Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, a sign of the president’s strength in uniting his party to have the backing of one of its most liberal members
Ocasio-Cortez endorses Biden's reelection campaign, sending a strong signal of Democratic unity
3 years ago by L4sBot to c/politics
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot 39 points 3 years ago
How is Biden disappointing? Before he became President he gave every indication of being yet another appeasement-oriented centrist, but he's actually gotten a surprising amount done. Biden has ended up being far better than I expected him to be.
Pili 10 points 3 years ago
He literally called Cuba "terrorist" just a few days ago, and did the same for Xi a little while before that. He also kept in place all of trump's international sanctions, and even added new ones on top.
He seems to try really hard to be agitative, I don't understand how someone could see him as "appeasement-oriented".
GivingEuropeASpook 5 points 3 years ago
path: 0 960825 961183 985200 985737 988206, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 3
lemmyshmemmy -21 points 3 years ago
That's a low quality source and you're putting words in Biden's mouth.
MasterObee 9 points 3 years ago
What has he gotten done that you support?
I'm pretty disappointed in the Inflation Reduction Act that actually prints a trillion more dollars.
We need inherent change in the government, we need congress to get off their asses and create good bills. We need to get away from the 4th branch of government.
Not print a trillion more $ that goes to government subcontractors and the top 1%
McBinary 32 points 3 years ago
Well, there is an exhaustive list of everything he's accomplished in his term so far; which is a lot.
MasterObee -8 points 3 years ago
I can post a lot of links to different people talking about different things.
What has he gotten done that you support?
Or do you support every single thing in that exhaustive list? If you do support every single thing, that might be more telling of you than Biden's 'accomplishments'
GivingEuropeASpook -1 points 3 years ago
Do what it does whenever a Republican is in office: bully the holdouts of their own party standing in the way of their agendas. When Trump's legislative agenda was imperilled, he used Twitter to the point where a whole generation of GOP legislators decided not to run for re-election.
Every time Manchin and Sinema held up his agenda in 2021, he should have been hitting the airwaves and social media every day to single them out BY NAME for holding up what he was elected to do.
MasterObee -7 points 3 years ago
Executive branch should enforce laws passed by the legislative branch and do what they can to keep us out of more international military conflicts.
The IRA was Biden's baby, it's not that he was silent on the bill then it just happened to cross his desk. The executive should NOT be pushing legislation, the executive branch should NOT be trying to unilaterally pass $1T in debt relief with an executive order and should NOT promote divisiveness.
ashok36 7 points 3 years ago
If you'd told me we could virtually eliminate Russia's army and remove them as a competitor on the world stage for a couple billion bucks with no american troops in 2020 I would have taken that deal any day.
onionbaggage 4 points 3 years ago
He compromises with the Fascists a little too much for my taste.
onionbaggage 6 points 3 years ago
Oh for sure. I'll vote for him. Just mildly disappointed I can't vote for someone I really want.
givesomefucks -1 points 3 years ago
Yeah...
That's what everyone is complaining about.
And why everyone is more upset at the people running the national party who refuse to let Americans have a primary.
The ones who are willing to say "if you dont vote for this 80 year old who lied to you four years, have fun with trump!".
Do t worry tho, progressives will do what we always do and vote for the lesser evil.
Doesn't mean we have to pretend we like it
flossdaily 1 point 3 years ago
Before I start, let me say that Biden absolutely has my vote, because the alternative is the end of our democracy.
I'll also say he's away better than I thought he'd be.
But here's how he's a disappointment:
He failed to appoint an attorney general that would give us a special prosecutor to go after Trump for the most egregious case of Obstruction of Justice in the history of the country, as laid out in the Mueller report. This was a matter of national security, should have been the first set of indictments against Trump, and should have happened a couple years ago.
Student loans. Our economic engine requires a strong consumer class... Right now two generations of Americans are drowning in debt, and can't buy goods and services from other Americans. It's hurting EVERYBODY. Biden should be aiming to erase ALL student debt. Instead he's taking half-measures that leave the United States still in crisis. And that's BEFORE we talk about how weak his attempt to do this was, from a legal standpoint.
Healthcare. We are still in crisis. The ACA was supposed to be a first step. Instead, it has been the only step, and Republicans continue to attempt to chip away at it. Why hasn't Biden put out a universal healthcare plan? Or at least a public option? How can we ever make progress when he won't even be the standard-bearer for these ideas?
The Supreme Court was captured by fascist theocrats. Any future moderate (to say nothing of liberal) laws will be struck down by these assholes. Why is Biden not talking about packing the court until it once again reflects the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans?
I could go on, but the jist here is that the United States is in absolute crisis, and like Hillary before him, Biden is the "nothing will essentially change" or "incremental change" candidate. Not acceptable during an emergency.
onionbaggage 6 points 3 years ago
Use the poors as a cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel.
Zagorath 32 points 3 years ago
You need a better voting system.
Any single-winner system is inherently flawed, which is why presidential systems are just straight-up worse than parliamentary ones. They're by their nature going to be less representative. A system where the president is largely a figurehead is far better, along with a legislature which is elected proportionally using something like Mixed-Member Proportional, Single Transferable Vote, or party-list PR.
But failing that, the bare minimum to call your system democratic is to use Instant Runoff Voting. First Past the Post is just straight-up not democracy. It's a farce. The idea that two candidates with similar views both being very successful actually makes it less likely that either will win is an obvious complete failure of the system. (And, fwiw, you could have IRV presidential elections for a powerful POTUS while also improving congress by making it proportional, if you want to go a step further than just making Congress & President both using IRV, but not as far as the fundamental constitutional change required to make the president a figurehead.)
el_cordoba 4 points 3 years ago
Suspending reality, it would be interesting if enough progressives moved to states like Wyoming (pop 580k) and the Dakotas (780k and 890k) to move them blue. Then vote in progressive senators. For reference, NJ alone has a population of 9.2m.
If that could happen It would be great to link senators to state population.
dynamojoe 3 points 3 years ago
I agree with you but it'll never happen. That would require a constitutional amendment and that bar is so high it can only be cleared under the threat of national revolt (like when the voting age was lowered, or prohibition was repealed). States would not be so eager to give up their power, and three fourths of them would have to agree.
Zagorath 1 point 3 years ago
I don't know how you achieve it, but if you haven't got at least IRV, then electoral reform should be the top issue people push their elected representatives for. As I understand it, some states have already done it in some elections, so it's not like it's impossible. Without a functioning democratic system, you can't ever get good outcomes on the things that actually matter. And with FPTP you don't have a democratic system.
Taalnazi 8 points 3 years ago
A parliamentary system with fully proportional representation would be best. The US is big though, so I think an electoral threshold of 4% may be needed. That, or require parties to fulfil the below condition before being able to participate in elections.
• They need enough support through party membership from the area's population, as a % of the latter. On counties, this would be about 4%. On a state level, that would be 1%. On a national level, 0.25% would be enough.
You might think, why lower with each level? But the larger the population size is, the smaller the membership can be while remaining representative. This also stimulates smaller parties since now they have a chance to actually grow.
Electoral districts also need to be thrown away -- counties, states, and the entire country, are where the elections get held in. Because of proportional representation, it doesn't matter however you were to divide up areas: 25% of votes on one party means 25% of seats.
Lastly, force the Democratic and Republican Party to break up into separate parties with each no more than 20% of all seats. Or tell the parties that putting through with proportional representation as an agenda point will give them more votes. The Dems can argue, "One man, one vote", the Reps can argue "America NEEDS to keep it Great! Vote the Dems away, get Proportional!". Both should have this as agenda point.
I also think it critical that the supreme court of the US isn't 7 judges. It worked for a country with 2 million people, but you lot are a country of 300+ million now. You need something like 100 members, and make the supreme court appointed by the judges themselves, who are chosen by multiple random ballots themselves.
The US Congress also could be expanded. Make the House go from 435 to 500 members, and the Senate to 250. They need to be updated for a big country.
It also makes it harder to manipulate politicians, since there are far more needed to bribe.
I have a whole writeup, if anyone is interested. I think that both Dems and Reps and anyone else can find themselves in it.
