Joe Biden Has Another Big F*cking Deal For Climate, Again
You may have noticed that in recent weeks, the Biden administration has been rolling out a hell of a lot of new regulations. Earlier this month it was big student loan reforms and a massive improvement in how public lands are managed, then this week we had better pay and working conditions for working Americans, minimum staffing ratios for nursing homes, and even improved service on airlines.
That’s not only because it’s an election year, though Joe & Kamala certainly do like to point out that where the Other Guy rages (and wants to raise inflation!) they’ve been busy making Americans’ lives better. But the bigger reason is that the administration wants to get new rules finalized prior to May, to keep them from being tossed out in the next Congress via the Congressional Review Act, which Donald Trump and his cronies used to reverse a bunch of Barack Obama’s environmental regulations.
. . . The requirement that coal plants find a way to eliminate 90 percent of their emissions by 2032 effectively accelerates the end of coal for power generation, which was inevitable anyway. Roughly 70 percent of US coal plants have already closed, and last year, coal generated only 16 percent of electric power, a new record low. In addition to the emissions rule, three other final rules also impose strict new limits on mercury, coal ash, and pollution of wastewater, to put an end to the environmental degradation caused by coal.
. . . The other option, obviously, would be for utilities to meet coming demand with renewables, as administration officials pointed out when previewing the new rule. Thanks to the IRA’s hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives, carbon-free power generation, including battery storage, already beats the cost of building new gas plants. Going forward, the administration is confident renewables will be the far more cost-effective and reliable way to meet increasing demand by 2032, when the emissions limits fully kick in.
This is so much better than all the posts shaming voters for not wanting to vote for Biden.
Biden is a far cry from the President that I want, but it's ignorant to claim he hasn't been a hell of a lot better than Trump, or even Obama and Clinton. After 50+ years of really shitty Presidents and an even worse Congress, Biden is arguably the best we've had. It's entirely possible to promote Biden with honest accounting without trying to silence the voices saying the Democrats must do better.
That said, of the Democrats try to force Harris on us without an actual primary in 2024, then it's time to repeat the 1968 national convention. Our FPTP system means that primaries are effectively the only real democracy we get, and the way they are run by the DNC (and RNC) is abysmal.
I mean he has been quite a bit better than any president I have experienced in office but it is sad that the bar is so low.
This is the correct response. He's been world's better than expected on many things. But between those expectations and Republicans that bar was ridiculously low.
There are many things I wish biden and Democrats would do. But complaint wise Biden's kid gloves and undeservedly diplomatic tone with Israel is the biggest. Though completely expected given the century of propaganda and enabling of such a dangerous regime over there. It doesn't all fall on biden. But he still wrong for his part.
oh yeah but when I say the bar is ridiculously low I mean like taking into account all the presidents I have had experience with. Im like old and to have biden be the best to me is sorta sad. previously I felt the same way with obama and the current pope. I feel like there should be a sign saying you must be at least this competent to be president with their picture and most of the presidents would then be disqualified. Like this is the crappiest you can be to hold the office. instead (at least for me) they are the best. Im not even comparing to trump now who is so opposite end of the spectrum and did the monumental achievement of making bush junior not seem so bad (yes yes. I know thats debatable as his random crazy sellout stupid is hard to measure against calculating power for us by which im talking channey of course).
I genuinely don't understand where this comes from. I haven't seen a single serious person argue that we shouldn't criticize the Biden administration or the Democrats. What does get pushback is the idea that we shouldn't vote for them in November. When someone is suggesting the solution to the very real issues the Democratic Party has is to enable the GOP and give them more power they absolutely should get chastised.
Agreed on everything else though. If everyone who was upset about Biden actually got involved and voted in the primaries it would be much easier to get representation that actually serves our needs. The DNC only has so much control.
There are several places it comes from.
First, there has been a meme campaign about Biden being better than Trump that seems to go out of it's way to "call out" those of us who are fed up with the behavior of the Democratic establishment (DE). They imply we are fools who don't comprehend how bad Trump is. The people those memes are directed at don't really exist. They are a myth put out by the DE to sideline progressives. There has also been a recent wave of right wing bots that perpetuate the myth to further drive the wedge between progressives and the DE. Those bots aren't going to be convinced, and progressives don't need to be.
The second is that it is nearly impossible to criticize the DE without getting lectured about how much worse Trump is. Being a tiny bit better than fascist is apparently enough for Democrats privileged enough to not suffer under even Democratic policies. I think this video shows a great example. I try to always mention that Republicans are worse when criticizing Democrats, but that rarely makes a difference.
The third place is from old timers like me who have watched Democrats coddle fascism ever since Reagan. What we are living through now didn't start with Trump, and it wasn't just the fault of Republicans. Many of us have been fighting Democratic mediocrity since before most Americans ever heard of Bernie Sanders. The DE is routinely snide and dismissive of the left, even as they fail to grasp the Republican threat. They say the country wants centrists, but run to the left with their rhetoric before every election. In that context, both of the previously mentioned items tend to strike a nerve.
