Author Topic: Biden fields union questions as he tries to keep grip on Democratic Party (Read 2352 times)

mystery-ak · « **on:** July 10, 2024, 11:30:32 am »

Biden fields union questions as he tries to keep grip on Democratic Party
By
Naomi Lim
July 10, 2024 11:03 am
.

President Joe Biden will make his pitch to a key labor union whose organizing power could help him beat former President Donald Trump in November if he remains the Democratic nominee.

Biden is scheduled to deliver “brief” remarks and answer questions during a “drop by” into the AFL-CIO‘s executive council meeting Wednesday in Washington, according to his campaign. The AFL-CIO is the country’s largest union federation, with members including the American Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

“This is the latest example of President Biden rallying the Biden-Harris coalition this week around the stakes of this election,” Biden campaign spokesman Seth Schuster wrote Wednesday of Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. “As the president spelled out in a letter [Monday] to congressional Democrats: he is staying in the race, and he will beat Donald Trump in November.

“He then reaffirmed his commitment and answered questions on Morning Joe, to supporters, with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and to Democratic mayors from across the country on Tuesday night,” Schuster said. “Last week, he met with Democratic governors, attended a black church service in Philadelphia, organized with union members in Harrisburg, and more.”

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3076038/biden-fields-union-questions-tries-keep-grip-democratic-party/

mystery-ak · « **Reply #1 on:** July 10, 2024, 11:31:36 am »

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1811056665304703442

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1811058738683400638

mystery-ak · « **Reply #2 on:** July 10, 2024, 11:33:25 am »

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1811056536619221217

bigheadfred · « **Reply #3 on:** July 10, 2024, 11:37:29 am »

Quote from: mystery-ak on July 10, 2024, 11:31:36 am

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1811056665304703442

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1811058738683400638

Right_in_Virginia · « **Reply #4 on:** July 10, 2024, 11:38:59 am »

Brenden Dilley
@WarlordDilley

Joe Biden and the Democrats aren't getting crushed because of Joe's age.

They're getting crushed because their policies are America Last, only benefit themselves and are inherently stupid and corrupt.

Joe's senility is just icing on the cake.

9:39 AM · Jul 10, 2024

Right_in_Virginia · « **Reply #5 on:** July 10, 2024, 11:46:55 am »

https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/1811061702198169865

Right_in_Virginia · « **Reply #6 on:** July 10, 2024, 12:08:50 pm »

https://x.com/theblaze/status/1811067773532958795

deb · « **Reply #7 on:** July 10, 2024, 12:12:31 pm »

Quote from: Right_in_Virginia on July 10, 2024, 12:08:50 pm

https://x.com/theblaze/status/1811067773532958795

He’s so good at extemporaneous speaking.

jafo2010 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 10, 2024, 01:09:06 pm »

Simply stated, Biden is a moron, always has been a moron and will soon be a total blank slate.

Makes one wonder exactly how dumb the people of the state of Delaware are to repeatedly vote for this idiot.

Biden is a fine example of why it is critical that we implement TERM LIMITS yesterday!

Maj. Bill Martin · « **Reply #9 on:** July 10, 2024, 01:13:35 pm »

Quote from: jafo2010 on July 10, 2024, 01:09:06 pm

Biden is a fine example of why it is critical that we implement TERM LIMITS yesterday!

There already are Presidential term limits....

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already held - correctly, in my opinion - that Congressional term limits require a constitutional amendment.

mystery-ak · « **Reply #10 on:** July 10, 2024, 01:29:09 pm »

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1811064207837626504

Bigun · « **Reply #11 on:** July 10, 2024, 01:34:09 pm »

Quote from: Maj. Bill Martin on July 10, 2024, 01:13:35 pm

There already are Presidential term limits....

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already held - correctly, in my opinion - that Congressional term limits require a constitutional amendment.

Why on earth would anyone be in favor of limiting their choices?

Right_in_Virginia · « **Reply #12 on:** July 10, 2024, 03:22:03 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on July 10, 2024, 01:34:09 pm

Why on earth would anyone be in favor of limiting their choices?

I think term limits do the opposite @Bigun ..... they expand options beyond the incumbent class.

Cleaning out the House every 10 years and a Senate seat every 12 years forces people to engage in the process.

Bigun · « **Reply #13 on:** July 10, 2024, 03:28:44 pm »

Quote from: Right_in_Virginia on July 10, 2024, 03:22:03 pm

I think term limits do the opposite @Bigun ..... they expand options beyond the incumbent class.

Cleaning out the House every 10 years and a Senate seat every 12 years forces people to engage in the process.

I respectfully disagree. @Right_in_Virginia As has been repeated here many times previously, we already have term limits. Two years for the House, six for the Senate, and four for President.

Right_in_Virginia · « **Reply #14 on:** July 10, 2024, 09:07:27 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on July 10, 2024, 03:28:44 pm

I respectfully disagree. @Right_in_Virginia As has been repeated here many times previously, we already have term limits. Two years for the House, six for the Senate, and four for President.

