First over-the-counter birth control pill to hit U.S. stores in 2024
Making airlines pay up when flights are delayed or canceled
Gun violence prevention and gun safety get a boost
Renewable power is the No. 2 source of electricity in the U.S. — and climbing
Preventing discriminatory mortgage lending
A sweeping crackdown on “junk fees” and overdraft charges
Forcing Chinese companies to open their books
Preventing another Jan. 6
Building armies of drones to counter China
The nation’s farms get big bucks to go “climate-smart”
Biden scraps Trump’s paint scheme for Air Force One (not sure this is worthy)
The Biden administration helps broker a deal to save the Colorado River
Giving smaller food producers a boost
Biden recommends loosening federal restrictions on marijuana
A penalty for college programs that trap students in debt
Biden moves to bring microchip production home
Tech firms face new international restrictions on data and privacy
Preventing a cobalt crisis in Congo
Cracking down on cyberattacks
Countering China with a new alliance between Japan and South Korea
Reinvigorating cancer research to lower death rates
Making medication more accessible through telemedicine
Union-busting gets riskier
Biden inks blueprint to fix 5G chaos
Biden empowers federal agencies to monitor AI
Fixing bridges, building tunnels and expanding broadband
The U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history
Strengthening military ties to Asian allies
A new agency to investigate cyberattacks
And I will add a few of my own:
Creating a new 15% minimum corporate tax rate
Creating the most new jobs in any 4 year period of American history.
Ending inflation without starting a recession
Reducing student loan debt
Expert handling of Putin
Ending Covid without telling people to drink bleach
Ending inflation without starting a recession is probably the most impactful on this list.
A few years ago when Covid shut down the economy and the fed printed trillions to keep the whole system from collapsing, I would have bet anything that a major recession was just around the corner.
The ‘soft landing’ was one of the most significant challenges our country/the world has ever faced.
Obviously not completely attributable to Biden, but his leadership during this time allowed us to come out of Covid stronger than we were before it started. The whole world was at risk of the dollar collapsing and it was a super close call.
No one will ever remember it. That's what government should be like. Inflation was guaranteed, now we just need to see them start hitting companies for over charging. So step 1 is getting congress to write a bill saying over charging for a product is illegal. The question is how much is to much... So we will likely never get legislation. Maybe start with saying food cannot be resold at a cost higher than 3%. It will start bringing food costs down, and we can fix Desantis's stupid bill and change it from Chinese and make it so no one who does not live in the U.S. can buy multiple properties and companies cannot buy properties in residential areas. Then we might see housing stabilize or drop.
We are experiencing a lot of late stage capitalism issues.
With the increasingly valid excuse of uncertainty, mega corps ‘must’ make more money now because they don’t know what kind of economic hardships they will have to be prepared to endure in the future.
That risk is built into the cost of goods, and can’t easily be quantified, so a bill capping profit margins isn’t really feasible. And let’s not forget who really crafts legislation these days.
In my state, there is a limit to the number of liquor stores one person/corporation can own. They recently increased it from one to three. This law makes a lot more sense for housing than it does for liquor stores, but unfortunately there are too many billionaires with skin in the game.
A crash in housing prices comes with its own set of problems as well, so whatever changes are necessary, they should be taken slowly so as not to cause another collapse in the housing market. Home ownership is still the primary way for the average American family to develop any meaningful wealth, good or bad as that may be.
Whatever changes need to happen, they must be gradual and sustained over a long period of time. Massive and abrupt changes create instability which will have unanticipated consequences.
We want these mega corps to be like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot. Eventually, monopolistic and racketeering like practices could be diminished while millions are lifted out of poverty. If it is to happen, it will take time.
If I were a betting man, I would say that meaningful change is unlikely. Mega corps will continue to squeeze every penny out of the people, leaving us only enough to continue buying their shit. Bernie may have been able to do it, but sadly that ship has sailed.
"The U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history"
The point is meant for the republican readers :P
With a list like that he can’t lose. So I guess it’s okay if I vote my conscious. Let’s go Claudia De la Cruz. /s
Are they seriously trying to paint the mass production of AI powered war drones, while hinting they’d be useful in war against China, as a good thing?!
Político is written my actual morons.
Not "they", but Paul McLeary, the Politico defence reporter. Each point on the list is essentially an opinion piece by one of their journalists.
And it's not necessarily saying it's a good thing: It's a thing you might have missed. You could also question whether "the U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history" is supposed to be a good thing.
Furthermore, as to McLeary's point: Some - such as anyone in the region except the Chinese - might argue it's important that the influence of China in the South China Sea is balanced out by other powerful players. It's not about going to war with China, it's about the continued independence of Taiwan and other fairly fragile balances in the region. It doesn't take a moron to see that the situation is complex.
And it's not necessarily saying it's a good thing
Did you actually read the article? They very clearly say it would be a major win for Biden.
Tech firms and lawmakers still want more specifics on how this is all supposed to work. But if things go as planned, the success of the program would be a major win for the White House, which has been eager to display American technological and industrial might.
So, if it goes according to plan and is a success, it would be a major political victory for the White House/Biden in terms of their eagerness to "display American technological and industrial might".
It's something they want to do, and which if this goes as planned, they will manage to do it. Hence, in politics, a "win". This is different from passing normative judgment as to whether or not it's a good thing: It's a win in the same sense destroying the Supreme Court was a "win" for the previous White House.
Pandora's AI war drone box has pretty much been opened so might as well get ahead of the curve. More important than the utility in an actual war is the function of weapons as a deterrent to show that it's not worth fighting a war.
Yes because you guys have been so responsible with your drone warfare in the past.
Given that many independent voters were Republicans and conservatives love war, this is a positive. It demonstrates that Biden isn't lax on national security and has an eye on the future when his Republican critics constantly attack him over the subject. Democrats will vote for Joe over Trump, but independents and waffling Republicans are in play.
If you believe we need to have the best technology to defend ourselves, and potential rivals are already pursuing this, yes. US has always tried to stay ahead in technology and this is no different than the latest stealth fighter, or vtol, or aircraft carrier or tank or missile or satellite or submarine or secure communications or radar system or even the best airlift or inflight refueling. The first wave of drone development was a huge success, as was what we were able to send Ukraine. Why wouldn’t we apply the same strategy to a new wave of same technology, and be mostly genuine in saying this will save American and allied lives?
This might be shocking to you, but those of us outside of the states don’t exactly think of your military power as the good guys by any stretch of the imagination.
Not at all, your interests don’t always align with mine, and any use of force has downsides. But of course I’ll usually prefer that my country not be at the mercy of someone else’s use of force.
I’ll also say that humanity is flawed, violent, ruled by baser emotions and …… one of the benefits of it being the US over some other possibilities is that we’re all (especially us citizens) free, even encouraged, to speak up where we have concerns. If you have a specific conflict in mind, I’d just like to suggest such things are never simple or straightforward: try to look at the conflicting requirements and goals, as well as history of the conflict
I'm a fan, for one. Fuck China. Fuck Russia.
Respectfully - with that attitude, we'll never be at peace.
We'll never be at peace anyway. If we lay down our weapons, our enemies will not do the same. They'll just conquer us.
