratic Party should be viewed as a combination of social liberalism and progressivism for compromise.--Umaru16 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, South Korean "liberal" are NOT progressive. Even conservatives who are not liberal at all in the context of European politics in South Korea describe themselves as "liberal." Of course, in the general sense, liberalism means DPK. South Korea's Justice Party does not like Bernie Sanders, but claims to be a "social democratic" rather than a "liberal." It just means that they oppose the misogyny of the conservative party People Power Party and the fake social liberal party DPK. The Justice Party's economic policy is so, so very very very very moderate that it cannot be regarded as social democracy, and English-speaking media describe them as "liberal." The main figures of the Justice Party almost hate the Democratic Party of South Korea, but they like the Democratic Party of the United States very much. This shows how far-right the soil of South Korean politics is. --Umaru16 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason why I didn't agree with the idea that Republicans are far-right on international standards in the Lincoln Project article last time is that many countries in Asia, even in developed countries, are more conservative than Americans imagine. The United States is not a conservative country. I don't think the United States is socially conservative, and I think the welfare of the United States has the basic things to have as an advanced country except for the health insurance system.--Umaru16 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'm suggesting is to use only the 'Centrism' category and the 'Government incompetence' category among many categories. Biden's policies as president are very different from those of the days when Obama or Clinton was president. I object to classifying him into a category called 'Centrist stupidity'.--Umaru16 (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Holy crap dude--Spoony (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I expected Americans to respond, "What kind of Bullshit is this?" The problem is that South Korea actually recognizes the U.S. Democratic Party like that. It's like a shit... The problem is that in South Korea, there are really many people who think that way of the U.S. Democratic Party.--Umaru16 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are so many idiots on the South Korean wiki site. On the Wiki site, my acquaintances and I tried to write down the view that the U.S. Democratic Party has a "conservative" view, but some users protested, saying, "Conservative Demomcrats' 'consernvatvie' means fiscal conservative. is not conservative because it is culturally liberal. Fiscial conservatism means economic liberalism." So I couldn't add a conservative faction to the Democratic Party of Korea on that South Korean-language wiki site. But even funnier, the democratic socialist faction within the Democratic Party of America is mentioned in great detail. The some user seemed to be a supporter of the Justice Party, but it was really so annoying and looked like a Shit. (Since I am LGBT living in South Korea, I strongly support the Justice Party.)--Umaru16 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Japan has better welfare than the United States. Therefore, unlike South Koreans, Japanese people do not think the U.S. Democratic Party is a social democratic party, but rather conservative. However, it means conservative in the economic sense. Even they are likely to see the U.S. Democratic Party as very left-wing socially.--Umaru16 (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There will be no need to consider South Koreans' perceptions in the "English" wiki dealing with American politics. Personally, I don't think Joe Biden is "Centrist stupidity," but I agree that he's not "moonbattery".--Umaru16 (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed my view
I agree that he is not Moonbet. I don't agree with the "Centrist stupidity" category, but if public opinion believes that the category "Centrist stupidity" should be maintained, I will no longer object to maintaining the category.--Umaru16 (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Therefore, you don't have to pay attention to what I said above. However, it is clear that in fact, not a few people in South Korea have that perception of American politics.--Umaru16 (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)