Maybe if it was actually believable, but there's so much propaganda now that unless you repeatedly and proactively affirm that people should vote for Biden, I'll assume that any criticism is just more right wing attempts at voter suppression.
If Biden wins the election, then we can have a lot more open criticism of Democratic policies because the bots, trolls, and agents provacateur will go away.
Has it occurred to you that making that assumption could also result in suppressed voter enthusiasm? Put yourself in the head of a genuine lefty who's fed up with Democratic shenanigans. What messaging might keep you in the fold, and what will drive you away?
Something else to keep in mind is that it's not just voting that we're talking about. Democrats need volunteers, donations, and word of mouth. Broad enthusiasm is critical for all of that. Who wants to volunteer for a movement that denies them a voice?
For decades now, every election has been called the most critical of our lives, and sadly it's been pretty consistently true. We have elections every two years. Criticism in the first year is called unfair because they just took office. Criticism on the second year is always called disloyalty in a critical election year. Disinformation is only going to be getting worse, so waiting for that to end is not viable.
Okay.
I'm sorry, I got bored. Can you make that into a tiktok video for easier consumption?
I've really got to stop being optimistic about devout Democrats. It really is the party of James Carville and Hillary Clinton - ignorant, elitist, and tone deaf until the end of time.
LOCK HER UP
I mean uh...sorry, that just came out. I meant um...something something Bernie something something DNC?
So I'm a right wing troll now? Think about it logically for a second. What do right wing trolls want to do when they jump into internal Democratic disputes? I'm pretty sure their primary goal would be to drive a wedge between the activist left and the establishment. Now, what am I arguing for? If you look back on this thread, I'm encouraging Democratic loyalists to post more content about Biden's accomplishments instead of trying to shame voters. It's basic conflict resolution. You aren't going to get any kind of reconciliation by being rude and dismissive. My whole point is to bring as much reconciliation to the Democrats as I can without compromising my political beliefs.
There is a serious rift in the Democratic party that you seem to be somehow completely unaware of. It didn't start with Hillary, or even Bill or Bernie. Look into the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago if you want to understand how deep and far back the rift goes. You aren't going to pave over the differences by belittling or dismissing legitimate disagreement. The only way to get to a unified front against Trump and his fascists is to acknowledge the differences in a respectful way, and then emphasize what can be gained by working together. That's way more important than trying to win some kind of smug victory in an online forum.
The idea that I'm a right wing troll is ridiculous, and I think you could learn a lot by exploring why you jump so easily to that assumption. If people like you didn't exist, right wing trolls would have to play your side as well. They want us sniping at each-other. Compare it to Hamas' strategy in attacking Israel. They knew that Israel couldn't help overreacting and destroying their own credibility. It's the same thing Osama bin Laden did to the US. When right wing trolls spread their disingenuous bullshit, their whole goal is to get a reaction from Democratic loyalists that further alienates the Democratic establishment from it's base.
I mean, okay, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being genuine here. Surely you acknowledge the absolute deluge of obvious propaganda, rehashed from 2016, trying to convince young, idealistic, uninformed voters to either not vote or to vote 3rd party. It's not an unreasonable assumption that anyone making comments in that vein is an agitator or a useful idiot. It's correct most of the time.
Getting drawn into one-sided good faith debates with such people is playing into their hands. Ridicule and dismissal defeats them.
If there is still doubt then you're just an idiot, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just think you're being witty.
I acknowledge Oct 7. That doesn't mean I endorse the response. It seems like an obvious response. It seems maximally oppositional to their attackers. It's also exactly what their attackers wanted.
I've already explained to you why this is wrong. You are just making an assertion without even a hint of a theory as to why it's correct. You don't think that they expect you to do this? You think they don't expect you to piss off actual progressives when you act that way?
You identified me as a right wing troll as a result of their posts, and I never even said anything of the sort. In my recent history you can see me arguing against a lot of their bullshit, including "genocide Joe". Hell, you can go back to 10+ years of posts on Reddit with this username if you really want.
This is exactly the dumb behavior my original comment was about. You're not helping.
Do you or do you not acknowledge that there have been a lot of trolls and propaganda? Instead of answering my question you went on a weird tangent about Oct 7.
It wasn't a tangent, it was an analogy. I have also made it clear several times that right wing trolls exist. Why would I be discussing their strategy and how you're playing into it if I didn't think they exist? I don't think you are exactly trolling, but at this point it's clear to me that you are not trying to understand what I'm saying at all. I see no point in continuing.
Genocide Joe is better than Obama or Clinton were? That's a hot take
And Clinton did as much to swell the prison industrial complex as Reagan and Nixon, while also using his office to make sexual advances on an intern.
Plus, both Obama and Clinton would have done the same shit with Israel. Both are party line progressives and we see where the party line has been.