I'll be happy to be at peace with a country who also wants peace. Russia and China do not want peace. Their actions have overwhelmingly proven this. Rolling over to let them do whatever they want in the name of the paradox of tolerance is how we got here in the first place.
The US can suck a fat one too while we’re at it.
Not just morons, paid DNC shills.
Granted, there's a lot of overlap, including on Politico.
Politico is owned by Axel Springer, the media house that publishes the definitive unabashed, populist arch-conservative newspaper in Germany.
They are so unabashedly right wing, that they regularly bend and break journalistic rules and get sanctioned by the German press council for their violation of standard journalism ethics.
Today, Germans say they trust Bild significantly less than other German media sources.
This newspaper is an organ of perfidity. It is wrong to read it. Anyone who contributes to this newspaper is totally socially unacceptable. It would be wrong to be friendly or even polite to any of its editors. You have to be as unfriendly to them as the law allows. They are bad people who do wrong. - Max Goldt
Renewable energy as #2 source of energy.
As opposed to what? Non-renewables?
Is there even a #3?
The article says:
Electricity generation from renewable energy sources — including wind, solar and hydropower — surpassed coal-fired generation in the electric power sector for the first time in 2022, making it the second-biggest source behind natural gas generation. Renewables also passed nuclear power generation for the first time in 2021 and widened that gap the next year.
So at least it's
Fossil Gas
Renewables
Coal
Nuclear
Don't get me wrong, I do know what they're referring to, but to group all types of renewable (solar, hydro, wind) against a single type of non-renewable energy source is a stupid way of comparing things.
I've searched (not researched) a little bit and it appears that the categories that they may be referring to are petroleum products, coal, nuclear, and then renewables.
I'd love to see one of these articles where the list isn't padded with non-accomplishments like painting the fucking plane, or giving Biden credit for starting preliminary inquiries into thinking about doing something like with cannabis legalization, or things that he should be ashamed of, like producing more oil than at any time in history.
In the good ol' US of A? Good luck.
Healthcare pls
Any Healthcare plan that could get through the Republican House is gonna be worse than what we already have. Vote for Democrats in 2024 if you want better laws on Healthcare.
It would be cool if it even seemed like he was trying. He let Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema block him because it was convenient for him too. It would be nice if he used his position of power to get what he wanted.
They've found new and exciting ways to to stuff money in insurance pockets. I may be dumb, but I don't think subsidies are a solution at all. If the Government wanted to set prices...great. if they want to run a single payer system...sploosh. all this does is obscure from people how fucking expensive their healthcare is. I get that that satisfies the need of individual healthcare consumers (sort of....40$ vs the actual monthly rates people will be paying is kind of an "oh how cute" situation), it doesn't make the system any more sustainable.
The strategy that California is pursuing is providing subsidies to more and more groups of people, giving government a greater say in prices over time. Eventually the goal is to have government pay for everyone's health care so they can negotiate prices to a fair level. Sounds feasible to me.
2000 dollars isn't free.
Sure, but the point is we're getting there. Vote blue and we'll get there faster.
Hahahaha, lost me here. I'll definitely take your point about California and how they're going about universal healthcare to heart, but if you put hope in the Democrats, you will be disappointed. Fuck...the Democratic party. They would be nothing without the anti Republican vote.
"I can't have everything I want right now, therefore nothing of value has been done!"
I can't have anything I want....ever. They're still a right wing party except on cultural issues.
I'd love to see a bigger focus on creating better public mass transit systems instead of focusing on producing more oil for cars. Cheaper gas addresses the symptom, not the cause.
I really dislike the majority of the focus of this article on just getting more EVs. While electrification is important, it doesn't really solve any of the current transportation issues and tries to position itself as the climate fixer. Yes, EVs are technically better for the climate, but what is even better is competent public transit. EVs transport a fraction of people that trains, trams, and busses can, which makes them much less energy efficient. Remember that electricity is still generated in lots of places using non-renewable resources, and the manufacturing of batteries also contributes a significant amount of carbon emissions. Given how big cars are and how little people they tend to transport, you start to see how extremely inefficient they are. Removing cars (more specifically, the dependence on cars) is always better than replacing them one for one.
The real focus should be on building more public transportation options to compete with cars, and petitioning local government to make changes to remove car-centric zoning laws and allow for mixed-use zoning, which is greener, cheaper to maintain, and brings in more city revenue than large roads and parking lots.
Yes, EVs are technically better for the climate
Not just "technically". They're massively better for the climate.
Technically, a fully electrified transportation sector that focuses on EVs is even better for the climate than a transportation sector without cars and focused just on public transit.
But the main reason is that convincing people to switch to EVs is waaaaaaaaaaaay faster, cheaper, and more doable than convincing people to rebuild our entire transportation infrastructure.
As far as I'm concerned, yes public transit is more desirable, but the climate emergency is more pressing. Once we're fully electrified, then we can begin transitioning to mass transit options. But it's a matter of priorities: the ongoing destruction of the climate is more important than efficient transit.
Once we're fully electrified, then we can begin transitioning to mass transit options.
This is the biggest qualm I have. It's not an either or. We can have more EVs and better transit too, so we can and should push for both at the same time. They both solve climate problems, and transit also gives better quality of life, in my opinion.
Additionally, I believe that the best way towards a greener world is to make the green option the easiest option for people. Buying an EV is very expensive for an individual, adding friction to the decision to purchase and alienating certain economic classes. If we were to put public funds towards good transit options instead of repairing the endless sprawl of roads, then we would see mass adoption of those transit options in favor of both ICEs and EVs, as it would be seen as viable competition to car ownership.
Ultimately, it's about finding the right balance. That was my biggest issue with the White House statement. I agree that the climate emergency is a major concern, and EVs might be quicker to adopt (I have concerns about the accuracy of the claim though). But we can and should work in parallel. The statement put so much focus on EVs, when I really think that better mass transit options should have at least an equal focus.
But with limited funds, shouldn't we go for the biggest bang for our buck regarding the environment?
It likely depends. From a time efficiency perspective, doing both would be best. If money is the bottleneck, then it's probably best to find more money (tax the rich please?) or make budget adjustments so that time is the bottleneck instead (it is a climate emergency after all). I've heard that it is cheaper to maintain compact and mixed-use zoning areas over the classic strip mall with parking lots common across North America, and that could be enough for cities to see reorganizing the infrastructure as an investment over paying increasing maintenance costs. Of course that's a big up front cost, but it over time it would be cheaper.
It seems like we do disagree on the exact impact both options have, which could help in deciding the priority. I don't have any data to prove either side on this one, but if you know of any sources on that, I would love to see it.
If money is the bottleneck, then it’s probably best to find more money
Well I mean if you were the King of America, sure. But the money constraints are there because of political opposition, if we (democrats) could override that we would.
From a time efficiency perspective, doing both would be best.
I think this is where we disagree. Public transit projects are notoriously expensive and take a long time. Electrifying the existing infrastructure (roads and cars) is much easier.
I think we might be coming at this differently. In my view, the environment is the primary goal, and efficient transportation is a secondary goal. I think you're seeing them both as equal goals.
