226
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 25 Dec 2024
226 points (95.9% liked)
politics
19241 readers
1703 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Biden isn’t the worst president ever, but he’s a piece of shit. He was entirely not up to the task of our time, and that was obvious in 2020. His presidency had more to do with fulfilling an old man’s lifelong desire to sit in the big seat, rather than meet the needs of the citizenry. It was basically a make-a-wish project for establishment Democrats who desire gentlemanly order and aggrandizement more than any meaningful policy goals. This was a group project, and all of the self-interested facilitators that covered up his senility (going back before the 2020 race), are directly culpable in the emerging feudal reign that Republicans are orchestrating, as well as the unjust murders of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Gaza. I started his administration feeling weary but cautiously hopeful that we may have averted calamity. I end his administration having lost confidence in not only our government, but of our people. I could not have more contempt for the entire American project and all the hollow sentiments that cloak the inhumanity of it. Biden is such a clown.
He's literally patting himself for doing the best job he could instead of bowing out sooner.
What a dumb take. If Harris had been in the Presidential seat, she would have lost by more.
Trump's fear mongering and lies are all that got him elected. Plain and simple. Putting ANY candidate up against a sitting president for re-election that just lies and says fascist bullshit non-stop is a sure winner.
Fuck no. Biden, Harris, and the Democratic consultancy machine did not run a presidency or a campaign that came within a million miles of supporting that claim.
In a populist age, like we are in, what beats right wing populists (fascists) is left wing populists. The Biden presidency nudged the party in that direction, but neither he nor Harris were capable of running a populist campaign.
Well, the Biden administration briefly entertained some left-wing populist positions, which were unceremoniously jettisoned along with any credibility Democrats once had on the subject.
As Biden just did with the now-ridiculous notion that Democrats support trans people.
Biden made serious progress for unions, consumers, and in antitrust. I'm not putting him up for sainthood, but progress is progress. He was the most progressive president of the last 50 years which, sadly, is a super low bar.
Politics is compromise. Biden is not supreme leader of the United States. He shares power with Republicans. The Republicans will get some wins, and every one of them will be ugly and outrageous. If America wanted to support trans people, they should have elected a Democratic House.
Our Democratic Senate voted overwhelmingly against trans people.
The Senate doesn't rule any more than the President. The Senate must also compromise with the House. If America doesn't want Republicans to influence policy, then America has to stop voting for Republicans.
The real question is, why do Republicans choose to use their leverage on this shit? The answer is simple. It allows them to undermine Democrats by splitting the left. Your reaction is the exact reason why trans people just got screwed. You are personally more responsible than anyone in the Senate.
There need to be hard red lines. Human rights are one of these. This bill is literally, without any exaggeration, going to result in several thousand dead children. But the very survival of trans people is "political," so it's OK to sacrifice our lives for the sake of political expediency.
A few thousand dead kids is nothing, because deep down, people don't see trans people as human beings.
I sincerely doubt it. The impact is limited to trans children of active service members who do not have a second parent with health insurance. Furthermore, trans healthcare for kids generally means puberty blockers, not surgeries or other expensive interventions. As far as I can gather, that's about $5k-$12k per year if insurance pays, and likely lower with self pay discounts. That's easily doable with a GoFundMe.
None of that is to say it's OK. I'm just addressing the assertion of thousands of deaths.
Nobody should be thrown under the bus, but political reality in a split government says that someone will be. This gave Republicans the hate fix they so desperately wanted with probably less impact than with any other group. I still agree it sucks, but without knowing what the alternatives were, it's not rational to assume Democrats just didn't care to do better.
Compromise is not enthusiastic capitulation, which is what we got. This wasn't a squeaker. Democrats overwhelmingly voted for this in the senate. The party abandoned trans people and you're defending them for it.
Well, Democrats' last word to trans people for the foreseeable future was "we're doing what Republicans want." Democrats had an opportunity to do better here.
Because they know that Democrats will break solidarity with any vulnerable minority and then blame anyone who is upset about it, like so:
This is bullshit. Centrists are responsible for their own cowardice and their own complicity. Don't blame people who are upset because you got everything you wanted.
An overwhelming vote is not the same as an enthusiastic vote. The bill got 100% of the Democratic vote in the executive branch, yet Biden was far from enthusiastic about that provision.
The Democrats had to compromise with Republicans on something, and Republicans choose which issues to compromise on, and which to hold firm to. The Republicans chose trans people, not the Democrats. It's possible that the Democrats could have offered some other group, but they don't have the power for it not to screw any vulnerable minority. That bill was never going to arrive at the Senate.
Cowardice and centrism have nothing to do with this bill. I'm the first to agree that Democrats are cowardly centrists, but not in this context. When Democrats have to compromise with Republicans to pass critical legislation, that legislation will definitionally be more "centrist" than the Democrats themselves.
Where cowardly centrism comes into play is in presenting their case to the American people. I absolutely do blame Kamala and her consultants for totally avoiding trans issues in her campaign. But, when the election is done, the country doesn't operate without compromises with elected Republicans.