Zagorath 2 points 3 years ago
I think an electoral threshold of 4% may be needed.
I have absolutely no problem with such a threshold.
I also think it critical that the supreme court of the US isn’t 7 judges.
Okay so here's a really controversial take. I think the problem with the SCOTUS actually stems from there being too many rights enumerated in the American constitution. I should note that I'm not a legal scholar, but I've read a lot of opinions from non-American lawyers who have explained this viewpoint, and it makes sense to me.
Where I live in Australia, our constitution is largely uncontroversial. It doesn't say what rights people do and do not have, but really just lays out the basic functioning of our democratic institutions, like how elections work, how Government works, how the Commonwealth interacts with the States, etc. Rights are left to Parliament to implement. This has the interesting difference from America in that it means that our High Court decisions are largely far less political than SCOTUS's. Because the High Court of Australia doesn't get to make the inherently political ruling of deciding how to interpret individuals' rights as laid out in the constitution. By putting the right to bear arms in the constitution, SCOTUS is inherently given the power to decide what should be a legislative matter of how much people are allowed to own guns. It's what lead to the morally-good but legally-nonsense decision that lead to Americans having the right to abortion*, which itself stopped the legislature from ever feeling like it needed to do its job in relation to abortion protections, which is in turn what made the disastrous outcome of Dobbs possible.
This is, obviously, something so deeply ingrained that it would be basically impossible to change. Americans view their constitution almost like a religious text. Even though some of the founding fathers supposedly thought a constitution is something that should be basically rewritten from scratch every few decades, Americans view it as written in stone and as something that must not be changed except perhaps to enumerate more explicit rights. But fundamentally, a less politicised constitution would lead to a less politicised judicial system, which would allow each branch of government to do its part without encroaching on the others like they currently do.
I'm with you on increasing the size of the legislature though. 2 senators per state is far too few (and makes it impossible to reasonably add in a proportional system on a per-state basis). I have much the same feeling about my country. I'd like to see our Parliament almost doubled in size, especially if we were to move to a more proportional system (we currently have a proportional Senate, but use IRV for our House of Representatives).
* legally nonsense because if you look at how SCOTUS justified it in Roe, it just doesn't make sense, legally. Somehow the right to an abortion is derived from...a right to privacy? That doesn't make sense. And it makes even less sense when you consider that the right to privacy itself is somehow derived from the right to due process and equal rights under the law.
assassin_aragorn 20 points 3 years ago
My only real misgiving with Biden is age, but I do still agree. With how crazy and dangerous Republicans have become however, we can't afford to take any risks. We don't just need to beat them, we need to beat them by the largest margins possible. We need to send a sharp condemnation. Biden's incumbency advantage is indispensable for this.
Narauko -5 points 3 years ago
You really don't have any additional misgivings about a man who sold out the people of the United States to the credit card companies for a few measley hundreds of thousands of dollars, and who cosponsored a large percentage of why our student loan crisis is as bad as it is? There is a reason that all predatory credit entities are based in the state he represented for his entire political career. He doesn't get a pass after decades of being a predatory corporate shill selling out the American people. How can the Dems not be capable of fielding literally anyone remotely electable if they weren't competing opposite truly garbage candidates like Desantis and Trump? I have the same question for the Repubs, for fielding Desantis and Trump. And neither side actually solving abortion rights, gun rights, healthcare, etc when they hold all 3 branches because they are all afraid of losing their major wedge issues, without which they aren't confident they can win elections.
hh93 9 points 3 years ago
The problem is really that the whole system is fucked up.
Elections being about "the lesser evil" instead of voting FOR what you actually want is just horrible - no wonder so many people are losing faith in democracy over there...
SCB 2 points 3 years ago
I am literally a climate lobbyist. I have a meeting with a republican rep in 2 weeks. His stance is that climate change is probably real, but is undecided on if humans cause it.
That's what we have on the other side. That's a MODERATE position for the other side right now. Compromise is the only way we're gonna make any progress if we can't get them out of office, and majorities are tough to come by
Irlut_ 21 points 3 years ago
Although I think Biden has overall done a good job I am disappointed that they're running someone who is 80 years old. I would also like to see a general shift to the left, but at the same time I realize that the increased political division in the US makes this unlikely in the near term.
krashmo 1 point 3 years ago
People always have some reason ready to roll out when telling you to settle for some shitty candidate you don't really like. I'm done with it. I compromised on Joe Biden to save America from Trump. I compromised in every election for my entire adult life. Now I'm voting for people I actually like. If the US is collectively dumb enough to go back to the GOP then we deserve the consequences of that choice.
You can call that selfish if you want but I've been waiting 35 years for the compromise candidate to be the one from my camp and there's always a bunch of armchair poly-sci experts coming out of the woodwork to explain why that would be irresponsible in the current political climate. Well too bad, I'm not voting for the geriatric anymore.
Crimesawastin 8 points 3 years ago
He ran on getting kids out of cages and there is still a giant open-air prison for refugees on the border. He busted the railroad union. Those are two pretty big issues for the left. He's further right than Obama, and probably futher right than Nixon, if you compare their platforms. Fighting fascism by moving further right is a really bad way to fight fascism.
Platomus 3 points 3 years ago
Because he isn't the one that's going to have to living in and running the world in another 20 years or fewer.
Because there are plenty of other choices that better represent the current and future population.
Because he was alive during a time that is so drastically different than the current world.
people_are_cute 1 point 3 years ago
To say the quiet part out loud, he simply isn't charismatic enough to hold the President position. Common people don't feel their future to be secure under his leadership. Look at GOP's candidates meanwhile (DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Trump) - they are all populist if not anything else.
And like it or not, this perception matters. I can guarantee he'll recieve less votes this time (compared to last year, he can still marginally win simply because of how unpopular the Right has become).
Grant_M -1 points 3 years ago
Being able to see through the RW/Kremlin propaganda fog does not make me a "shill bot." I suppose by your metrics, AOC is also a "shill bot" for supporting Joe Biden? He's the first in a LONG WHILE to promote any kind of true global unity on important issues. Not perfect, but DAMNED good.
absentthereaper -3 points 3 years ago path: 0 968121 969130 989418, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 3
SCB 4 points 3 years ago
You didn't, but the black congressional caucus advised on it and supported it, as did the black community overwhelmingly at the time
It ended up being the bad choice, but it wasn't a racist choice.
absentthereaper 0 points 3 years ago path: 0 968121 969130 989418 994850 995072, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
Cool_Name 6 points 3 years ago
How is RFK Jr. the primary opposition? I know he wasn't, but it feels like he was put there by the dem establishment as a threat. When I'm feeling like I would support any other democratic candidate to run in place of Biden, this barely younger absolute crank leans in and goes 'anyone?' Ah fuck, let's go dark Brandon... if i have to... I guess.
ashok36 13 points 3 years ago
it feels like he was put there by the dem establishment as a threat.
Hahahahahaha, no. He's been entirely enabled by those on the right and their hangers-ons in the podcast dork-o-verse. He's an entirely artificial candidate that only appeals to the fringe 5% or so that would have otherwise voted for Nader, or Jill Stein, or Kanye West.
assassin_aragorn 9 points 3 years ago
I think he was actually bankrolled by Bannon and the like. I'm not sure why they thought a far right loon like RFK would weaken Biden. Like you said, his candidacy feels like a purposeful Biden advertisement.
DreamerOfImprobableDreams 5 points 3 years ago
Because they fundamentally don't understand how left-leaning people think, which means they don't understand what we want in a candidate. These are the same geniuses who convinced Kanye to run for president in 2020 because they thought he'd peel away the Black vote from the Democrats just because he was Black. (Did I mention they're all racist AF, too?)
TowardsTheFuture 5 points 3 years ago
Newsom? I guess? Though I suppose he will run next cycle when his term as governor is up.
flossdaily 2 points 3 years ago
Yeah, the Democrats really fucked up by uniting against Bernie in 2020, and Warren fucked up by not getting behind him.
So we're stuck with Biden, who aims too low on all our critical issues.