It seems like we do disagree on the exact impact both options have
It seems like you're talking in good faith here, so I'd be willing to find data. But before I do, I want to suggest a simple thought exercise to you: if all vehicles are electric, isn't that essentially a 100% impact? An equivalent would be 100% electrified public transit. The former scenario involves keeping the existing systems, just swapping to electric. The latter involves redesign of a majority of our infrastructure, AND electrifying. Doesn't it sound like the latter option will be more difficult?
I don't mean to be an ass regarding these because a lot of them are really nice but, none of them aside from the broadband expansion and maybe the funding for election transition/process really seem to help the current day millennial or Gen Z, the closest might be his environmental policies, I feel he should start focusing on thr younger groups if he wants to keep regained support for the newer gens.
That being said I did learn quite a bit from this article because I wasn't aware he did most of what was listed here so it is cool
I feel like these should all establish a trajectory that very well aligns with the countries younger generation:
Over the counter birth control
Office of gun violence prevention
Financial fee crackdown
Inflation reduction act
Assistance to smaller food producers
Consequences to colleges drowning students in debt
Chips and sciences act
Access to medication without in person visits, including anti depressants, gender affirming care, and opioid addiction
worker protections for union busting
I’m not a blowhard but I think this country could be in a really great place if this kind of progressive push continues with another Biden administration that would hopefully open the gates for an even more progressive eight years with his successor. The continued snuffing out of regressive views and bolstering a growing progressive shift in this country is exciting to think about. As much as I would like faster progress, and I admittedly voted for Biden as a vote against trump last cycle, I will be voting for him again because he’s exceeded my expectations. He’s laying a foundation this countries youth can build on and run away with. It’s not perfect but neither is this country. The aperture is opening up though.
Careful…. This will upset the kids.
Ooh. Preemptive deployment of the most common centrist thought-terminating cliche.
How do you not bore yourself with this drivel?
Why would anyone be upset that Biden issued an executive order to start the process of legalizing weed? Or that renewable power is now the number 2 source of electricity in the country?
Because here on lemmy, the kids like to ignore everything good something is in favor of the one or two bad things and then elevate that to ridiculous levels.
Because "US Bad" is the fundamental thought process of a lot of lemmings
Liberals love to infantilize don't they?
When all one sees are infants…..
Condoned and funded genocide should be the red line for everyone.
So you refuse to buy anything from China because of the Uighurs, right?
"How to derail a tankie" rofl
I'm a bit concerned by just how well that worked. It increasingly confirms to me that the alt right and tankies are birds of a feather. Ignore information you dislike as propaganda, condone human rights abuse if it's by a country you like and call the reporting bullshit.
The political spectrum is a circle. Go too far left or right and you end up in fascism, with a different paint job.
Purchasing an item manufactured in a country whose government is committing genocide is not the same as refusing to support a country’s leader who is directly supporting a genocide. I feel like this is obvious but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since your other comment indicates you believe in horseshoe theory.
You're right. One of those options results in your money directly funding the genocide. The other doesn't.
How does buying something that’s manufactured in China directly fund genocide, especially if the company you’re buying from isn’t even based in China?
Simple.
You pay the company.
The company pays the government in taxes or licenses or something of the like. China does not allow them to operate for free.
The government uses the money to fund the infrastructure and personnel for the genocide.
That dollar you spend may ultimately end up getting used to forcibly "culturally reeducate" Uighurs. If you didn't buy the product that was made in China, that wouldn't be the case.
Now granted, this is indirect. I was incorrect to say direct earlier. And I don't actually believe this makes a person culpable in genocide. I just also think that voting for Biden doesn't mean someone wants genocide. If I had to pick however, the purchase likely carries more individual weight.
whataboutism
So not for everyone then? I thought everyone there means everyone
What does this have to do with the genocide that biden supports? Or are you claiming that biden supports the genocide of Uighurs? Are you claiming that actually biden is fine to throw billions of dollars in support of the genocide of Palestinians because China?
If it's a red line for everyone, and it means you shouldn't vote for Biden as a result, then you should also be minimizing your contributions/purchases with the US economy and all other countries currently engaged in genocide. Either take an absolutist stance on all of them, or make your rationalizations for all of them. Don't pick and choose.
You mean like how the Biden administration picks and chooses with its stances on Russia and Israel? Per capita, Israel is actually committing the much worse atrocity, but the same people moralizing about Russia's actions are telling people to shut up about Israel. Saying you can't criticize one thing because other bad things are happening is textbook whataboutism, but it's obvious that whataboutism is a term used by Americans solely as a shield for all their bad actions (i.e. don't call us out on our hypocrisy because we flooded the news with our talking points first). I criticize China for its horrific treatment of Uighurs and I criticize Israel for its atrocities.
As for consumerism, you don't have to worry about that from me. I'm pretty sure you buy more shit from China than I do, since I barely buy anything at all.
I criticize China for its horrific treatment of Uighurs and I criticize Israel for its atrocities.
Then we have no disagreement. Especially since you don't take the position that buying/voting is a full throated endorsement of the genocides.
My issue with the person was their absolutist stance that suggested you shouldn't vote for Biden or do anything which could support a genocide supporting regime. You can and should criticize Biden and China while voting or buying their goods. But what you do to one, you should do to the other. It's hypocritical to refuse to vote for Biden for the Palestinian genocide while buying goods from China that support the Uighur genocide. And vice versa -- refusing to buy Chinese but being fine with voting for Biden.
Does that make sense? Basically, you shouldn't pick and choose. You criticize it all or you excuse it all. If you refuse to support one, you refuse to support them all. If you tell people it isn't real and is bullshit propaganda, you say that for all of them.
People have their own red lines and while they may seem conflicting or hypocritical, they are their own. Bringing up one separate thing in response to another is whataboutism, plain and simple. That was my point with my initial response. All that bringing up Uighurs did was divert the discussion towards other things, which is the point of whataboutism.
Sure, my point is just that they aren't following their stated red line. It isn't whataboutism to challenge someone on a seeming exception to their belief.
They made an absolutist statement about genocide. I asked about a specific case to see if their belief actually was absolutist. I did not divert the topic by asking if that goes for all genocides. They diverted it by saying it doesn't.
They're saying, if you still buy Uyghur slave labor produced goods from China, but tsk tsk Biden for being pro-Israel (literally every POTUS since the creation of Israel has been pro-Israel) you have no right to write Biden off and no right to tell others to not vote for him. It's most likely that GodlessCommie is some kind of right wing astroturfer.
So they're saying that you cannot criticize Biden because bad things are happening elsewhere. Yeah, literally whataboutism.
It's not. It's establishing a base line of credibility of GodlessCommie.
The Uighurs issue is US propaganda anti China bullshit. Just like 'Free Tibet' was.
You sound just like the people who say Israel is doing nothing wrong and all the criticism is just from antisemitism.
You like them, therefore any criticism of them is propaganda and bullshit. Horseshoe theory in action.
No sweetheart. Israel is 100% in the wrong, their Zionist apartheid terrorist colonialist state is a failed experiment that needs to come to an end.
Anytime a person or a country tells you who your enemy is odds are it's them
You didn't just miss my point, you've earned frequent flier miles for how badly it's gone over your head.
You'll also note that I never said Israel was in the right, like you assumed. And I don't entirely disagree with you on them either. I just consider genocide a serious act and don't play apologetics depending on the country involved.
