One theme that Trump keeps repeating is that he’s done more in 47 months as POTUS than Biden did in 47 years in government. Here’s what I’d like to specifically debate regarding this topic, and digressions I want to avoid.
Things that are obvious and don’t need to be hashed out.
It’s not quite 47 years for Biden. He was first elected in 1972, so a start date of 1973 through 2016 makes 44 years. My guess is Trump forgot to subtract most recent three plus years that Biden has been out of office.
Most of that time Biden was in the Senate, with only the last 8 as VP. In those positions he wouldn’t be able to get things done the way a POTUS can.
With that out of the way, here’s what I tend to get as the thrust of the argument and why it makes no sense to me, even if we ignore the above two points. The people who make the argument seem to be saying that things were not any better in 2016 than they were in 1973. Here are my two questions about this.
Is this actually what the implication of the argument is? If not, and if they really are trying to limit this to Biden in particular rather than the US government as a whole, then see my 2nd point above. No need to go any further with the people who bust out the 47 months vs. 47 years thing.
This is where it gets interesting. If I am correct in my assumption, and the claim is that the US government did not accomplish anything in those 44 (not 47) years, how can people actually believe that? To me it’s obvious that things were better in 2016 than they were in 1973, in almost all areas of life. Obviously things weren’t perfect, but there was less racism, less poverty, less crime, improved healthcare outcomes, massive progress in technology, etc when comparing 2016 to 1973.
As a room for an out, I suppose that the argument could be taken to be applying to the Democratic Party 1973-2016 rather than just to Biden personally or to the US government as a whole. This makes a little more sense, but still ignores the fact that Democrats had full control for only 8 of those 44 years, 4 under Carter, and 2 each for Clinton and Obama.
What do you all think?
ETA. Trump did not just bust that out for the first time last night. It’s been several weeks now that I’ve been seeing the local Trump supporters use this line on Facebook on any news article dealing with the election.
I think it’s a meaningless statement and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that Trump has accomplished very little positive during his tenure. Yes, it’s also a right-wing meme but, like most of those, it’s grounded in fundamental untruths.
Trying to “do the math” on it doesn’t really matter.
Why doesn’t Biden just take credit for everything good that happened in the last 47 years? Like balancing the budget in the 90’s and the fall of the Soviet Union.
I’m going to concur with the “overthinking it” analysis above. It’s a cute slogan that appeals to exactly the kind of idiots who are incapable of understanding how the US government actually works. You know, Trump supporters.
Trying to understand it as if it has a real point underlying it makes about as much sense as trying to understand the underlying logic of a paranoid schizophrenic’s rants about the Martian Space Rats who are eating his brain. “Okay, we know there are no rats on Mars, and if they were on Mars, then they wouldn’t be in “space”, but perhaps there are some rats (of indeterminate origin) expressing interest in eating his brain?” No. Just no.
I am pretty sure they used the same idea even more nonsensically against HRC - why didn’t you do something about the tax laws while you were a Senator (or Sec of State or FLOTUS)
That bit where Trump went on and on about Obama’s failure to fill open judicial vacancies was another missed opportunity to point out that he doesn’t have the first idea about how the government actually works.
Exactly. Even to dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, it should be hard to actually contend that Biden got nothing done in his six(?) terms in the Senate, or his 8 years as VP. His fingerprints are all over a lot of legislation from about the mid-1980s up through his election to the Vice Presidency.
But, since he wasn’t President, or a total gloryhound, it looks to the profoundly ignorant like he didn’t do anything but take up space in the Senate.
For the sake of argument, though, let’s assume that a given senator spent 44 years in office but didn’t introduce or help draw up any meaningful legislation of his/her own. He/she just voted, spoke on the floor, etc.
Would that senator be a real outlier? Could we consider her/him a real “do-nothing” senator?
It’s not a “serious” comparison. Trump is trying to brand himself as the outsider who gets things done, and Biden as the ultimate insider - been in Government for 47 years! It has nothing to do with Biden being one vote in 1/2 of a branch of government and Trump being all of another; it’s a “Washington is bad, and you’re part of it!” thing.
I found it funny as hell that Trump at one time blames Biden as being too harsh with the “superpreditor” crime bills in the 80s, but soft on law and order. OK, which is it?
Trump is good at marketing, and one of the lessons he learned early is give voters something simple to chew on. It’s consistent with Trump’s “I alone can fix it” and “I know more than the generals” pitch. Trump’s candidacy is premised on his being a king of the free market, and that he can bring the efficiency of markets to fix the labyrinth that is our political system.
Instead, he’s brought his penchant for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility, which is gradually coming into view for some of the voters who supported him in 2016.
Your timeline is wrong, Reagan appointed Doug Ginsburg after Bork was defeated. Ginsburg withdrew after allegations that he smoked marijuana with his students at Harvard Law. Reagan then appointed Anthony Kennedy who was confirmed.
George H W Bush appointed Thomas to take the place of Thurgood Marshall when he retired.
.