But it's vital to understand that we ARE stuck with him. There's no path to victory for anyone else in the party.
So it's Biden or ... A fascist takeover of the country.
Easy choice.
Painful. But easy.
Scooter411 73 points 3 years ago
Well that’s unfortunate. Wish we could find someone other than an old fucking white guy to represent us.
HobbitFoot 11 points 3 years ago
Bernie has said some really nice things about the Biden Administration.
Scooter411 28 points 3 years ago
Too be fair - the Biden administration isn’t all bad and I think when they do something good we should acknowledge that so that maybe they keep doing good things. That doesn’t mean I don’t think there are better options, though.
HobbitFoot 15 points 3 years ago
You can hope for better options, but it says something that the Progressive leadership doesn't see a reason to challenge Biden in the primaries. And as some didn't like hearing, the Progressive leadership has found Biden to be an ally in passing significant legislation. The problem of moving forward isn't the Presidency, but Congress.
SpaceNoodle 4 points 3 years ago
I mean, it's not that hard to. Even simply coherent sentences are like ambrosia after the previous administration, and Joe's got actual things to say on top of that.
Beardliest 35 points 3 years ago
For real. Even as a white guy, I’m tired of this shit as well. Wish we could get someone younger and more progressive on the ballot. It’s time to get those old ducks out of office. They have no grasp on how shit really works these days.
candyman337 11 points 3 years ago
I agree, but generally a party will back a sitting president of that party, additionally division of the Democratic party is what caused trump's election in the first place.
I wonder if she's being groomed to be the next candidate. I would like that a lot, but what the Democratic needs right now is unity, because the Republican party is very divided.
HobbitFoot 10 points 3 years ago
She's probably being groomed for House leadership. She has a relatively safe seat and seems willing to put the work in being a good representative. However, to do that, she needs to build the caucuses that she is in.
Zaktor 3 points 3 years ago
If the Democratic party needs unity when the Republicans are divided, when exactly would dissent ever be acceptable? Seems like this is just a pitch to always be unified, which in turn means never challenging the party establishment.
candyman337 1 point 3 years ago
The system has been formed that way intentionally. That's one of the huge issues with our election system actually
YoBuckStopsHere -1 points 3 years ago
There are many that believe Biden won't run and the seat is being saved for Gavin Newsom.
Scooter411 4 points 3 years ago
We’ll see if Biden drops out, but he is currently running.
YoBuckStopsHere -2 points 3 years ago
February 2024 I expect Biden to name a successor. He would be viewed as a lame duck if he didn't pretend to be running right now.
SpaceNoodle 1 point 3 years ago
Ugh
YoBuckStopsHere 1 point 3 years ago
Time will tell, but Newsom would still beat Trump.
SpaceNoodle 1 point 3 years ago
In a cage march, sure
Grant_M 64 points 3 years ago
She understands that we are under attack by a global RW fascist insurgency. Keeping the GOP out of the WH will save democracy in the US and around the world. Any GOP winner would stand back and allow the russian terrorists to take Ukraine and beyond.
GivingEuropeASpook -5 points 3 years ago
Yes, this is why we must unequivocally support the guy who couldn't get any laws passed to protect against said RW fascist insurgency. The guy who can't get his own party to pass voting rights expansion. The guy with no plan to counter the hijacked Supreme Court, and who has steadfastly refused to develop one. Yup, this is the guy that'll stop American Fascism.
agitatedpotato 8 points 3 years ago
No one's blaming biden for the facists existence but are you expecting the facists to stop themselves? If not someones gotta do it, like maybe the commander in chief of the country under attack.
alphalyrae 8 points 3 years ago
And exactly how would Biden get anything through a Senate currently spilt between the two parties? You would need 60 votes to overcome the constant filibusters the Rs would throw up since this would not be a budgetary vote.
Last time I checked, there are only 48 Dems plus three independents who caucus with the Dems, for a total of 51. We'd need at least 62 to account for Sinema and Manchin, so expecting Biden to solve this is delusional.
acunasdaddy 18 points 3 years ago
The filibuster exists. Biden isn’t all powerful. None of the things you mentioned would get past the current congress.
Biden isn’t perfect. But trump is the end of America. Vote Biden 24
GivingEuropeASpook 0 points 3 years ago
If it were reversed, Trump would be bullying the GOP senators in his way (and he might even pull a couple of Democrat votes because they lack party unity)
acunasdaddy 1 point 3 years ago
Trump isn’t bullying his way past 60 senators and the house for anything major. They passed one major piece of legislation (tax cuts) when he was in office. That’s it. No Obamacare repeal, no abortion legislation, nothing of significance. And now they don’t have any platform anyway so….
whofearsthenight 8 points 3 years ago
The choice is between guy we don't like and aren't that excited about, and literal fascists. If you have a viable, shot in hell alternative, glad to hear. If not, you're doing the work of the fascists.
Mdotaut801 -14 points 3 years ago path: 0 983042 989739, hotness: undefined, score: -14, children: 6
Mdotaut801 -7 points 3 years ago path: 0 983042 989739 990277 991925, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 2
Grant_M 5 points 3 years ago
What you stated is false. No matter what your personal RW/Kremlin disinformation manipulated beliefs may be, the Biden admin DO NOT support russians murdering and kidnapping Ukrainian children.
alphalyrae 1 point 3 years ago
What is your source for this claim?
DreamerOfImprobableDreams 42 points 3 years ago
Jimmy Carter did-- Ted Kennedy challenged him for the 1980 presidential nomination. The result was them doing so much damage to each other that the ultimate winner of the primary (Carter) came out battered and bruised, giving Reagan the edge he needed to win the general. And we all know how well that worked out for the planet. (Spoiler alert: horrifically.)
givesomefucks 18 points 3 years ago
That was the opposite tho...
That was "moderate" party leaders trying to sabotage a progressive at any cost.
That fucked America up reeeeeeeally badly. But the people who decided to do it got what they wanted: an excuse to tell voters that progressives can't win.
DreamerOfImprobableDreams 4 points 3 years ago
That was “moderate” party leaders trying to sabotage a progressive at any cost.
Wait, what? I thought Jimmy Carter was considered really progressive for his time. And Ted Kennedy wasn't some perfect progressive hero, he had some pretty major blemishes on his record like Chappaquiddik. So I always saw it as more pointless infighting than any kind of centrist-vs-progressive showdown like 2016.
Then again, my parents were in high school when all this was going down, so my knowledge is obviously pretty limited, lol.
givesomefucks 12 points 3 years ago
I thought Jimmy Carter was considered really progressive for his time
Which is why he got a primary challenger...
givesomefucks 13 points 3 years ago
Carter is our most progressive president since FDR...
The "moderates" were the ones running the party that allowed a primary...
I thought my comment was pretty clear, but hopefully that's clearer
DreamerOfImprobableDreams -1 points 3 years ago path: 0 954504 955847 956157 956459, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
Bluefalcon 51 points 3 years ago
People don't understand the importance of this endorsement. AOC is considered as the next generation. Most 16-24 yr olds agree heavily with her and would identify closer to the left.
If Democrats play it smart, they could hold a majority for 10-20yrs. We are seeing swing states lean more blue than red ( Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Arizona, and Virginia). This is a huge problem for Republicans bc they always relied on these states to combat large democratic states.
Mirshe 32 points 3 years ago
The issue is that this might not matter much in the short run anyway. Democrats have been playing well at the national level, sure, but they don't seem to notice that Republicans have figured out that state sovereignty means they can just have fascist fiefdoms rather than coast-to-coast national-level fascism. I don't see Biden or Harris putting their foot down on a state if shit gets real bad - hell, Florida literally passed a law allowing CPS to take kids from out-of-state parents and nobody at the national level so much as said boo about it.
Bluefalcon 14 points 3 years ago
Believe me, I understand Republicans have gerrymandered a lot of states but those states are fighting back. Look at Minnesota, they have a democratic majority for the first time in years. They have been pushing progress programs left and right that benefit everyone.