Do you think Trump is more or less pro-Israel than Biden?
They are the same
So the UN, US, UK, Canada, Lithuania, France, New Zealand, Belgium and the Czech Republic are all our enemies?
Because they all describe the Chinese government's treatment of Uyghurs as genocide, severe human rights abuses or crimes against humanity.
You should find a country that condemns both China and Israel for genocide to fry their brain
So when China tells you that your enemy is the US...
They don't have to tell me, I know
Aw, tankies are so cute when they're confused
No confusion here, the confusion is Democrats thinking they are any different than Republicans.
Trump's deals with the Saudis to genocide Yemenis are your red line for him, the situation for Gaza is your red line for Biden, and now you've solved genocide by throwing your vote away on someone who can never win.
Your assumption that a critique of Biden means support for Trump is infantile. Oh, and the Yemeni genocide by the Saudis started with Obama. My concern and vote isn't about who can win, it's about doing what's right. Focusing only on who can win is for losers.
I'm not making that assumption at all. I'm saying your "red line" point is infantile because it rules out both major candidates, thus you will throw your vote away, which helps the candidate you hate most to win. If your metric is genocide, tasteless as it is, you have to vote for whoever you think will help minimize the deaths by genocide in the future. "Red Lines" don't work if they don't differentiate between the candidates.
I hate them both equally. And there is no lesser evil, that's a thing white liberals tell themselves to ease their conscience for supporting people they know are doing harm, but not to them directly.
If you hate them exactly equally then I guess feel free not to vote.
A lot of people, ethically, would feel compelled to use their vote to minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide. Avoiding the question by pretending everyone sucks equally instead of actually trying to improve things is not some moral high road.
minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide
Supporting the guy thats continuing to fund and arm genocide is not minimizing death
It is if that guy can get the genocide to stop earlier than the other guy could. Or if the other guy would stop it earlier then vote for him.
It is 100% within Biden's power to have stopped it October 8. The exact same way that Ronald Reagan did when Israel was bombing Lebanon in 1982. All he has to do is threaten to cut off funding and weapons exactly like Ronald Reagan did in 1982. Ronald Reagan got results, Joe Biden the self-proclaimed Zionist, has refused to do the same thing that he has the power to do.
You are allowed to believe that Israel would have not responded to Hamas after Oct 7th militarily if Biden had acted differently, or that they would stop if Biden acted differently now. Or that they would if Trump won and then he threatened to cut off funding and weapons (if you think he would actually do anything Israel didn't like).
If you think those things, then pick the person who is going to do the thing that will have the result you want. If neither will do the thing, it's a moot point.
then pick the person
Thats more of the lesser evil myth. Neither is getting a vote from me, they have not earned it.
You're just going in circles now. We covered this. There is one major party candidate whose election will result in less death via genocide. Pick the one you think it is and vote for them or you will be helping the one who will cause more death via genocide.
You are free to vote for whoever you want, but it's not much of a stand against genocide to be so indignant that you decide to help the person that will result in more death via genocide.
If you think that's a myth, you have a terribly myopic taste in fiction. The Witcher series has a great short story aptly called "The Lesser Evil", where Geralt refuses to do anything bad on the principle that evil is evil. A wizard wants Geralt to kill a girl because a prophecy says she'll destroy kingdoms, and he wants to examine the entrails. The girl says she was ostracized and raped because of the prophecy the wizard follows, and wants Geralt to lure out the wizard for her to kill.
Geralt chooses neither, and is then met with a problematic situation. The girl and her gang will confront the wizard outside his tower, and kill the townspeople ceaselessly until he turns himself into them. The wizard however is a selfish bastard and has no intent to do so. The town of innocent people will be massacred, and neither side wins. And so, Geralt acts -- he chooses the lesser evil, and kills the gang, and tries to defeat the girl without killing her, but she chooses to fight to the death. Geralt refuses to give the wizard the body, threatening to kill him in turn if he touches her, and the townspeople throw stones at him and call him a butcher.
It really isn't hard to see this play out in real life. Replace the girl and her gang with a terrorist group from a country destabilized by the West, and the wizard with a corrupt politician who helped destabilize the country but is a cornerstone of the community. What would you choose to do?
when i voted for howie and biden won, does that mean that i hated biden the most? what kind of quantum emotion theory are you cooking up?
You are not the only person voting, you not voting for a major party candidate doesn't declare the person you dislike most the victor, it just helps them win.
Assuming you would have voted for Biden if you only had the two major party options, then voting for anyone else or failing to vote is a vote less for Biden, which is equivalent to a vote for Trump.
>Assuming you would have voted for Biden if you only had the two major party options
that is not a good assumption: I only vote for candidates if I want them to win.
The base assumption here is not that you would actually vote for either one, it's that when given only two choices, you prefer one or the other. The only way that doesn't hold is if you truly do not care between the two options and it's a coin flip. If that is true, then the 'person you hate most between the two' still benefits, but it's a coin flip which one it is so you don't care.
If you prefer Biden over Trump, you are helping Trump by not voting for Biden. And vice versa. Even if you would never vote for any major party candidate, that just means you are always helping the major party candidate you hate the most.
so I hated trump more than I hated hilary, and I hate biden more than I hate trump? is that the theory?
I mean...you tell me your political feelings. It's not about who won, it's just who you are helping.
If you hate Trump more than Hillary and you didn't vote for one of them in 2016, you helped Trump in 2016. If you hate Biden more than Trump and you didn't vote in 2020 then you helped Biden. But if you hate Trump more than Biden, then you helped Trump in 2020 even though he didn't win.
the only candidate helped by my vote is the candidate I vote for. you are spreading election misinformation.
You're the one talking about not voting or throwing your vote away.
if not voting is voting for trump, then voting for trump would be like voting twice.
this is clearly absurd election misinformation.
non-voters are the biggest voting block in the country. there is no way what you are saying is true.
A person who would otherwise support Biden, voting for Trump instead, is indeed a two vote swing. That is just the math of it.
>you not voting for a major party candidate doesn’t declare the person you dislike most the victor, it just helps them win.
only a vote for a candidate helps them win
Ok so if all Biden voters stayed home, that wouldn't help Trump win?
no. only trump voters help him win
You're really trying to make a razor thin distinction without a difference then. So not voting for Biden is "taking part in the creation of a situation wherein Trump is more likely to win" or whatever you need to the wording to be.
If all Biden supporters boycott the election, Trump wins. If you're not disputing that fact then you're twiddling around with wording and not actually disagreeing.
I don't give a fuck about the paint on a fucking airplane
I'd say you didn't read the article, but the Air Force One paint is smack in the middle of the article with 29 other things that actually do fix real problems.
I mean, whoever reads the article would also see that they did a similar piece on Trump, listing both positive and negative achievements of his presidency.
I think it's a cool format. The media cycle tends to blow one single story out of proportions while neglecting anything else that happens, this is (imo) a good way to review some of what's been happening the last four years.
Drones for China doesn't fix healthcare.
Downvotes wont fix income inequality, chuds, just like Biden.
Biden can't unilaterally fix healthcare. He would need congress to cooperate with him and he has never been able to get that. He couldn't even pass the bills he wanted that did pass without major changes.