Respectfully, this

is not the definition most folks, including me, have in mind when discussing term limits @Bigun

You're referring to the length of a term, I'm referring to the number of times one individual is eligible to hold the office. The only office of those you cite with a number of terms limitation is the Presidency --- I think 10 and 12 years is a good opening bid for Congress; 5 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate.

It's really past time to rid ourselves of the ongoing incumbent advantage that leads to corruption, deep state fiefdoms and depresses citizen involvement.

Serving in Congress was not supposed to be a 30--40 year career. Let's pave a way for those citizen lawmakers, as envisioned by our Founders.

Bigun · « **Reply #15 on:** July 10, 2024, 10:11:13 pm »

Quote from: Right_in_Virginia on July 10, 2024, 09:07:27 pm

Respectfully, this is not the definition most folks, including me, have in mind when discussing term limits @Bigun

You're referring to the length of a term, I'm referring to the number of times one individual is eligible to hold the office. The only office of those you cite with a number of terms limitation is the Presidency --- I think 10 and 12 years is a good opening bid for Congress; 5 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate.

It's really past time to rid ourselves of the ongoing incumbent advantage that leads to corruption, deep state fiefdoms and depresses citizen involvement.

Serving in Congress was not supposed to be a 30--40 year career. Let's pave a way for those citizen lawmakers, as envisioned by our Founders.

I fully understand your definition @Right_in_Virginia and still don't want you, or anyone else, telling me who can elect to any office for however many times I choose. If the person I elect does a good job I'll vote to keep him. If he doesn't I'll vote to replace him with someone who will.

Hoodat · « **Reply #16 on:** July 11, 2024, 12:12:12 am »

Term limits wouldn't be an issue if the budget was balanced.

Right_in_Virginia · « **Reply #17 on:** July 11, 2024, 12:26:48 am »

Quote from: Bigun on July 10, 2024, 10:11:13 pm

I fully understand your definition @Right_in_Virginia and still don't want you, or anyone else, telling me who can elect to any office for however many times I choose. If the person I elect does a good job I'll vote to keep him. If he doesn't I'll vote to replace him with someone who will.

I understand your preference @Bigun ..... but, it's just not working in the aggregate. And since the Constitution demands such restriction on the POTUS, I'm looking forward to an honest debate on this for the Congress, as well.

Fishrrman · « **Reply #18 on:** July 11, 2024, 07:02:01 pm »

We don't need term limits.

What we DO need are "age limits":
- for Presidents and Vice Presidents
- for Senators
- for House members
- for Federal judges
- for Supreme Court Justices

Not necessarily the same age limit for all those positions.
But some kind of "limit", regardless.
Reach that limit, and you're automatically retired.

cato potatoe · « **Reply #19 on:** July 11, 2024, 07:12:18 pm »

Quote from: Fishrrman on July 11, 2024, 07:02:01 pm

We don't need term limits.

What we DO need are "age limits”

I think the vast majority of citizens would get behind an age limit of 80 for all federal positions. Current representatives would be “grandfathered” in so there should not be much opposition after this ordeal.

Hoodat · « **Reply #20 on:** July 11, 2024, 09:03:04 pm »

Quote from: Fishrrman on July 11, 2024, 07:02:01 pm

We don't need term limits.

What we DO need are "age limits":
- for Presidents and Vice Presidents
- for Senators
- for House members
- for Federal judges
- for Supreme Court Justices

Not necessarily the same age limit for all those positions.
But some kind of "limit", regardless.
Reach that limit, and you're automatically retired.

What we need is a money limit. Once any politician realizes a $500,000 gain in their personal wealth after taking office, they should be kicked out of office that instant and forfeit the remainder of their salary.

DefiantMassRINO · « **Reply #21 on:** July 11, 2024, 09:08:59 pm »

We need a Constitutional amendment to set a maximum age of 80 for President, Vice-President, Cabinet Secretaries, Senators, Reps, Supreme Court Justices, and Federal Judges ... current fossils being grandfathered in.

Fishrrman · « **Reply #22 on:** July 11, 2024, 11:38:19 pm »

80?
That's TOO OLD.
Haven't you learned ANYTHING from looking at what's going on with ol' white joe right now?

Make it 70 as the maximum age for being elected. Pres & VP. 67 would be better. If it was me, I'd make it 63.
Senators, too.
Perhaps 68 for House reps. That means, "70 and out".

Federal judges: mandatory retirement upon reaching age 72.
Supreme Court: a little older, mandatory retirement at, say, 75.

And PLEASE don't call this "age discrimination".
Age discrimination is BUILT INTO the Constitution, courtesy of the Founders.
As in "minimum ages" for Reps, Senators, Presidents.

If the Constitution can mandate minimum ages, it can do the same with maximum ages.
Put it "in there", and it BECOMES "Constitutional". End of story.