My point is that Democrats should stand united behind Biden. This will show everyone that they have two goals, combating corruption and pushing for legislation to better others' lives. If they attack a red state then Republicans will use that for years. It will feed into the "they're coming for your guns" crowd.
Democrats need to continue pushing progressive reforms and nominate a good candidate in 2028. Win more senators' seats and flip the house back. Then go after corrupt judges.
BassTurd 51 points 3 years ago
Biden wasn't my first choice in 2020 and I really wish he was younger, but he has done extremely well as President so far. If he wins again and stays healthy, I have almost no concerns he will continue to get things done.
absentthereaper -12 points 3 years ago path: 0 985735 989337, hotness: undefined, score: -12, children: 9
absentthereaper -9 points 3 years ago path: 0 985735 989337 991985 992146, hotness: undefined, score: -9, children: 5
whofearsthenight 5 points 3 years ago
Might want to check recent news on rail unions...
Ab_intra 6 points 3 years ago
He has accomplished a lot. But the issue is that the Biden administration is pretty bad at showing this. Maybe it has something to do with them being so busy at doing the changes they need.
The issue for people is to understand what's going on. Most people are not able to comprehend what makes a good president to begin with because the tasks they do are so complex.
anadem 14 points 3 years ago
Unfortunately you're displaying your ignorance. Biden has zero influence on the currently-ghastly Supreme Court. In fact given how little actual power a President has here, Biden has accomplished a lot, despite the razor thin Democrat majority (and Manchin! and Sinema!) in the Senate.
Zaktor 2 points 3 years ago
I mean, he doesn't really have direct power to control the court, but the court is vulnerable and responsive to public opinion and he could do more on that front. We have justices themselves saying the court is acting unconstitutionally and Biden's putting out statements worried about how expansion would "politicize" the court. The more worried they are with their legitimacy the less bold they are in their rulings.
BassTurd 2 points 3 years ago
I disagree with what he did in the railroad union, but to say he's destroyed unions is a bit of a misnomer. Other replies have already explained how stupid the second part of your comment is, I don't need to add to that.
basequal 48 points 3 years ago
The fact that the majority here is okay to settle with a mildly dissapointing 80 year old, just so the other "evil" side doesn't win is a bit disheartening for the state of US politics and democracy.
And this is comming from a politically shithole country I am born and living in.
Thetimefarm 44 points 3 years ago
Trump has all of Bidens issues AND he's a fascist idiot. Trying to say he's in any way better than Biden just shows either how uninformed you are in American politics, or you think people like Trump are attractive candidates. If it's the latter you may want to take a look at the type of people who, in your own words, are making your country a "political shithole".
whofearsthenight 8 points 3 years ago
Thank you! The "evil" in quotes is what did it for me. We don't need the quotes. Trump and their side right now has no redeeming qualities and shouldn't be in charge of an airport Starbucks. This isn't a choice between slight differences in policy, this is "do you want to vote for nazis, or no?" Oh, I know about Godwin's law, how boutcha google that and see how he feels about it.
basequal -3 points 3 years ago
I am not even remotely saying that, and I wasn't even refering to a specific Republican candidate (least of all Trump given the latest events). Personally, I preffered Biden's policies last election, however this is not at all relevant to the point I was making.
Failing to see Biden shortcomings over Trump (or any other candidate) and vice versa is just a reflection of how black and white your view of politics is. Keep in mind that half of your country voted for the oposite candidate of your liking, and labeling them all as fascists is hurting you the most.
I am looking at my country as well, it's not like it's an exclusive thing you can have an opinion on. Keep in mind that the current people on position in my country are actually appointed by the American democracy police, so what happens on your side of the pond has some impact on my end as well.
SlowTurn -29 points 3 years ago
It took me a second to figure out why you called Biden a fascist but I came to the realization it's because that Biden wanted to relieve student debt which is considered a socialist policy and that for is considered an extension of fascism. But that's not the problem that most people have with fascism coupled with the fact one can be a socialist without being actually fascist. The aspect everybody is more concerned about is the totalitarian side that tends to be with a true fascist. The water is easily muddied by terms.
SlowTurn 3 points 3 years ago
Yeah I got busy today just reread it and misunderstood it. I thought that the original commenter was saying that Trump and Biden were both fascists. I was a little upset with that comment because Fox and other medias were pushing that Biden was a fascist because socialism is the most important aspect of fascism. Which I do not agree with.
Thetimefarm 8 points 3 years ago
Fascism is a political ideology, not an economic structure. I also don't know how you could miss read a comment that badly, maybe you did maybe you didn't. Either way your comment is just really poorly thought out and written. Please try and contribute something more useful to the conversation. It was nice to not worry about people trying to stir shit up like they do on reddit, however briefly it lasted.
wwaxwork 18 points 3 years ago
She wouldn't win, at least not yet, we've got to drift more to the left as a country to have an election she'd become President in. And if not Biden who? Who should run for President that has a chance of actually winning the election? It's easy to piss on them selecting Biden, but no one else is a viable option. You want more younger options to vote for, run for office yourself, get your friends to run for office, can't vote for young left leaning politicians if they don't freaking run and win elections.
queermunist -2 points 3 years ago
We could run Clinton again. It's Her turn!
wwaxwork 1 point 3 years ago
People not understanding there is no such thing as a "protest" vote protest voting during her run are why we are in this mess in the first place. Not sure risking it a second time for those that didn't learn the lesson is a good idea. It would be interesting and fun to watch the oppositions heads explode though if it did happen.
queermunist 2 points 3 years ago
We're in this mess because millions and millions of people that voted for Trump and they're going to vote for him again.
The lesson here is that we need to do something about Trump voters, not waste time on a few percent of dorks that think voting 3rd party matters.
stevedidWHAT 6 points 3 years ago
“Good choices” don’t exist bro it’s just shit or less shit. My life is gripped with pessimism and I’ve never been happier
/s
Ab_intra 5 points 3 years ago
You know that the "evil" have no idea what he's doing half the time right? He has zero clue as to what he is actually doing. He is saying a lot of shit but in reality he has no idea what the fuck is going on.
Trump is one of the few presidents that actually has no idea of how to govern at all. If that don't scare you then I have no freaking idea what will.
At least Biden understands the political prosses and how things work. And also he don't take cases of files with him so he can brag about how the US had plans to attack Iran..
AttractiveNuisance 2 points 3 years ago
Why the scare quotes? They actually are evil. That's not hyperbole. So, yeah, I'm ok with "settling."
weirdly_austin 1 point 3 years ago
aintthatamerica.mp3
Ertebolle 40 points 3 years ago
Age notwithstanding, any incumbent president in the last 50 years would be absolutely overjoyed to run for re-election with Biden's record; tons of new blue-collar jobs, strong economy, relative lack of major fuck-ups or controversies or other drama except manufactured RW ragebait. Basically everything swing voters want and nothing they don't want.
Nor is there any real reason to fret about base turnout, given that liberals will view the Republican candidate winning as apocalyptic and show up simply to vote against that person, however disappointed they may be in Biden and whatever performative statements they make about their votes not being guaranteed.
YoBuckStopsHere 15 points 3 years ago
Pretty much the only negative for Biden is age, but that is a pretty big negative.
Chariotwheel 8 points 3 years ago
The campaign needs to see to make Kamala Harris digestible. More than with most campaigns, the way she is viewed is immensely important due to Biden seemingly able to keel over at any moment.
Ertebolle 12 points 3 years ago
They could also replace her.
In fact there's a pretty good argument that they ought to pick their strongest 2028 candidate - which is almost certainly not Harris - and Biden should secretly promise that person that he'll resign after the midterms in order to get them to agree to join the ticket; the odds are pretty strong he doesn't make it through 4 years anyway, and this way there'd be a solid plan in place when he finally runs into whatever medical setback forces him out.
Zaktor 5 points 3 years ago
They'll avoid the problem in favor of short term benefit. Any belief I had that the Democratic insiders had a long-term masterplan went out the window with how little they've done to pump up Harris. I don't even want her to be an eventual nominee, but I thought they'd be purposefully building her as the trusted heir apparent. Instead they just dumped no-win issues on her while making her mostly invisible in the administration's wins.