It amazes me what people think presidents have the power to do. They're not absolute monarchs.
can't unilaterally fix healthcare
He's already said he won't even try, and fixes would be vetoed
What would the point be in trying?
Putting mushrooms on a hamburger won't fix housing affordability, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea
How about border security? Oh, Republicans torched that because Big Cheeto told them to? Must be Bifen's fault!
There's no border crisis
Making medicine easier to get via telemedicine and insulin caps certainly help though.
Expanded overtime guarantees for millions
First over-the-counter birth control pill to hit U.S. stores in 2024
Making airlines pay up when flights are delayed or canceled
Gun violence prevention and gun safety get a boost
Renewable power is the No. 2 source of electricity in the U.S. — and climbing
Preventing discriminatory mortgage lending
A sweeping crackdown on “junk fees” and overdraft charges
Forcing Chinese companies to open their books
Preventing another Jan. 6
Building armies of drones to counter China
The nation’s farms get big bucks to go “climate-smart”
Biden scraps Trump’s paint scheme for Air Force One (not sure this is worthy)
The Biden administration helps broker a deal to save the Colorado River
Giving smaller food producers a boost
Biden recommends loosening federal restrictions on marijuana
A penalty for college programs that trap students in debt
Biden moves to bring microchip production home
Tech firms face new international restrictions on data and privacy
Preventing a cobalt crisis in Congo
Cracking down on cyberattacks
Countering China with a new alliance between Japan and South Korea
Reinvigorating cancer research to lower death rates
Making medication more accessible through telemedicine
Union-busting gets riskier
Biden inks blueprint to fix 5G chaos
Biden empowers federal agencies to monitor AI
Fixing bridges, building tunnels and expanding broadband
The U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history
Strengthening military ties to Asian allies
A new agency to investigate cyberattacks
And I will add a few of my own:
Creating a new 15% minimum corporate tax rate
Creating the most new jobs in any 4 year period of American history.
Ending inflation without starting a recession
Reducing student loan debt
Expert handling of Putin
Ending Covid without telling people to drink bleach
Ending inflation without starting a recession is probably the most impactful on this list.
A few years ago when Covid shut down the economy and the fed printed trillions to keep the whole system from collapsing, I would have bet anything that a major recession was just around the corner.
The ‘soft landing’ was one of the most significant challenges our country/the world has ever faced.
Obviously not completely attributable to Biden, but his leadership during this time allowed us to come out of Covid stronger than we were before it started. The whole world was at risk of the dollar collapsing and it was a super close call.
No one will ever remember it. That's what government should be like. Inflation was guaranteed, now we just need to see them start hitting companies for over charging. So step 1 is getting congress to write a bill saying over charging for a product is illegal. The question is how much is to much... So we will likely never get legislation. Maybe start with saying food cannot be resold at a cost higher than 3%. It will start bringing food costs down, and we can fix Desantis's stupid bill and change it from Chinese and make it so no one who does not live in the U.S. can buy multiple properties and companies cannot buy properties in residential areas. Then we might see housing stabilize or drop.
We are experiencing a lot of late stage capitalism issues.
With the increasingly valid excuse of uncertainty, mega corps ‘must’ make more money now because they don’t know what kind of economic hardships they will have to be prepared to endure in the future.
That risk is built into the cost of goods, and can’t easily be quantified, so a bill capping profit margins isn’t really feasible. And let’s not forget who really crafts legislation these days.
In my state, there is a limit to the number of liquor stores one person/corporation can own. They recently increased it from one to three. This law makes a lot more sense for housing than it does for liquor stores, but unfortunately there are too many billionaires with skin in the game.
A crash in housing prices comes with its own set of problems as well, so whatever changes are necessary, they should be taken slowly so as not to cause another collapse in the housing market. Home ownership is still the primary way for the average American family to develop any meaningful wealth, good or bad as that may be.
Whatever changes need to happen, they must be gradual and sustained over a long period of time. Massive and abrupt changes create instability which will have unanticipated consequences.
We want these mega corps to be like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot. Eventually, monopolistic and racketeering like practices could be diminished while millions are lifted out of poverty. If it is to happen, it will take time.
If I were a betting man, I would say that meaningful change is unlikely. Mega corps will continue to squeeze every penny out of the people, leaving us only enough to continue buying their shit. Bernie may have been able to do it, but sadly that ship has sailed.
"The U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history"
The point is meant for the republican readers :P
With a list like that he can’t lose. So I guess it’s okay if I vote my conscious. Let’s go Claudia De la Cruz. /s
Are they seriously trying to paint the mass production of AI powered war drones, while hinting they’d be useful in war against China, as a good thing?!
Político is written my actual morons.
Not "they", but Paul McLeary, the Politico defence reporter. Each point on the list is essentially an opinion piece by one of their journalists.
And it's not necessarily saying it's a good thing: It's a thing you might have missed. You could also question whether "the U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history" is supposed to be a good thing.
Furthermore, as to McLeary's point: Some - such as anyone in the region except the Chinese - might argue it's important that the influence of China in the South China Sea is balanced out by other powerful players. It's not about going to war with China, it's about the continued independence of Taiwan and other fairly fragile balances in the region. It doesn't take a moron to see that the situation is complex.
Did you actually read the article? They very clearly say it would be a major win for Biden.
So, if it goes according to plan and is a success, it would be a major political victory for the White House/Biden in terms of their eagerness to "display American technological and industrial might".
It's something they want to do, and which if this goes as planned, they will manage to do it. Hence, in politics, a "win". This is different from passing normative judgment as to whether or not it's a good thing: It's a win in the same sense destroying the Supreme Court was a "win" for the previous White House.
Pandora's AI war drone box has pretty much been opened so might as well get ahead of the curve. More important than the utility in an actual war is the function of weapons as a deterrent to show that it's not worth fighting a war.
Yes because you guys have been so responsible with your drone warfare in the past.
Given that many independent voters were Republicans and conservatives love war, this is a positive. It demonstrates that Biden isn't lax on national security and has an eye on the future when his Republican critics constantly attack him over the subject. Democrats will vote for Joe over Trump, but independents and waffling Republicans are in play.
If you believe we need to have the best technology to defend ourselves, and potential rivals are already pursuing this, yes. US has always tried to stay ahead in technology and this is no different than the latest stealth fighter, or vtol, or aircraft carrier or tank or missile or satellite or submarine or secure communications or radar system or even the best airlift or inflight refueling. The first wave of drone development was a huge success, as was what we were able to send Ukraine. Why wouldn’t we apply the same strategy to a new wave of same technology, and be mostly genuine in saying this will save American and allied lives?
This might be shocking to you, but those of us outside of the states don’t exactly think of your military power as the good guys by any stretch of the imagination.
Not at all, your interests don’t always align with mine, and any use of force has downsides. But of course I’ll usually prefer that my country not be at the mercy of someone else’s use of force.
I’ll also say that humanity is flawed, violent, ruled by baser emotions and …… one of the benefits of it being the US over some other possibilities is that we’re all (especially us citizens) free, even encouraged, to speak up where we have concerns. If you have a specific conflict in mind, I’d just like to suggest such things are never simple or straightforward: try to look at the conflicting requirements and goals, as well as history of the conflict
I'm a fan, for one. Fuck China. Fuck Russia.
