400
Biden Is Building a 'Superstructure' to Stop Trump From Stealing the Election
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
400 points (96.1% liked)
politics
19089 readers
4632 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Now I think it's you being a bit ridiculous. By that logic, no American can ever legitimately criticize a Presidency.
There are reasons why Biden didn't take other approaches available to him, and they aren't laudable ones. His donors don't want a precedent set that would make it easy for a future president to relieve even more debt.
Biden gets credit for what he has done, but ultimately the limit comes from what the establishment negotiates with the banks. It's way past time for leadership that will remind the banks that they weren't the ones elected.
That's fair. I wasn't trying to say "you can't criticize the president because you're not in that position," but that is sorta what I said, and that's a little ridiculous, you're right.
What I was meaning to say has one important caveat though, see: So on overall greenhouse gas emissions, and on overall amount of money forgiven on student loans, Biden has a great record. The total number of tons and total number of dollars is moving more significantly in the right direction than anyone else who's ever been president. And, he objectively tried to do a lot more than he did, but had to pare it back because other powerful people in government told him no. All of that is a little hard for FuglyDuck to directly argue against, because it's... well, it's true. So he's doing a little rhetorical dodge where he picks some element that's one small-minority piece of the whole issue, and says if Biden really cared about student loans or climate or whatever, he'd have done this piece in a different fashion. So clearly he's doing damage on purpose and we need to not vote for him.
It's honestly a pretty solid strategy for FuglyDuck to focus in on single issues like that, because I don't really know the issues well enough to say he's wrong. So what I'm saying instead is, look, Biden achieved objectively a good overall record on this issue. To pick out some piece of his overall big picture and say, sure he's winning the game, but he obviously doesn't really care, or else this minority piece would be different, to me isn't reasonable.
It'd be different if FuglyDuck was saying "Sure, Biden achieved a significant success with the climate bill, but I still think he fucked up on decision X." That shows he's in it for some honest purpose even if he and I disagree on some details. The fact that he ignores me repeatedly when I'm referring to the bigger picture, and keeps insisting the individual issues are the only things that matter (and only the ones that happen to line up with his overall narrative), makes me a lot less trusting of the overall "Biden hates the climate" picture he seems to be trying to paint.
I think we are in agreement. I don't believe FuglyDuck is commenting on good faith.
I think you might be onto something 🙂
By all means criticize but don't make it sound like he's completely ineffective or gutless because he couldn't squeeze out more given the extreme levels of obstruction from Congress and the clear conservative bias in the SCOTUS.
It wasn't me doing that.