YoBuckStopsHere -2 points 3 years ago
Kamala Harris has done exactly what a Vice President is supposed to do, but she isn't going to be President after Biden, at least not yet.
SpaceNoodle 4 points 3 years ago
If that's the biggest negative, that's not so bad compared to all the other possibilities.
goryramsy 3 points 3 years ago
The only major fuckup was the failure of student loan debt cancellation, and the pullout from Afghanistan. But arguably the latter wasn't his fault, as it had been put in place before he was in office.
YoBuckStopsHere 18 points 3 years ago
Military-wise, the pullout of Afghanistan was a huge success. The Russians lost 535, the British lost 16,000. On top of it the United States evacuated 250,000+ civilians in 3 weeks who were never part of the pull-out. Many think of it as a failure but it was the largest humanitarian airlift effort in human history. If there was a fuckup it occurred in 2020 when Trump told the Taliban they can have Afghanistan. That is where everything fell to pieces.
coffeetest 2 points 3 years ago
Well, not to mention, Afghanistan had a few other knock-on effects on the, um, former Soviet Union.
YoBuckStopsHere 13 points 3 years ago
During my government-paid vacation to Afghanistan, those we fought against were mostly Iranian or Pakastani, not actual Afghani people. If we did run into an Afghani it was usually a teenager. Given I was there in 2008 and 2012 and not in 2020, the feeling that any pull-out would be messy was already present. The locals didn't believe we would ever leave, we told them in 2012 we didn't think we were the right culture to help them out of the darkness and that we wouldn't stay forever. The United States never invested in Afghanistan, Congress blocked all grain shipments despite military intelligence showing it would result in farmers growing opium. I know for many Americans the only view of the nation was war images, but those of us on the ground saw more than that. The Afghani culture is really cool, they are the best horsemen I have ever seen, deeply caring and understanding. They also are a broken people who don't view themselves as a nation but as tribes of people. In the end those I met and spoke to were very interested in western culture and we fostered a great relationship. The largest problem they faced was foreigners from the West and South bringing war to their villages and forcing their strict religious rules on them.
I do believe that Afghanistan will never recover, India or China are going to exploit the nation for it's resources and leave nothing for the people there. Maybe either of those nations will run the Taliban out, but it won't be anytime soon.
CrazyEddie041 4 points 3 years ago
That, and stabbing the rail workers union in the back.
Ertebolle 15 points 3 years ago
Actually, most of them ended up getting their sick days anyway in the end, due to the combined efforts of Biden and Bernie: http://www.ibew.org/...
SpaceNoodle 6 points 3 years ago
Holy shit, I guess I missed that news because of the reddit debacle. That's fabulous news.
BananaTrifleViolin 2 points 3 years ago
From abroad at least Biden seems like a very poor candidate. As he's chosen to stand again the dems have little choice but get behind him or risk a devisive primary season splitting the party.
But the republicans look set to select a very poor candidate too. It says a lot about how broken US politics is that were probably going to see a rerun of the last election with two elderly candidates battling it out in a deeply divisive and particularly polarised election.
The election will basically come down to how many people don't like Donald Trump. That's not great.
ryathal 1 point 3 years ago
- He promised he wouldn't run.
- He's old and likely has experienced cognitive decline.
- He's the most anti-union president since Reagan, and supposedly a Democrat.
- The border is as bad or worse than under Trump.
- He's not actually able to campaign effectively for himself or others.
MasterObee -1 points 3 years ago
If we weren't stuck in the two party system, we'd absolutely have a much better candidate.
We can stop pretending he's accomplished. Our nation is still extremely divided, and it's getting worse. Our economy is okay for the top 60%, but we still have insane opioid crisis, homeless crisis, housing crisis and the bottom 40% are not better off. They are fighting against inflation, while being told that they just need to suck up $5/gallon gas prices. Inflation seems to be getting under control more, and the Ukraine response was decent. He did okay.
But I'd hope we can do better than okay.
Licensed_to_ill 31 points 3 years ago
Man, screw Biden. I would rather vote for AOC
el_cordoba 46 points 3 years ago
Ranked voting needs to happen otherwise it will always be democrats vs republicans most of the time.
whenigrowup356 11 points 3 years ago
I think we'd need a parliamentary system to end up with anything more than 2 parties being relevant. The 2 party system is sort of hard-wired into the way the house and Senate work. Ranked choice could have some cool effects on party primaries, though.
SubArcticTundra 4 points 3 years ago
Also, the two party system can be broken quite easily if any state switches to proportional representation. If a third party wins even a small number of congressional seats, it could make them the kingmaker in a divided house.
SubArcticTundra 2 points 3 years ago
Agreed, RCV would essentially mean that the primary is part of the election.
Licensed_to_ill 11 points 3 years ago
I wish. Ranked voting would be phenomenal. It's obviously more democratic. Makes no sense not to have it. But politicians are dirty corrupt pieces of shit.
CluelessLemmyng 5 points 3 years ago
The US Constitution specifies that each state must elect a senator and house of representative, must send electors to the Electoral College for President. It does not specify how.
As such, some states have ranked choice voting. Others do not.
Ab_intra 1 point 3 years ago
Ah I see. It's so weird how it works. Why not federate it so those laws are the same all over? I guess it's a reason for it but in my eyes it sounds very ineffective.
Also the whole electoral college sounds like s bad idea i guess. But it's also a "safe guard" i guess?
Going a bit OT on this one.
Ab_intra 21 points 3 years ago
I would rather vote for a bird. Yes. Birds should govern the US! Imagine. To all seriousness AOC would have lost by so insanely amounts. Let's hope she and more of the liberal parts of the democratic party gets tractions. Getting young people in those positions would be great.
PabloPcakes 21 points 3 years ago
Ha, look at this guy thinking birds are real.
Ab_intra 3 points 3 years ago
It is not?! https://giphy.com/...
SojournerWeaver 1 point 3 years ago
Keep in mind that the more power we give up to conservatives now, the less likely it is that you'll ever have a chance to do that further down the line. Aoc is backing the future of the world right now, but also her political future. The last conservative presidency did a LOT of damage to this country, if only by installing the justices who would go on to overturn Roe V Wade. She doesn't want to see more of that damage, and neither do you.
GivingEuropeASpook 15 points 3 years ago
"we're under a fascist insurgency and we must ensure that the GOP doesn't gain the White House, this is why we must vote for a politician who refuses to do anything to prevent this insurgency from gaining strength like expanding the court or making abortion available on federal land and who refused to use their constitutional authority to prevent giving the House GOP any concessions on the budget/debt ceiling"
catshit_dogfart 13 points 3 years ago
Anything else would do nothing but make chaos, it's a really bad look if your own party doesn't back you anymore. Same with the VP, a president dropping their VP would also be a really bad look.
Cry all you want about "old white guy" but for this election he's the shoo-in. Yeah he's too old, I think so too, yeah I want a real progressive. But damn it all, he's done pretty great stuff and damn the democrats for not shouting about it more.
For a party to primary their own president, that would signal nothing but weakness.
pineapplelover 13 points 3 years ago
wtf is happening. This is a - rep for AOC in my eyes. She realizes the fucker is real old right? Elect someone younger please.
whofearsthenight 25 points 3 years ago
I'm an ideological purist and I'm voting for Jill Stein! This won't backfire in any way!
AOC is being smart/practical. Is Biden anyone's first choice on the left? Fuck no. We can have some more ideological purity when the choice isn't between milquetoast and literal fucking fascists.
Biden wasn't even my third choice in the '20 primary. That said, he's one of the most legislatively accomplished presidents in modern history. Still zero chance I'm going to be excited about voting for him in '24, but who has a shot at beating Trump right now? is maybe the guy that already did?
A_Random_Idiot 2 points 3 years ago
I'm just tired of living in a country where I have to hold my nose and vote for the worst democrat, because the worst democrat still in no way comparable to the awfulness of even the best republican.