Respectfully - with that attitude, we'll never be at peace.
We'll never be at peace anyway. If we lay down our weapons, our enemies will not do the same. They'll just conquer us.
I'll be happy to be at peace with a country who also wants peace. Russia and China do not want peace. Their actions have overwhelmingly proven this. Rolling over to let them do whatever they want in the name of the paradox of tolerance is how we got here in the first place.
The US can suck a fat one too while we’re at it.
Not just morons, paid DNC shills.
Granted, there's a lot of overlap, including on Politico.
Politico is owned by Axel Springer, the media house that publishes the definitive unabashed, populist arch-conservative newspaper in Germany.
They are so unabashedly right wing, that they regularly bend and break journalistic rules and get sanctioned by the German press council for their violation of standard journalism ethics.
Today, Germans say they trust Bild significantly less than other German media sources.
Renewable energy as #2 source of energy.
As opposed to what? Non-renewables?
Is there even a #3?
The article says:
So at least it's
Don't get me wrong, I do know what they're referring to, but to group all types of renewable (solar, hydro, wind) against a single type of non-renewable energy source is a stupid way of comparing things.
I've searched (not researched) a little bit and it appears that the categories that they may be referring to are petroleum products, coal, nuclear, and then renewables.
I'd love to see one of these articles where the list isn't padded with non-accomplishments like painting the fucking plane, or giving Biden credit for starting preliminary inquiries into thinking about doing something like with cannabis legalization, or things that he should be ashamed of, like producing more oil than at any time in history.
In the good ol' US of A? Good luck.
Healthcare pls
Any Healthcare plan that could get through the Republican House is gonna be worse than what we already have. Vote for Democrats in 2024 if you want better laws on Healthcare.
It would be cool if it even seemed like he was trying. He let Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema block him because it was convenient for him too. It would be nice if he used his position of power to get what he wanted.
Health insurance is now more affordable than ever thanks to the American Rescue Plan. Because of the law’s enhanced tax credits, nine million Americans who buy their coverage through the Affordable Care Act have lower premiums, saving families an average of $40 per person per month — that’s nearly $2,000 per year for a typical family of four. Since April 1, over one-third of new and returning HealthCare.gov customers have found a quality plan with a premium of $10 or less per month, and returning HealthCare.gov consumers have seen their premiums drop, on average, by 40 percent.
They've found new and exciting ways to to stuff money in insurance pockets. I may be dumb, but I don't think subsidies are a solution at all. If the Government wanted to set prices...great. if they want to run a single payer system...sploosh. all this does is obscure from people how fucking expensive their healthcare is. I get that that satisfies the need of individual healthcare consumers (sort of....40$ vs the actual monthly rates people will be paying is kind of an "oh how cute" situation), it doesn't make the system any more sustainable.
The strategy that California is pursuing is providing subsidies to more and more groups of people, giving government a greater say in prices over time. Eventually the goal is to have government pay for everyone's health care so they can negotiate prices to a fair level. Sounds feasible to me.
2000 dollars isn't free.
Sure, but the point is we're getting there. Vote blue and we'll get there faster.
Hahahaha, lost me here. I'll definitely take your point about California and how they're going about universal healthcare to heart, but if you put hope in the Democrats, you will be disappointed. Fuck...the Democratic party. They would be nothing without the anti Republican vote.
"I can't have everything I want right now, therefore nothing of value has been done!"
I can't have anything I want....ever. They're still a right wing party except on cultural issues.
I'd love to see a bigger focus on creating better public mass transit systems instead of focusing on producing more oil for cars. Cheaper gas addresses the symptom, not the cause.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/12/14/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-takes-action-to-accelerate-americas-clean-transportation-future/
I really dislike the majority of the focus of this article on just getting more EVs. While electrification is important, it doesn't really solve any of the current transportation issues and tries to position itself as the climate fixer. Yes, EVs are technically better for the climate, but what is even better is competent public transit. EVs transport a fraction of people that trains, trams, and busses can, which makes them much less energy efficient. Remember that electricity is still generated in lots of places using non-renewable resources, and the manufacturing of batteries also contributes a significant amount of carbon emissions. Given how big cars are and how little people they tend to transport, you start to see how extremely inefficient they are. Removing cars (more specifically, the dependence on cars) is always better than replacing them one for one.
The real focus should be on building more public transportation options to compete with cars, and petitioning local government to make changes to remove car-centric zoning laws and allow for mixed-use zoning, which is greener, cheaper to maintain, and brings in more city revenue than large roads and parking lots.
Not just "technically". They're massively better for the climate.
Technically, a fully electrified transportation sector that focuses on EVs is even better for the climate than a transportation sector without cars and focused just on public transit.
But the main reason is that convincing people to switch to EVs is waaaaaaaaaaaay faster, cheaper, and more doable than convincing people to rebuild our entire transportation infrastructure.
As far as I'm concerned, yes public transit is more desirable, but the climate emergency is more pressing. Once we're fully electrified, then we can begin transitioning to mass transit options. But it's a matter of priorities: the ongoing destruction of the climate is more important than efficient transit.
This is the biggest qualm I have. It's not an either or. We can have more EVs and better transit too, so we can and should push for both at the same time. They both solve climate problems, and transit also gives better quality of life, in my opinion.
Additionally, I believe that the best way towards a greener world is to make the green option the easiest option for people. Buying an EV is very expensive for an individual, adding friction to the decision to purchase and alienating certain economic classes. If we were to put public funds towards good transit options instead of repairing the endless sprawl of roads, then we would see mass adoption of those transit options in favor of both ICEs and EVs, as it would be seen as viable competition to car ownership.
Ultimately, it's about finding the right balance. That was my biggest issue with the White House statement. I agree that the climate emergency is a major concern, and EVs might be quicker to adopt (I have concerns about the accuracy of the claim though). But we can and should work in parallel. The statement put so much focus on EVs, when I really think that better mass transit options should have at least an equal focus.
But with limited funds, shouldn't we go for the biggest bang for our buck regarding the environment?
It likely depends. From a time efficiency perspective, doing both would be best. If money is the bottleneck, then it's probably best to find more money (tax the rich please?) or make budget adjustments so that time is the bottleneck instead (it is a climate emergency after all). I've heard that it is cheaper to maintain compact and mixed-use zoning areas over the classic strip mall with parking lots common across North America, and that could be enough for cities to see reorganizing the infrastructure as an investment over paying increasing maintenance costs. Of course that's a big up front cost, but it over time it would be cheaper.
It seems like we do disagree on the exact impact both options have, which could help in deciding the priority. I don't have any data to prove either side on this one, but if you know of any sources on that, I would love to see it.
Well I mean if you were the King of America, sure. But the money constraints are there because of political opposition, if we (democrats) could override that we would.
I think this is where we disagree. Public transit projects are notoriously expensive and take a long time. Electrifying the existing infrastructure (roads and cars) is much easier.
I think we might be coming at this differently. In my view, the environment is the primary goal, and efficient transportation is a secondary goal. I think you're seeing them both as equal goals.
