162
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 31 Jan 2024
162 points (94.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
1853 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
And yet, democracy itself is on the ballot. I don’t want Joe Biden to be my nominee, but I also realize that Trump is the absolute collapse of America. It’s letting our basest instincts and lesser demons overcome the promise of what we could be.
I don’t care that he’s old and moderate and held dumbass positions in the past. Biden is what is standing between order and chaos. Stability and collapse.
One candidate openly supports lawlessness and fascism for his own personal gain. The other is an old yellow dog Democrat who governs from the center right. It sucks, but the right thing is showing up for Biden IF you vote in a swing state.
If you don’t vote in a swing state, vote hard down ballot, then do whatever for president. It doesn’t really matter.
Biden has not governed from the center right, at least during his presidency.
He's advanced concrete LGBTQ rights more than probably any other president.
People talk about him like they have not been paying any attention to the three years of policy and legislation he's pushed through that advancing civil rights, and it's probably because they aren't paying attention and it's easier to complain then comprehensively analyze the candidates.
trump is a rapist who doesn't care about hurting people for his own gain, so it's pretty easy to analyze him, but these two candidates couldn't be farther apart. In terms of domestic and foreign policy, civil rights, economic policy, it's just they're nothing like at all.
Lazy equivocative articles like this are useless or worse because they're spreading misinformation that Biden, who has actively helped tens of millions of people with his policies, is as bad as Trump, who has actively hurt untold millions with his policies.
Biden is an establishment Democrat, and the Democratic party has been a center right party since Bill Clinton.
So you're agreeing that while Biden used to be center-right, he's now a startlingly progressive legislator as the president?
No, Biden still very much a centrist. He's more pro-union than expected, which is great, but I definitely wouldn't call him a progressive.
He reversed the transgender ban in the military, expanded the civil rights act to include transgender protection, gave direct student relief aid in the form of cash money to people, provided funding for the DOJ to sue anti-lgbtq groups, is replacing federal and government buildings and vehicles with sustainable materials and systems, created a gender policy council in the White House, has reunited families across the border that were separated by Trump, took down the keystone pipeline, invested a trillion dollars in sustainable technology and infrastructure, threw another billion at climate change and healthcare.
I have said he was a center right republican before his presidency, but his executive orders and legislation in his first term are painting him firmly left, and in some areas like LGBTQ rights or the environment, progressive.
Biden just pledged to shut down the border if the GOP will allow him to do it. He's supporting Netanyahu through its genocide in Gaza. He's anti-Medicare for All. He signaled to all his wealthy donors that "nothing fundamental will change" and has stuck by that pledge.
"More progressive than we thought" is not the same as being actually progressive. He's had to move that way in part because the policy positions have become so popular.
But I'm done arguing with you. I'll let you get the last word.
You should definitely quit while you're behind.
Shutting down the border does not negate Biden's progressive policies.
Biden has actively contradicted netanyahu since the war started, and has openly said he won't support an extended war and is focusing on a two-state solution.
He's expanded healthcare in a ton of ways(lower premiums, increased access to Obamacare, expanded Medicaid eligibility, LGBTQ coverage, mental health services, telehealth services, reducing drug prices) while pursuing the policy he prefers. That does not negate Biden's other progressive policies either.
Biden has not signaled that nothing will change, biden has progressively reformed social, civil, business, economic domestic and foreign policies.
Biden has routinely set the US up as Netanyahu's staunchest ally where it actually matters: delivery of weapons and money,
He bypassed congressional review to send tank shells, asked congress for removal of all arms export restrictions on Israel, sent us military assets to assist in surveillance and target selection, and that's just what we know about.
On other fronts, the US is the only vote standing between Israel and UN sanctions.
Following a major terrorist attack, Biden is continuing a 70 year mutual defense policy with an extremely active ally, and now that there is undeniable evidence that the ally is committing atrocities, Biden is diplomatically trying to draw down the aggression in a war he has no soldiers in.
Diplomatic action would include stuff like not vetoing UN censure resolutions or reducing embassy staff or issuing specific public criticism.
Remember the French government officially telling the GWB administration that we should not invade Iraq, that it would be a disaster, and that they would not support us if we did? That's what diplomatic action trying to talk down a long- term ally bent on bloody reprisals after a terrorist attack looks like. It has actual costs, it has actual stakes.
Saying "hey, you're making me look bad here!" while continuing to ship arms and provide military support is far weaker than I'd prefer.
I think it's both a moral and strategic failing.
No, that is a misconception brought on by a poor understanding of aid for Israel and Palestine.
The EU was laboring under the same misconception you are, that if you give a country complete military control over a region, they will still act in everyone's best interest rather than their own.
That's why different EU leaders have been saying " hey, we might want to take back control of some of the regions of the world, rather than be completely reliant on US policy."
Because of course immediately following a major terrorist attack, the u.s is going to continue to back a 70-year mutual defense Ally who is extremely active in furthering US interest stability in the region.
Also that Iraq war metaphor you used to demonstrate diplomatic action? Exactly what Biden is doing right now, he has told netanyahu that he won't support an extended war and that he focusing on a two-state solution. Exactly the same thing.
Duplomatic de-escalation is not a strategic failing.
Biden isn't telling netanyahu that he's making him look bad, Biden is telling netanyahu that he won't support and extended war on Palestine and that he's focusing on a two-state solution, which no other president has done.
He's directly contradicting one of the oldest active us allies, I would agree based on public outcry and based on his compassionate civil policies and practical political realities, presumably on moral grounds as well.
What happens if Biden immediately abandons an ally of 70 years?
Of course his reactions are weaker than you prefer, he is the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military globally, stationed across more than 100 countries in, and it's a single issue among literally hundreds he is directly engaging with.
Your perspective, understanding and comprehension of these situations and that of the president of the United States probably don't exactly match.
The trick is to make up your mind on him before he gets sworn in, then it's easy to dismiss any progress as "not far enough" or "just doing it to get re-elected"
Got no horse in this race, but wouldn't "doing it to get re-elected" be a good thing? Isn't that how democracies are supposed to work?
In a way, but since you can only be US president for two terms, "doing it to get re-elected" means that you don't believe they'll continue doing whatever they're doing during their second term if you re-elect them.