[basedgod]

I'm torn between doubting his actual efficacy from never holding office nor being in government, with that of thinking it doesn't really matter, that what we really need is an effective leader with moral and ideological direction, who leaves the policies up to our bureaucratic state

because biden- and almost every other recent president – have been politicians for decades, then yet still get nothing done.

John Stewart, at least has the truck record of being able to deeply research issues and find and stand for his moral ground in a consistent, predictable manner

I wouldn't trust him to " run the country" by himself. but I also don't think you need to be able to do that to be president. John Kennedy in a 1960s filled his kitchen cabinet full of highly intelligent people to help him govern. as a counterexample, George w. Bush was rather unintelligent, but filled his cabinet full of insanely intelligent( but evil ) and was highly effective in pursuing his agenda

If nothing else, John Stewart would be moral compass for the country

to preempt somebody jumping in on this with a dumb take on Trump: he accomplished rather little as a president, certainly far less than he could have, because he filled his cabinet with blithering yes men, Rather than a cohesive team that could strategize

[chrisseaton]

I don't think penning a comedy bit counts as any kind of serious 'research'.

It's super easy to say something facile but funny about a subject and to clown around with rage when you don't have to actually do anything about it. I think he's said himself when challenged that it's just comedy and he's just a comedian.

[basedgod]

I think what matters more is not his current views on any particular subject or knowledge thereof. but rather his well demonstrated ability to not only challenge his own views( and the current prevailing views/ countercurrent views ) - but also that of being able to surround himself by writers and collaboraters and and other people who can challenge his views.

it's very analogous to empiricism in research. I wouldn't trust him to get the right answer on his own, nor on the first time. but, I'd trust him, that it put up the the task on the issue of governance, he wouldn't be arrogant enough to assume he knows the only right way to do something, and hed actually try to sorround himself by intelligent capable people, and rely on their advice to get things done

[BuyMyBitcoins]

I understand where you’re coming from. From my perspective, leadership in Washington is already surrounded by a cadre of policy wonks and researchers who guide policy and inform the lawmakers. While it is no-doubt true that the personalities of the politicians involved determine how open to reflection they are, the POTUS is often just picking between a handful of proposals which have been compiled for consideration.

This is something touched on with Bush Jr.’s Decision Points. The president has so many things to handle that they end up having little time to truly delve deep into the problem and wind up delegating most of that to their staff. It was a meme when Bush said he was “the decider”, but it’s very accurate.

[chrisseaton]

Challenge himself, surround himself etc - but to make better jokes. They’re just jokes not genuine positions. He’s said that himself - it’s just done for comedy. He looks for the funniest thing to say over looking for the truth.

[thr0wawayf00]

> he accomplished rather little as a president, certainly far less than he could have, because he filled his cabinet with blithering yes men, Rather than a cohesive team that could strategize

I agree that his cabinet was a mess, but he also had a firmly GOP congress his first two years that gave him incredible backing and they passed a fair amount of legislation because congressional GOP leadership are very organized.

Now that the GOP controls the Supreme Court and quite likely will control congress in the next cycle, the next Republican president is going to have an unprecedented amount of power.

[basedgod]

a ham sandwich could have accomplished what he did. Rather, probably could have accomplished more than him. he was so incompetent that he probably accomplished less Republican agenda than if a lobotomized generic Republican candidate was in his stead. any generic Republican president would have been able to appoint the same Supreme Court judges. he changed nothing about this calculus after getting elected.

essentially, I believe almost any other person other than him could have accomplished more towards the Republican agenda than he did. it's almost unprecedented how little he did in spite of the power the Republicans had in 2016.

[AnimalMuppet]

What's really weird about Biden is that he tried to govern as though he had a strong legislative majority. He didn't, and it didn't work. He could have done better if he didn't act like he could run everything without the Republicans. Instead, he keeps proposing things that are too extreme for the most conservative members of his own party, and then being surprised that they don't pass the Senate.

And, as you say, he has been a politician for decades. He should know this.

Unless... is it possible that he's smart? Is he pandering to the liberal wing of his own party, throwing out ideas that he knows are extreme and not good policy, and then letting them die in Congress?

Or is he trying to shine a spotlight on Manchin and Systema, and get them primaried?

All in all, I don't understand his strategy. It seems to not work very well, and it seems that he should know better.

[hotpotamus]

I wonder what working with the Republicans to legislate would actually produce these days. For instance, they considered Roe extreme and so they unilaterally overturned it. They considered banning prayer in public schools as extreme and unilaterally overturned that. I wonder what it is that they could agree on and actually pass?

[AnimalMuppet]

Gun legislation. Passed with at least some bipartisan support.