It seems like you're talking in good faith here, so I'd be willing to find data. But before I do, I want to suggest a simple thought exercise to you: if all vehicles are electric, isn't that essentially a 100% impact? An equivalent would be 100% electrified public transit. The former scenario involves keeping the existing systems, just swapping to electric. The latter involves redesign of a majority of our infrastructure, AND electrifying. Doesn't it sound like the latter option will be more difficult?
I don't mean to be an ass regarding these because a lot of them are really nice but, none of them aside from the broadband expansion and maybe the funding for election transition/process really seem to help the current day millennial or Gen Z, the closest might be his environmental policies, I feel he should start focusing on thr younger groups if he wants to keep regained support for the newer gens.
That being said I did learn quite a bit from this article because I wasn't aware he did most of what was listed here so it is cool
I feel like these should all establish a trajectory that very well aligns with the countries younger generation:
I’m not a blowhard but I think this country could be in a really great place if this kind of progressive push continues with another Biden administration that would hopefully open the gates for an even more progressive eight years with his successor. The continued snuffing out of regressive views and bolstering a growing progressive shift in this country is exciting to think about. As much as I would like faster progress, and I admittedly voted for Biden as a vote against trump last cycle, I will be voting for him again because he’s exceeded my expectations. He’s laying a foundation this countries youth can build on and run away with. It’s not perfect but neither is this country. The aperture is opening up though.
Careful…. This will upset the kids.
Ooh. Preemptive deployment of the most common centrist thought-terminating cliche.
How do you not bore yourself with this drivel?
Why would anyone be upset that Biden issued an executive order to start the process of legalizing weed? Or that renewable power is now the number 2 source of electricity in the country?
Because here on lemmy, the kids like to ignore everything good something is in favor of the one or two bad things and then elevate that to ridiculous levels.
Because "US Bad" is the fundamental thought process of a lot of lemmings
Liberals love to infantilize don't they?
When all one sees are infants…..
Condoned and funded genocide should be the red line for everyone.
So you refuse to buy anything from China because of the Uighurs, right?
"How to derail a tankie" rofl
I'm a bit concerned by just how well that worked. It increasingly confirms to me that the alt right and tankies are birds of a feather. Ignore information you dislike as propaganda, condone human rights abuse if it's by a country you like and call the reporting bullshit.
The political spectrum is a circle. Go too far left or right and you end up in fascism, with a different paint job.
Purchasing an item manufactured in a country whose government is committing genocide is not the same as refusing to support a country’s leader who is directly supporting a genocide. I feel like this is obvious but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since your other comment indicates you believe in horseshoe theory.
You're right. One of those options results in your money directly funding the genocide. The other doesn't.
How does buying something that’s manufactured in China directly fund genocide, especially if the company you’re buying from isn’t even based in China?
Simple.
You pay the company.
The company pays the government in taxes or licenses or something of the like. China does not allow them to operate for free.
The government uses the money to fund the infrastructure and personnel for the genocide.
That dollar you spend may ultimately end up getting used to forcibly "culturally reeducate" Uighurs. If you didn't buy the product that was made in China, that wouldn't be the case.
Now granted, this is indirect. I was incorrect to say direct earlier. And I don't actually believe this makes a person culpable in genocide. I just also think that voting for Biden doesn't mean someone wants genocide. If I had to pick however, the purchase likely carries more individual weight.
whataboutism
So not for everyone then? I thought everyone there means everyone
What does this have to do with the genocide that biden supports? Or are you claiming that biden supports the genocide of Uighurs? Are you claiming that actually biden is fine to throw billions of dollars in support of the genocide of Palestinians because China?
If it's a red line for everyone, and it means you shouldn't vote for Biden as a result, then you should also be minimizing your contributions/purchases with the US economy and all other countries currently engaged in genocide. Either take an absolutist stance on all of them, or make your rationalizations for all of them. Don't pick and choose.
You mean like how the Biden administration picks and chooses with its stances on Russia and Israel? Per capita, Israel is actually committing the much worse atrocity, but the same people moralizing about Russia's actions are telling people to shut up about Israel. Saying you can't criticize one thing because other bad things are happening is textbook whataboutism, but it's obvious that whataboutism is a term used by Americans solely as a shield for all their bad actions (i.e. don't call us out on our hypocrisy because we flooded the news with our talking points first). I criticize China for its horrific treatment of Uighurs and I criticize Israel for its atrocities.
As for consumerism, you don't have to worry about that from me. I'm pretty sure you buy more shit from China than I do, since I barely buy anything at all.
Then we have no disagreement. Especially since you don't take the position that buying/voting is a full throated endorsement of the genocides.
My issue with the person was their absolutist stance that suggested you shouldn't vote for Biden or do anything which could support a genocide supporting regime. You can and should criticize Biden and China while voting or buying their goods. But what you do to one, you should do to the other. It's hypocritical to refuse to vote for Biden for the Palestinian genocide while buying goods from China that support the Uighur genocide. And vice versa -- refusing to buy Chinese but being fine with voting for Biden.
Does that make sense? Basically, you shouldn't pick and choose. You criticize it all or you excuse it all. If you refuse to support one, you refuse to support them all. If you tell people it isn't real and is bullshit propaganda, you say that for all of them.
People have their own red lines and while they may seem conflicting or hypocritical, they are their own. Bringing up one separate thing in response to another is whataboutism, plain and simple. That was my point with my initial response. All that bringing up Uighurs did was divert the discussion towards other things, which is the point of whataboutism.
Sure, my point is just that they aren't following their stated red line. It isn't whataboutism to challenge someone on a seeming exception to their belief.
They made an absolutist statement about genocide. I asked about a specific case to see if their belief actually was absolutist. I did not divert the topic by asking if that goes for all genocides. They diverted it by saying it doesn't.
They're saying, if you still buy Uyghur slave labor produced goods from China, but tsk tsk Biden for being pro-Israel (literally every POTUS since the creation of Israel has been pro-Israel) you have no right to write Biden off and no right to tell others to not vote for him. It's most likely that GodlessCommie is some kind of right wing astroturfer.
So they're saying that you cannot criticize Biden because bad things are happening elsewhere. Yeah, literally whataboutism.
It's not. It's establishing a base line of credibility of GodlessCommie.
The Uighurs issue is US propaganda anti China bullshit. Just like 'Free Tibet' was.
You sound just like the people who say Israel is doing nothing wrong and all the criticism is just from antisemitism.
You like them, therefore any criticism of them is propaganda and bullshit. Horseshoe theory in action.
No sweetheart. Israel is 100% in the wrong, their Zionist apartheid terrorist colonialist state is a failed experiment that needs to come to an end.
Anytime a person or a country tells you who your enemy is odds are it's them
You didn't just miss my point, you've earned frequent flier miles for how badly it's gone over your head.
You'll also note that I never said Israel was in the right, like you assumed. And I don't entirely disagree with you on them either. I just consider genocide a serious act and don't play apologetics depending on the country involved.
Do you think Trump is more or less pro-Israel than Biden?
They are the same
So the UN, US, UK, Canada, Lithuania, France, New Zealand, Belgium and the Czech Republic are all our enemies?
Because they all describe the Chinese government's treatment of Uyghurs as genocide, severe human rights abuses or crimes against humanity.
You should find a country that condemns both China and Israel for genocide to fry their brain
So when China tells you that your enemy is the US...