Zaktor 2 points 3 years ago
I think lots of Democrats could beat Trump, but none of them could beat Biden in a primary. He's the incumbent and he's just not disliked enough for people to abandon the sitting president.
whofearsthenight 1 point 3 years ago
Definitely. Again, it's just practicality. Too much at stake that's why the only ones feigning towards a primary challenger are doing so in bad faith. Also, re: dislike, I really think Biden just doesn't get enough credit. I definitely thought he wasn't the man for the job in spite of voting for him in '20, but he's pleasantly surprised me.
utopianrevolt 2 points 3 years ago
We can have some more ideological purity when the choice isn’t between milquetoast and literal fucking fascists.
I agree with this sentiment, but how long must we wait to vote for actual exciting, progressive candidates? It feels like we've been "holding our nose" for decades now, and each time we vote for the "lesser evil" they become more emboldened to ensure that they always have power.
Reptorian 2 points 3 years ago
Given the data? 2032 the least. 2028 if millennials and Gen Z voted near 100%. I recall a study that points to only 2-3 red states if every single eligible millenials and Gen Z voted.
catharticrespite 5 points 3 years ago
Absolutely not, but I wouldn't mind a primary
Alwaysfallingupyup -10 points 3 years ago
this not happening shows a HUGE problem on the left. You should feel cornered with only one choice
kofe 11 points 3 years ago
It's one position. I assume Biden will keep Harris as his VP, giving a younger option to take over if need be. But there's fucking hundreds of other positions just as valuable. Those are the ones we should be trying to overturn with primaries imo. Get the house back and widen margins for the Senate.
Just please, if you're in the US, vote. We had a local election where I'm at recently with <15% turnout. It's fucking maddening to me that people only show up for the president, and even *that* is lucky to get >60%.
Reptorian 5 points 3 years ago
It might be a minus. in your eyes, but look at the other candidates we have for the Democratic Party. None of them are anywhere near as appealing as Biden. I'm saying that as some one who voted for Bernie in the primary before, and would flock to vote for AOC. And no, Marianne Williamson is not who I want for president given some of her questionable history though I would happily vote for her at a local level if the other person is a conservative or even a moderate.
AttractiveNuisance 1 point 3 years ago
Even if there were an alternative, it wouldn't matter. Parties whose incumbent get primaries do not go on to win the general. Whether you like it or not, the choice is Biden or the GOP and we are too close to fascism to fuck around.
I also honestly think he's been the best president we've had since FDR. IRA, Chips, Green Energy and infrastructure bills have all been gigantic successes. DOJ is charging trump. Unemployment is lowest in decades. It's really only his age that is concerning, but it's not concerning enough for me to risk the future of the country with someone less experienced and less equipped for the job.
doggle -4 points 3 years ago
In principle I agree, but splitting the Dem vote is a good way to lose an election. Biden is a compromised candidate, but still leagues better than another 4 years of Trump. Fact is there's no real chance of a younger president until 2028. Which is depressing.
paddirn 12 points 3 years ago
I appreciate that we were on the precipice of fascism and still are scarily close to the edge, Biden was absolutely the right person and has done an ok job, all things considered. But he was past his prime in 2020 and he’s well past his prime in 2024. And Harris needs to get the boot too, she’s been absolutely worthless in a position that’s gotten more prominent these past two decades. If it’s Trump v Biden, I’ll absolutely vote Biden, but I’d vote for a rabid squirrel over Trump anytime, so that’s not saying much.
MasterObee -24 points 3 years ago
I've gone the opposite way and actually watched RFK's interviews and stances. At this point I'm much more likely to vote for him than any of the other clowns in the race.
He's not an anti-vaxxer btw, that's just some bullshit his opponents spread. He's for vaccines, he just looks at how other European countries are testing them and our comparatively extremely high mandates for vaccines.
justdoit 23 points 3 years ago
… you have some reading to do my guy.
RFK can say he’s pro-vaccine all he wants, but he’s the chairman of probably the most well known and active anti-vaccine organization operating today. He has personally spoken, funded, and advocated for antivaxx events and movies, and is one of the biggest mouthpieces for the lie that vaccines cause autism, writing several articles and even books about it.
The EU thing is bullshit too, by the way. The US and EU have similar governing bodies for vaccine testing and approval.. And mandates? EU has similarly common childhood vaccine mandates in most major countries.
RFK is one of if not the major megaphone for the idea that trace amounts of thiomersal is driving autism rates, despite it 1. not being used in childhood vaccines since the 90s and 2. never having any link to autism whatsoever..
Saying “I’m pro-vaccine, I just believe the vaccines are causing an "autism holocaust" and we should let parents skip vaccine schedules because vaccines are actually just poison” is just being anti-vaxx but with a veneer of libertarianism.
And to be clear, I’ll entertain the libertarian arguments against mandates (they’re not convincing imo, but that’s a conversation for another day), but RFK is absolutely not arguing that position in good faith. He has inadvertently caused preventable deaths worldwide by advocating for fringe pseudoscience.
MasterObee -13 points 3 years ago
He's been extremely clear - he's not anti-vaxx, he's anti-mercury in vaccines, he himself is vaccinated, and he got his children vaccinated.
Him being skeptical of the clinical trials does not make him anti-vaxx, sorry to say.
Him asking people to prove vaccine safety does not make him anti-vaxx.
And he's been more explicit about not running on an anti-vaxx platform.
Do you agree with whoever you vote for on 100% of issues?
justdoit 12 points 3 years ago
Vaccine safety HAS been demonstrated. Him choosing to ignore that is the issue. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe he’s not interested in proving vaccine safety, he’s interested in fabricating its harm?
He’s not being “skeptical of clinical trials”, he’s willfully broadcasting misinformation. Did you even click on a single link I sent?
Anti-mercury? Did you even fucking click one link I sent you? Thiomersal isn’t in any childhood vaccines, it was removed in 1999, and even then it was never shown to be harmful at the doses present in vaccines. Yet he still runs anti-vaxx events on that obvious lie.
Did it ever occur to you that people lie about their priorities when they’re running for office? This dumbass has caused irreparable harm to health worldwide and continues to fund general anti-vaccine propaganda. He’s STILL the chairman of the CHD, the most prolific anti-vaxx advertiser on the internet. Read my fucking links dude. Him being not only scientifically ignorant but also a raging hypocrite is a selling point to you?
I’m really not trying to be a jerk here, but you have me floored. For fuck’s sake, let his track record speak for itself. He can say “I’m pro-vaccine” all he wants, but he’s poured millions of dollars and countless hours into anti-vaccine propaganda. He’s one of the main reasons people think vaccines cause autism, even though that’s not the slightest bit true. He’s one of the main opponents of the COVID vaccines, despite their safety being demonstrated over and over. He just barely wrote another book on the subject!
If running one of the worst anti-science hoaxes of the century doesn’t disqualify you from being the president of the US, which if you weren’t aware, comes with extreme influence over the research direction and funding of the US… what fucking would disqualify someone?
whereisdani_r 8 points 3 years ago
Isn't she eligible to run herself now? Things can absolutely get worse but can we try to have some imagination? Sigh
littlebluespark 20 points 3 years ago
At least make her VP so when Bernie becomes a Force ghost, we've got someone on the inside at the top.
whereisdani_r 2 points 3 years ago
what if he already is a force ghost 0_0
littlebluespark 1 point 3 years ago
I was there for the sparrow landing moment at the Moda center, back when. Literally 100ft from the podium (on the clock), and after that sight? I gotta say: I wouldn't be surprised.
whereisdani_r 3 points 3 years ago
AOC does turn 35 on 10/13/24, one month before the presidential election
DougHolland 8 points 3 years ago
Biden is pretty unambiguously awful, and only looks good against any Republican. AOC is doing the right thing here, but long-term we have got to get rid of these cobwebheaded oldsters and move on to the next generation, or the generation after.
When we do, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be a good choice.
DougHolland 1 point 3 years ago
Which opinion, sorry. There were a few in there... :)
SpaceNoodle 8 points 3 years ago
AOC is a great choice, but Biden is far from awful. Certainly not ideal, but let's be reasonable.
