-11
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
-11 points (40.4% liked)
politics
19090 readers
2441 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If you mean vote for him vs. not vote for him, then yes.
If you mean vote for him vs. the Republican nominee, then no, as there are other options. For starters the article seemed to suggest that some may just not vote at all. They also might vote for him but do so reluctantly, e.g. without discussing with their friends strongly promoting the voting for Biden as they did in the last election.
But it's a long way to the actual election, and campaigning has not started in earnest yet.
How could that ever be successful? I like the Billions paraphrase
—Billions
"Successful"? Ah, I see, you think they are making their choices strategically, rather than emotionally. Interesting. :-D
I kid, but there actually is strategy involved there - by saying that their votes cannot be "counted on", they could be attempting to wrangle additional concessions.
Ofc there is a bunch of nonsense going on as well - e.g. blaming Biden for not managing to codify Roe v. Wade, in this Congress!? They would have a better chance of asking to go to the moon - that is expensive but at least possible in theory!:-P I mention Congress ofc bc that is the government body that passes laws - the Presidency enforces, maybe vetoes, but does not make laws, so having a President receptive to and even someone who heavily pushes for a certain thing is not sufficient. Contrary to popular opinion, the Presidency has many limitations, and you do not simply show up to vote and somehow life gets "all better", as some seem to think. Young people can be quite inexperienced and naive sometimes.
Then again, it was not young people that gave us Trump, and if they choose not to bail this country out again a second time, especially if they vote their conscience as a result of Israel (right or wrong mind you, in fact especially the latter), I will not be blaming the least experienced among us as the scapegoat to all of life's problems... It should not be the case that it is up to those least prepared to deal with a situation, to be the deciding factor that "saves" us all - and the fact that we continue to ignore this aspect every time the young people show up to do so, shows how perilous the situation truly is. Maybe next time they won't? If so, then we never deserved saving in the first place... bc that's not freedom, to continually lie in the shadow of destruction.
yes. he likes to take sole credit for their victories, he can also take some credit for their failings, too. Shoulda kept Manchin on a shorter leash.
Not that I imagine biden tried all that hard on it. I mean, he once voted to overturn it. in 1982... he still says that he's personally opposed. I just imagine it's not on his list of things he really gives a damn about, but somebody in his camp managed to convince him he at least needs to shut up about.
That's probably the gist of it right there in fairness - he could have tried harder. Then again, he knows what's what, and like (a) the mess he inherited from the previous occupant of the job took an enormous amount of effort to deal with, like basically ALL of the efforts, really, that were to spare (and things like the border crisis, huge spike in homelessness, greedflation, etc. continue onwards even now), and so (b) to have fought the good fight would have come at the cost of enormous political capital that would have prevented other things from happening. Thought experiment: what would Dems be willing to give up, in order to have made a useless (I mean purely in the sense of doomed to failure in the short term, though ultimately such things may need a coordinated effort over many years) attempt to appear to try to codify Roe v. Wade? Would we have been willing to sacrifice funding for Ukraine? Passing a budget for the year at all? College loan remittance? Political capital has limits, so in order to work towards that goal, something else must be sacrificed, that's just reality.
Also, unpopular opinion alert - or rather, adjacent to one, in the service of a deeper understanding - women are not prevented from having abortions, at least on the federal level. If a state such as Florida or Texas etc. prevents such a thing, then don't live in those states? There are MANY things going on in those states - book burnings, teacher shortages, also libraries, also doctors/nurses, also basic infrastructure, the list just goes on forever - and Biden is merely one old man, so what is he being asked to do, replace Jesus in those states? There is only so much that he or any one person could do. e.g., when a Supreme Court seat opens up, that's when he can do a lot to work towards his goal, but I cannot say this loudly enough, even as a President he cannot pass laws. He can be part of a solution but he cannot be the entirety of one. Nor should he be.
Enormous? I don't think Manchin was all that expensive of lay.
Abortion is the most prominent example of how Biden's positions diverge from most his base... because most his base have sex. sorry to be so blunt. It's not healthcare to his mindset because it's not something he and his partner are likely to need any time soon. and likely the same for... every friend his age. To young twenty-somethings looking to establish themselves and not get burdened with the obscene costs of having a child... it's far more than "just" healthcare.
There's other issues that his age puts him on the wrong side of- or could be conceived as such. the housing crisis, for example. in the short term (next decade,) the housing bubble is benefiting retirees resolving it means the prices come down.. and houses represent a large (quite possibly the largest) chunk of their net worth. There's also climate change, which... just isn't an issue for him. he will not live to see the consequences of failing.
and he is failing. Is he failing less badly than republicans? certainly. But if we don't get our shit together in the next few years... the world is fucked. no that's not right. The world is already fucked. we don't get our shit together, the world is fucked to death. climate change is an existential crisis. Not in the "humanity will cease to exist" existential crisis. But in the "Society will fundamentally reshape itself" sort.
I should have admitted in my previous response that I might be biased, trying to find a shred of hope where none exists. But also I aim not to be either an optimist nor a pessimist, but a realist. I do not claim to actually know what that means here though:-).
That said, what I said earlier still seems true to me: if you live in a state that allows - maybe even enshrines? - abortion as a right, then its being banned in other states affects you none to little (unless you actively visit those states, perhaps even traveling through them on the way to other states?), while if you live in a state that bans abortions, you have MANY problems, of which that is merely one of them (a big one to be sure). So it is one issue - perhaps the biggest of our time - and yet all of that said... what are we going to ACTUALLY DO about it? Congress needs to pass a law to make a decision one way or the other. Or else individual states need to do that. So far, Congress is more divided than it has ever been (during the Civil War, the South did not send their representatives anymore, so bills actually got passed!:-P), and we are looking towards another constitutional crisis happening as soon as the very next election, possibly spilling out into actual bloodshed. I don't, but listen to the rhetoric on the side most likely to fire the first shot, and tell me that has no chance of happening, sometime in the next ten years? So yeah, I believe Biden when he says that it would be a difficult ask to get such a thing through Congress right now... that's not about what's right or what's wrong, it's about what's possible at the current time.
Also look at democracy globally - like UK with Boris Johnson, Brazil with Bolsonaro, uh... right now is not a good time for democracy it seems. I am not speaking out against it, just echoing your thoughts that we are already fucked, in so many more ways than one, since it seems that our particular brand of it (meaning: coupled with low levels of edumacashion), seems to be vulnerable to certain outside parties who may have interests in interfering with our electoral processes? :-(
And in the midst of ALL of that, what the Dems offer is... Biden. Yeah, I know, but it's not about what's ideal, it's about what is possible.
He could stop sending weapons to Israel. That would be a nice start.
Okay, a fair point, but... we were talking about abortion:-D. (also, can we stop, or is it a stipulation somewhere in the contract that we must send? perhaps any time they are "attacked" we must automatically send a certain amount? there may be more there than the for-profit news media is willing to tell us, thinking that we are too dumbp to undermastand so they instead just focus on emotional one-liners that generate more clicks...)
They bypassed congressional oversight to sell Israel tank shells.
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/israel-m830a1-120mm-tank-cartridges
My bad, I got lost in the comment chain
No biggie! :-)