They don't have to tell me, I know
Aw, tankies are so cute when they're confused
No confusion here, the confusion is Democrats thinking they are any different than Republicans.
Trump's deals with the Saudis to genocide Yemenis are your red line for him, the situation for Gaza is your red line for Biden, and now you've solved genocide by throwing your vote away on someone who can never win.
Your assumption that a critique of Biden means support for Trump is infantile. Oh, and the Yemeni genocide by the Saudis started with Obama. My concern and vote isn't about who can win, it's about doing what's right. Focusing only on who can win is for losers.
I'm not making that assumption at all. I'm saying your "red line" point is infantile because it rules out both major candidates, thus you will throw your vote away, which helps the candidate you hate most to win. If your metric is genocide, tasteless as it is, you have to vote for whoever you think will help minimize the deaths by genocide in the future. "Red Lines" don't work if they don't differentiate between the candidates.
I hate them both equally. And there is no lesser evil, that's a thing white liberals tell themselves to ease their conscience for supporting people they know are doing harm, but not to them directly.
If you hate them exactly equally then I guess feel free not to vote.
A lot of people, ethically, would feel compelled to use their vote to minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide. Avoiding the question by pretending everyone sucks equally instead of actually trying to improve things is not some moral high road.
Supporting the guy thats continuing to fund and arm genocide is not minimizing death
It is if that guy can get the genocide to stop earlier than the other guy could. Or if the other guy would stop it earlier then vote for him.
It is 100% within Biden's power to have stopped it October 8. The exact same way that Ronald Reagan did when Israel was bombing Lebanon in 1982. All he has to do is threaten to cut off funding and weapons exactly like Ronald Reagan did in 1982. Ronald Reagan got results, Joe Biden the self-proclaimed Zionist, has refused to do the same thing that he has the power to do.
You are allowed to believe that Israel would have not responded to Hamas after Oct 7th militarily if Biden had acted differently, or that they would stop if Biden acted differently now. Or that they would if Trump won and then he threatened to cut off funding and weapons (if you think he would actually do anything Israel didn't like).
If you think those things, then pick the person who is going to do the thing that will have the result you want. If neither will do the thing, it's a moot point.
Thats more of the lesser evil myth. Neither is getting a vote from me, they have not earned it.
You're just going in circles now. We covered this. There is one major party candidate whose election will result in less death via genocide. Pick the one you think it is and vote for them or you will be helping the one who will cause more death via genocide.
You are free to vote for whoever you want, but it's not much of a stand against genocide to be so indignant that you decide to help the person that will result in more death via genocide.
If you think that's a myth, you have a terribly myopic taste in fiction. The Witcher series has a great short story aptly called "The Lesser Evil", where Geralt refuses to do anything bad on the principle that evil is evil. A wizard wants Geralt to kill a girl because a prophecy says she'll destroy kingdoms, and he wants to examine the entrails. The girl says she was ostracized and raped because of the prophecy the wizard follows, and wants Geralt to lure out the wizard for her to kill.
Geralt chooses neither, and is then met with a problematic situation. The girl and her gang will confront the wizard outside his tower, and kill the townspeople ceaselessly until he turns himself into them. The wizard however is a selfish bastard and has no intent to do so. The town of innocent people will be massacred, and neither side wins. And so, Geralt acts -- he chooses the lesser evil, and kills the gang, and tries to defeat the girl without killing her, but she chooses to fight to the death. Geralt refuses to give the wizard the body, threatening to kill him in turn if he touches her, and the townspeople throw stones at him and call him a butcher.
It really isn't hard to see this play out in real life. Replace the girl and her gang with a terrorist group from a country destabilized by the West, and the wizard with a corrupt politician who helped destabilize the country but is a cornerstone of the community. What would you choose to do?
>which helps the candidate you hate most to win
when i voted for howie and biden won, does that mean that i hated biden the most? what kind of quantum emotion theory are you cooking up?
You are not the only person voting, you not voting for a major party candidate doesn't declare the person you dislike most the victor, it just helps them win.
Assuming you would have voted for Biden if you only had the two major party options, then voting for anyone else or failing to vote is a vote less for Biden, which is equivalent to a vote for Trump.
>Assuming you would have voted for Biden if you only had the two major party options
that is not a good assumption: I only vote for candidates if I want them to win.
The base assumption here is not that you would actually vote for either one, it's that when given only two choices, you prefer one or the other. The only way that doesn't hold is if you truly do not care between the two options and it's a coin flip. If that is true, then the 'person you hate most between the two' still benefits, but it's a coin flip which one it is so you don't care.
If you prefer Biden over Trump, you are helping Trump by not voting for Biden. And vice versa. Even if you would never vote for any major party candidate, that just means you are always helping the major party candidate you hate the most.
so I hated trump more than I hated hilary, and I hate biden more than I hate trump? is that the theory?
I mean...you tell me your political feelings. It's not about who won, it's just who you are helping.
If you hate Trump more than Hillary and you didn't vote for one of them in 2016, you helped Trump in 2016. If you hate Biden more than Trump and you didn't vote in 2020 then you helped Biden. But if you hate Trump more than Biden, then you helped Trump in 2020 even though he didn't win.
the only candidate helped by my vote is the candidate I vote for. you are spreading election misinformation.
You're the one talking about not voting or throwing your vote away.
if not voting is voting for trump, then voting for trump would be like voting twice.
this is clearly absurd election misinformation.
non-voters are the biggest voting block in the country. there is no way what you are saying is true.
A person who would otherwise support Biden, voting for Trump instead, is indeed a two vote swing. That is just the math of it.
>you not voting for a major party candidate doesn’t declare the person you dislike most the victor, it just helps them win.
only a vote for a candidate helps them win
Ok so if all Biden voters stayed home, that wouldn't help Trump win?
no. only trump voters help him win
You're really trying to make a razor thin distinction without a difference then. So not voting for Biden is "taking part in the creation of a situation wherein Trump is more likely to win" or whatever you need to the wording to be.
If all Biden supporters boycott the election, Trump wins. If you're not disputing that fact then you're twiddling around with wording and not actually disagreeing.
Jesus christ, Politico.
Lmao
Anything but fix real problems.
I don't give a fuck about the paint on a fucking airplane
I'd say you didn't read the article, but the Air Force One paint is smack in the middle of the article with 29 other things that actually do fix real problems.
I mean, whoever reads the article would also see that they did a similar piece on Trump, listing both positive and negative achievements of his presidency.
I think it's a cool format. The media cycle tends to blow one single story out of proportions while neglecting anything else that happens, this is (imo) a good way to review some of what's been happening the last four years.
Drones for China doesn't fix healthcare.
Downvotes wont fix income inequality, chuds, just like Biden.
Biden can't unilaterally fix healthcare. He would need congress to cooperate with him and he has never been able to get that. He couldn't even pass the bills he wanted that did pass without major changes.
It amazes me what people think presidents have the power to do. They're not absolute monarchs.
He's already said he won't even try, and fixes would be vetoed
What would the point be in trying?
Putting mushrooms on a hamburger won't fix housing affordability, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea
How about border security? Oh, Republicans torched that because Big Cheeto told them to? Must be Bifen's fault!
There's no border crisis
Making medicine easier to get via telemedicine and insulin caps certainly help though.