Clinton was very invested in creating Israelis-Palestinian peace, I don't think he would have been as passive on the Palestinian death toll as Biden was at the beginning of the conflict. Obama was willing to go up against Netanyahu when he wanted something (like the Iran Nuclear Deal), so I think it's likely he would have also had a stronger response to the Israeli genocide, as long as it was politically expedient for him. On most issues, I think Biden has actually been better than the (admittedly very low) expectations I have for the Democratic party, but I think he's actually worse than his party's predecessors on Israel.
That's just not true. Biden is the most rabidly pro-Israel president we've ever had -- since before Reagan for sure.
He's actually been tougher on Israel than any US president since Reagan. That's not saying much, but it's sadly true. He has been against the move into Gaza from the start, and has used a lot of diplomatic pressure (though not enough by my estimation). His administration is the only reason Rafah doesn't already look like the rest of Gaza. The idea that the US could yank Israel's leash and stop the invasion of Gaza in it's tracks is ignorant.
All the ranting people did to get a ceasefire from the UN was ill-conceved because when they "won" the ceasefire was issued and summarily ignored. (Like anyone familiar with foreign policy knew it would be). What the Biden administration has been working towards is a peace, not a ceasefire, and that requires sustained involvement, not removing US influence entirely to make a point.
There are signals from both sides and other nations in the region that peace might actually be achieved soon, and it has been "Genocide Joe" working on it all along while the virtue signalling squad lost their shit.
You can't actually believe that. Biden refused to publically criticize Israel until February, four months into the genocide, when he said Israel's actions were "over the top." And even then, the flow of weapons has yet to even slow. Even Ronald Reagan withheld weapons from Israel when they got out of line.
The President coming out to criticize a close ally is never going to be the first step in that direction. That's not how foreign policy works.
Incorrect. Weapons shipments were delayed and are still being delayed. The deals went forward, but delays were introduced as some of the very first signals to Israel.
Exactly why I said "since Reagan". Biden has at least threatened to do so, which is something that hasn't happened since Reagan.
My position isn't that the Biden administration has done everything right, but that the narrative where they have done nothing but defend Israel is bunk. The general strategy of slowly turning up the heat is the best way to maximize US influence by my estimation, but I think the dial has been turned way too slowly.
Foreign policy is way more complicated than most people think. There is an entire region that has to be considered over decades, not just the issue catching people's attention at the moment. As bad as things are in Gaza, they could be worse, and they could be far more widespread. If Israel goes to war with any of their rivals, all pretense of restraint in Gaza will end immediately.
Got a source for that?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-delays-sale-assault-rifles-israel-over-settler-violence-sources-2023-12-13/
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/13/us-israel-rifle-sale-delay-west-bank-violence
https://abcnews.go.com/International/senior-israeli-official-us-slow-walking-aid-us-disputes/story?id=108107192
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-discussing-slowing-weaponry-deliveries-israel-pre-rcna136035
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4434545-biden-administration-looking-to-slow-weapon-sales-to-israel-in-effort-to-scale-back-military-assault-report/
Thank you.
First two links are exclusively about rifles, not the bombs and shells being used on families in Gaza. The third article says:
Your last two articles say that three months ago the administration was considering thinking about exploring the possibility of debating the merits of slowing weapon deliveries.
It's not pragmatic to twiddle your thumbs while your weapons are used to commit atrocities. It's evil.
The false statement I was correcting was about "weapons". You never mentioned "bombs and shells". Here is the thing about bombs and shells. Israel has plenty of dumb bombs and shells, and they don't need the US to get more. What they get from the US are precision weapons, which means fewer bombs are required to hit a target. Whatever you think of Israeli tactics (and we probably agree completely) it's better for them to have the precision weapons.
The whole point of slow rolling weapons shipments is to be able to send a signal but maintain official deniability. Actually denying it is just maintaining that veneer.
I stated my position clearly so that it wouldn't be misconstrued, but you went and did it anyways. I support the general strategy of ramping up pressure, but I think it has been done far too slowly. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the powerful Israel lobby, but we passed the point where that should matter a long time ago.
And then sent them anyways in violation of the Leahy Law. You forgot that part.
It's so neat watching Democrats use Republican smears like this.
I think putting the appearance of virtue ahead of actual virtue is a problem, no matter who does it. Anyways, the entire right wing suit of bad ideas is almost entirely virtue signalling.
We invented that phrase, Republicans just stole it and tried to use it (badly). They can't come up with anything new. Even The Cheeto's favorite phrase "witch hunt" was stolen from Democrats criticizing the Republican attacks on the Clintons.
The phrase is much older than the Clintons' problems with Republicans. Allusions to Salem are at least as old as McCarthyism.
Thanks, Captain Pedantry
Republicans still adopted it after that instance because they're too stupid to have read it before then.
You're welcome, citizen! I'm glad I could inform you that things happened before the Clintons.
Obama preferred to bomb civilians directly rather than by proxy (CIA drone assassination program).
Still, all far better than Trump. Like Trump wouldn't have bent over Israel pressure himself.
You're right, it would've been the same with Trump. I would never vote for him either.
The 2 party system sucks balls.