I'm not sure why you would assume I got everything I wanted. The trans stuff is just the start of what I don't like about this funding bill. I also have no doubt that if the Democrats owned both branches that there would still be a lot I don't like, but I think the trans provision would be gone.
It was unfair of me to say it was your fault that Republicans chose to force the trans issue in this bill. It's not. It will be your fault when they do it next time though, because you are rewarding them for it.
Yes it is.
He says he isn't. You give him the benefit of the doubt. You trust him. I do not.
Or capitulation, as in this case.
Because you're carrying water for a lame duck president whose career is over.
I don't.
And the next time Democrats throw trans people under the bus, it'll be your fault for defending them. Not that this isn't the intended outcome.
My apologies. I should have realized that your just a troll.
This is not, in general, true, or else everyone would be doing it. Trump is a right-wing populist who's taking advantage of people's dissatisfaction with the status quo and the Democrats' unwillingness to change it. You need both sides for this equation to make sense.
Exactly. The Ds wanted to keep things the way they were, to the point they threw Biden in last minute in 2020 for the Ds to rally around. The Ds had a supermajority with Obama and they did jack shit with it. Unless they abandon the status quo stance they have they will continue to lose, which with Pelosi pushing the old guy over AOC shows they haven't learned yet and will cling to the way things are until we boot them out with prejudice.
Check the trends: https://apnews.com/article/global-elections-2024-incumbents-defeated-c80fbd4e667de86fe08aac025b333f95
Yes. Neoliberalism fails wherever it is tried, and the US managed to export it across the western world. What's going on in the US isn't unique and the same dynamics apply.
Lol, that's clearly not the take away, but you do you.
Just chiming in to say that if your only counterargument is "lol no," consider your own stance could be due for reevaluation.
I don't really strongly agree with either of you, but you've thrown in the towel with this bit.
Read the article.
It's absolutely the takeaway. Did you even read your own link? It's not about "incumbents" it's about "establishments".
Mexico also had an aging president who named a younger woman as his successor in a 2024 election, and she won in a landslide. The difference was that Obrador and Sheinbaum are left populist. That is despite the fact that Mexico is less educated, more religious, and more culturally conservative.
Yes, but your take that neoliberal whatevers is the cause is your own slant. Has nothing to do with it.
What do you think western establishment political philosophy is? You can pick from neoliberalism or neoconservativism. There's not much difference.
The article has nothing to do with "western establishment politics".
Also, you just played your idiotic hand right there by even making this comment. Take your shit back to Magacialist territory.
This is what happens. Neoliberals trap voters between two nearly identical parties. They try punching blue and life gets worse. Then they try punching red and life gets worse. Then they try punching blue...
Eventually a populist movement rises up. The more conservative party gets swept up and the neoliberal party resists. Left populists threaten power, and right populists don't, so neoliberals risk defeat by ignoring populism altogether. The populist movement therefore shifts right where it gets traction and fascism breaks out again. That's how fascism gains a foothold every single time, going all the way back to the French revolution.
The fact that Mexico was the great exception this time around with it's left wing populist government should tell you something, but apparently it's something you don't want to know.
You've just now categorized a broad number of people as "neoliberal". You don't even know what that means because it has no context globally. You are clearly from the US and have an agenda.
Let me break it down for you:
Just using an idiotic term like "neoliberal" in the context of global politics doesn't just show you have no understanding of it all, it also just makes you sound ignorant, and pushing an ignorant agenda.
The article I posted is simply about incumbent policies being unpopular because a lot of shady people are showing and promising shit they can't deliver. Trump is the keystone of that ideal.
From the Wikipedia page on Neoliberalism:
Yeah, neoliberalism isn't a "US" thing. I do have an agenda though, but it's not like I hide it.
Aside from pronouncing your own ignorance of neoliberalism as referenced above, I think it's important to note that this entire paragraph says nothing that wouldn't be just as well expressed with "you're dumb".
Empty promises were not what I would consider the exceptional or defining thing about Trump's campaign. It's also barely mentioned once in that entire article. Most of the article speaks of how unhappy people are with their current economic circumstances, not about what political challengers promised to do about it.
It's all about narratives. People are suffering economically due in no small part to economic inequality. In the US, Republicans have a story to tell about how immigrants, or trans people, or atheists are to blame. The job of Democrats is to put the blame where it belongs, with the oligarchs. Democrats won't do that, so only one narrative remains and that narrative wins by default.
Do you say these things out loud before you type them? The dissonance of all these thoughts is amazing.
You go from one thought with no connection to another like you're just parroting keywords and ideas that don't connect.
He should have bowed out of the race and let a primary happen, not resigned as president. I agree, any incumbent was fucked, but Harris didn't have to run as continuation and someone else entirely could avoid the association even further. Democrats need to play to win, and that includes (selectively) throwing kind uncle Joe under the bus if it helps.
I doubt a primary would have even helped. There was no time for a proper full primary. It would have just been through horse trading at the convention. And that process would have inevitably resulted in another centrist geezer empty suit winning the nomination. Populist firebrands aren't the type that win such back room contests.
Not left when he did and then have a primary. Never ran for a second term.