DougHolland 0 points 3 years ago
Biden is awful, from a left perspective, and I'm of the left. I imagine for middle-of-the-roadsters, though, Biden's the yellow line.
blazera 4 points 3 years ago
Hes outlawed collective bargaining, put it into law that oil and gas must get more land than any renewable energy, accerating climate change with a trillion dollars for more roads and cars. Low wage earners? Never in American history have they been ignored for longer than under Biden. His promise to fix the flaw in the affordable care act that makes sure millions of the lowest earners specifically can recieve no medical coverage? Not even written into a bill to be considered in the first place. Inflation has ran ahead and left people like me behind, my life is worse now than when he first took office.
judgeMental 5 points 3 years ago
Low wage earners? Never in American history have they been ignored for longer
He's been president for three years.
Hes outlawed collective bargaining
To what is this even referring?
From here
the policy of the United States is to encourage worker organizing and collective bargaining and to promote equality of bargaining power between employers and employees
If you're referring to the Railroad workers, see this comment by BrandoGil
put it into law that oil and gas must get more land than any renewable energy
Please post a source indicating any sort of mandate that oil and gas "must get more land".
From here
The Biden administration will resume federal oil and gas leasing in June with a large reduction in acres available for drilling and a historic royalty rate increase.
and
eliminated 80% of the federal acreage originally nominated for competitive leasing (473 of the 646 previously identified parcels) following environmental review.
blazera 3 points 3 years ago
He's been president for three years.
right, but it's been going on for much longer than that, it's just more egregious the longer that is, so now its most egregious under him. Also, no plan to address this in his future as far as he's said, and he wont even work on stuff he has said he would
this is him outlawing collective bargaining. here
And the portion of the Infrastructure Bill requiring Oil and Gas get first dibs on any federal land being leased, go here and ctrl+f for sec. 50265 " ENSURING ENERGY SECURITY" where they outline how at a minimum, tens of millions of acres of federal land has to be auctioned to oil and gas first.
someguy3 3 points 3 years ago
path: 0 955533 956238 957112 958002, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
chakan2 -6 points 3 years ago
But hey... If you earn less than the poverty line, your life is marginally better. Or something like that.
Honestly the union bust on the railroad ensured I'll throw away my vote on a 3rd party. I can't vote for him again and keep any moral standing at all.
It's almost as bad as voting for Trump. Almost... And I'm not playing to pick the best of two complete losers.
TheOminousBulge 2 points 3 years ago
Gotta boost Beau.
theyresocool 1 point 3 years ago
He got more done than we thought. Way better than the last guy and that WMD degenerate.
flossdaily 1 point 3 years ago
Yeah, I'm not a Biden fan by any stretch, but he went way more left than team I thought he would, and has been very effective on a number of issues.
I'd rather have almost any other prominent Democrat, to say nothing of an actual liberal, but I can live with 4 more years of Biden. He's the only realistic candidate in the party. No one was going to win a primary challenge against him.
ChiefOBrien -1 points 3 years ago
Another disappointment from her after yesterdays simping for facebook
givesomefucks 5 points 3 years ago
She doesn't have a choice because the party isn't allowing a primary.
They know they have a captive audience. As shitty as Biden is, he's obviously better than any Republican and 3rd party doesn't have a chance.
The party would rather risk depressing turnout than someone progressive winning a primary
Zaktor 0 points 3 years ago
There is no progressive that could win the primary anyway. The risk the establishment is guarding against is about damaging Biden. I don't feel confident about his chances against anyone but Trump, but there just isn't an alternative politician with the strength to challenge him as an incumbent. He simply hasn't been bad enough for weakly ideological primary voters to vote against the incumbent and the names with the biggest progressive gravitas already lost against him last time without that hindrance.
givesomefucks 1 point 3 years ago
In 2020 29 candidates entered the Dem primary...
I'm pretty sure most are still around here somewhere
But between this in your other reply I already got, I'm picking up a pattern
Zaktor 1 point 3 years ago
2020 was an open primary and the two biggest progressives in that race (and reasonably argued the two most prominent progressives period) have both ruled out running against Biden. Who's the next strongest challenger on that list, Julian Castro? You're not unseating an incumbent president who's been just sort of middling with a no-name.
And you're spamming the same post across the comments here, you shouldn't be surprised if you see a pattern in the responses.
quixotic120 2 points 3 years ago path: 0 953808 955157, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
LexiconDexicon -2 points 3 years ago
Why doesn't AOC run? I'd vote for her. I've been impressed with her job so far
givesomefucks 12 points 3 years ago
Run in the primary the party isn't allowing?
She can't run in something that doesn't exist.
Run 3rd party in the general?
Progressives tend to care enough about America they won't hand the election to trump
Zaktor 1 point 3 years ago
If someone big declared (AOC included), the party would have to run a primary, because arbitrarily shutting them out would be more damaging than debates and internal dissent, but all the big names know they couldn't win a primary and would only hurt Biden in the general so they're falling in behind him. As long as it's joke challengers like RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson though, they can scrap it without worry.
airportline 7 points 3 years ago
AOC is 33 years old. You have to be at least 35 years old to run for president.
Reptorian 1 point 3 years ago
2028 would be the earliest that she would be viable on one condition. If millenials and Gen Z voted Democratic nearly 100%. Ideally, this should happen because that would mean 2-3 red states and every other state is blue. So, we're going to have to wait for 2032 at the earliest or 2036 for AOC to have her time to shine. I'd gladly vote for her.
Anticorp 5 points 3 years ago
Bullshit. It's because they don't want a real progressive to win. They did everything they could to keep Bernie from winning when he ran. The left wing of our government is further right than the right was 50 years ago, and the DNC will do whatever they have to do to keep it that way.
Veltoss 12 points 3 years ago
Kinda feels like you're angrily agreeing with me while using different words while acting like you're arguing against me.
This isn't reddit, not every comment section has to be A vs B arguments.
Backspacecentury 2 points 3 years ago
Isn't she too young still? I was under the impression you had to be 35 to run for president.
YoBuckStopsHere -1 points 3 years ago
She isn't old enough.
HobbitFoot -6 points 3 years ago
She probably couldn't win a statewide office, let alone the Presidency.
LexiconDexicon 3 points 3 years ago
Yes she could, she has the most support in the Democratic Party, much more than Biden does because Americans relate to her, no one except old boomers relate to Biden
echo 1 point 3 years ago
maybe, but there's no way there isn't a huge overlap between them
like i'm supposed to believe that the majority of people who liked AOC in 2020 supported Bernie in the primary, and now the majority of people who like AOC are saying Biden is too old, but these are totally separate groups of people with barely any overlap
Zaktor 1 point 3 years ago
I thought Biden and Bernie were both too old in 2020, but people could entirely consistently consider 78 (Bernie 2020) "not too old" and 81 (Biden 2024) "too old". Both of them have gotten older since Bernie was being considered for the role of president.
GivingEuropeASpook -3 points 3 years ago
Embarrassing. "Socialist" my ass.
absentthereaper -3 points 3 years ago path: 0 989320, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 2
flossdaily 0 points 3 years ago
I'm about as liberal as you'll ever find, and a huge fan of AOC. Definitely NOT a fan of Biden.
However, I'm really happy to see her supporting Biden's reelection, since there is no path forward for any liberal challenger this cycle.
So it really does boil down to mediocre, tired, do-little, centrist Biden... Or... THE END OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
Trump is a fascist wannabe dictator who will use the presidency to escape his criminal charges and/or convictions. He has already stated that he will do a loyalty purge of the entire federal government. He already tried to overthrow our democracy. At this point anyone who joins his administration will be totally on board with that. He's also stated he will be doing a massive power grab to turn the presidency into a something like a kingship.
So, yeah ... I'm glad AOC has enough sense to understand that right now the most important thing is to stop Trump, and that the only way to do that is to hold our nose and get Biden a second term.
absentthereaper 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 989320 1600515 1601026, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
givesomefucks 10 points 3 years ago
What do you think would be better?
Considering in our political system a 3rd party doesn't have a chance, and the Democratic party is refusing to hold a primary...
What other option is there besides endorsing Biden?
001100010010 3 points 3 years ago path: 0 953930 954732 954910, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
crusa187 -5 points 3 years ago
It’s a fair question asked in a dark time for our nation.
I guess my answer would be: do anything but fall in line with corporate Dems. Publicly demanding a primary since Biden reneged on yet another campaign promise of being 1 term would be a good start.
givesomefucks 7 points 3 years ago
Publicly demanding a primary since Biden reneged on yet another campaign promise of being 1 term would be a good start.
That would be used to poison voters against progressives for decades.
If you think that has a chance in hell of doing anything besides helping trump... It actually explains you're first comment, I understand why you think that's a good idea. You're wrong of course tho
crusa187 -2 points 3 years ago
I refuse corporate rule, and will never accept neoliberal corporate domination. I think to call oneself a progressive, you’d have to agree.
Democrats living in constant fear of republicans yelling at them is honestly the most pathetic excuse imaginable for their inaction, and yet, here we are.
TheOminousBulge 5 points 3 years ago
How is this sad, exactly?
crusa187 -5 points 3 years ago
Because Biden isn’t working for the people, he works for his corporate donors. He won’t take action to materially improve our lives, and we deserve better leadership than that. We deserve a progressive who will beat him in the primaries and begin to right the wrongs of neoliberalism.
Justice Dems like AOC falling in line will not further that cause, and it makes me sad because I had hoped for more from her.
Chariotwheel 6 points 3 years ago
tbh he is doing more than I thought an old politician like him would do. He ain't a Bernie Sanders, but he really seems to actually try to pull the country into the right direction. We can argue about whether he could do more, but I wouldn't call it inaction.
TheBucklessProphet -11 points 3 years ago
For anyone who wasn’t previously convinced that AOC was a simple Dem operative rather than the socialist she was masquerading as, here you go. No serious socialist would back the reelection of an old white dinosaur who broke the rail strike’s back the way Biden did. The fact that DSA didn’t revoke her membership after that is a black mark on them as an organization.
BrandoGil 9 points 3 years ago
That point about the rail workers isn't accurate
After months of negotiations, the IBEW’s Railroad members at four of the largest U.S. freight carriers finally have what they’ve long sought but that many working people take for granted: paid sick days.
This is a big deal, said Railroad Department Director Al Russo, because the paid-sick-days issue, which nearly caused a nationwide shutdown of freight rail just before Christmas, had consistently been rejected by the carriers. It was not part of last December’s congressionally implemented update of the national collective bargaining agreement between the freight lines and the IBEW and 11 other railroad-related unions.
“We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.
“We know that many of our members weren’t happy with our original agreement,” Russo said, “but through it all, we had faith that our friends in the White House and Congress would keep up the pressure on our railroad employers to get us the sick day benefits we deserve. Until we negotiated these new individual agreements with these carriers, an IBEW member who called out sick was not compensated.”
blazera 7 points 3 years ago
IBEW stands for international brotherhood of electrical workers. They have a division of electricians that work on railroads. I dont know why this guy keeps getting quoted as some head of railroad workers. Thats also one of the unions that voted in favor of the contract with no sick days, it was actual rail worker unions opposing it that were planning on striking before Biden decided workers dont get to strike.
BrandoGil 3 points 3 years ago
I'm aware of who they are, that article just had the easiest quote to pull showing that the admin kept working at it quietly behind the scenes. A better, yet more convoluted article would have been the one I'm linking below that shows the wins so far, the work that still needs to be done, more sources speaking on how their individual unions are doing, and a larger conglomerate of players still helping (the Biden admin is still a player)
TheBucklessProphet 2 points 3 years ago
Listen, I'm thrilled that the workers got their sick days and credit where credit's due to anyone in the admin who helped secure that, but that doesn't make my point inaccurate. The Biden administration helped deny railroad workers their right to strike. That counts as breaking the back of the strike, even if after breaking their back they turned around and gave them (at least part) of what they were asking for. Breaking strikes via a literal act of Congress is a deeply upsetting, dangerous, and anti-worker move. Full stop.
In contrast to the IBEW statements you've quoted up above, look at the contrasting tone from the RWU in a recent Jacobin article:
RWU made crystal clear by our words and actions throughout contract negotiations that, while we were of course in full support of seven days of paid sick leave for railworkers, RWU would never be in favor of any legislation denying railroad workers our human right to withhold our labor when all else fails in our struggle for safe working conditions and dignity, regardless of whatever concessions may be dangled.
RWU was and is in favor of any legislation that would grant any relief to the barbaric working conditions we contend with — but we would never concede our right to strike. We thank Ocasio-Cortez and other members of the House of Representatives and the Senate for their votes in support of sick leave. But we are not happy at all with her or others in both chambers who voted to deny railroad workers the right to strike.
(Emphasis added by me)
pirategoddess 5 points 3 years ago
This. We can worry about progressive politics in 2028, but right now we have to focus on defeating fascism, and Biden is currently the best candidate for that.
TheBucklessProphet 1 point 3 years ago
What I want to see is for her and anyone else calling themselves a socialist to work to be a socialist power outside of the Democratic Party. The DNC is rotted to the core by the money and influence of the capitalist class in a way that, if not irreversible, is hopeless in the short to medium term. Just look at all of the explicitly capitalist Democratic leaders, including younger ones like Buttigieg.
If you want to pursue socialism, the DNC is the wrong place to do it. Hell, looking at history I think putting eggs in the electoralism bucket is fundamentally flawed. Look at the failed German revolution that helped make room for the ascension of the Nazis thanks to “socialists” making extreme compromises and undercutting socialist revolutionaries to instead work within bourgeois political parties.
MxM111 1 point 3 years ago
Before "splitting the vote" there is democratic primary, where you are supposed to "split the vote" to select the best candidate. Although, my political inclinations are such, that I would chose Biden over her. But I am afraid that if anyone, but Tramp, were to run against Biden, then GOP candidate would win, simply because they are younger.
jdsquared 1 point 3 years ago
I know it's early but who actually has a chance of being the Republican nominee? If anybody I would give the title to RFK jr, but he's running as a Democrat.
I don't see anybody in the field who has the charisma to beat Trump in the primary. And if it turns out he can't run, I don't see anybody being able to beat Biden, except ourselves.
I really don't want to tell people to stop complaining in threads like these. I do believe we need to push progressive causes and progressive house members and get them to win elections. But if all the people who complain in here don't show up to vote for Biden, there might not be enough votes to overcome all the degenerates who vote for Trump
Entropywins 2 points 3 years ago
Double check what happened after the breaking of the railstrike... check with the union they have info on their website
TheBucklessProphet 3 points 3 years ago
I thought I replied to this message, but it doesn't appear to have posted.
I'm thrilled that the worker's got sick time and credit where it's due to anyone in the admin who helped make that happen. It doesn't change the fact that the admin, with the help of AOC and others in Congress broke a strike. That's a terrible, dangerous, anti-worker precedent to set, and shame on anyone who voted for it and Biden for signing it.
If I ask someone for $20 bucks for lunch and they kick me in the shin before giving me the money, am I supposed to be thankful and forget the fact that they just kicked me in the shin? Congress kicked workers in the proverbial, collective shin by blocking them from their right to strike.
Here's a decent article from Jacobin written by an RWU representative making exactly that point: https://jacobin.com/...
And here's a decent rundown of the situation from a decent socialist source (even if it is Trot): https://www.wsws.org/...
TheOminousBulge -6 points 3 years ago
Are you really this myopic or are you just some fascist sockpuppet?
TheOminousBulge 0 points 3 years ago
Fair enough, I'll try to tone it down in the future.
Disunity will lose us this election. We don't have the luxury of being picky about our candidates here. The alternative to Biden is fascism, full stop. Anyone who presents themselves as opposed to Christian fascism but continues to oppose Biden (especially with factual inaccuracies) tends to make me doubt their honesty, or their intelligence. And it should make everyone here suspicious as well.
politics
@lemmy.world
30178
31012
9846
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
politics
@lemmy.world
30178
31012
9846
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Old man who vaguely agrees with my politics and is just mildly disappointing or a literal shit filled dumpster fire? Hmmm tough choice.
save