He’s currently behind the mango Mussolini in the polls and, other than “at least I’m not the other guy” being a much less effective strategy for an incumbent than a challenger no matter how awful the challenger is, this is the main reason.
Biden may be a corrupt right wing reactionary, but he’s not enough of a fool that he’s not beginning to realize the fact that he probably has to change course on this or run a very high risk of losing the last fair and open US presidential election.
Calling Biden “corrupt right wing reactionary” is untrue.
That isn’t to say I wouldn’t prefer Bernie Sanders, or that I agree with everything Biden’s done.
I just think that accusation is inflammatory and baseless. It would be more helpful to use accurate descriptors.
I’m not a fan of him ordering the rail union back to work but he’s also asked for the DEA to review a proposal to reschedule marijuana, acquitted existing inmates on marijuana charges and forgiven as much student loan debt as he is able without intervention from Congress.
To me this does not paint the picture of a “corrupt right with reactionary”
Calling Biden “corrupt right wing reactionary” is untrue.
He was known as The Senator From MBNA for shamelessly acting as if he was working for the then second largest credit card company in the country rather than the US people.
He championed the pro-corporate bankruptcy reform that was so anti-consumer that it inspired Elizabeth Warren to advocate for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to shield consumers from similarly predatory practices by the rich and powerful.
He’s said that “of course” he’d be more likely to agree to talk to someone if they first donated a lot of money to his campaign.
He’s repeatedly championed cutting medicare and medicaid.
He initially opposed desegregation bussing, saying he didn’t want his kids to “grow up in a racial jungle”
He’s bragged about his close cooperation with such segregationists as racism end boss Strom Thurmond.
He has said that he would veto Medicare For All if congress passed a bill allowing any version of it.
He was the only 2020 Dem primary candidate that categorically ruled out decriminalization of the use and possession of cannabis.
He is one of the staunchest international supporters of a fascist government currently engaged in a horrendous genocide because “they’ve always been our allies, so we need to support them no matter what”
He used to brag that nobody in Washington went to more of the events of that fascist government’s lobbying arm, AIPAC.
If that doesn’t “paint the picture of” a corrupt right wing reactionary to you, that’s not because he isn’t one.
I just think that accusation is inflammatory and baseless
Well you’re half right. It IS inflammatory. Unpopular truths tend to be.
It would be more helpful to use accurate descriptors.
Those are 100% accurate descriptors. They don’t encompass ALL of what he is, but corrupt, right wing and reactionary is objectively three things that he is.
asked for the DEA to review a proposal to reschedule marijuana
A proposal that concluded with no qualifications that rescheduling would be the only defensible course of action. Nothing to review unless he disagrees and wants the war on drugs people to justify it for him.
acquitted existing inmates on marijuana charges
That’s prescribing an aspirin for a migraine while you have but refuse to use the cure for the underlying disease.
forgiven as much student loan debt as he is able without intervention from Congress.
Categorically untrue. It’s within the constitutional powers of his secretary of education to cancel literally all of it, which he would have done had Biden asked.
Biden knew that he’d get pushback from the GOP no matter how much or how little was forgiven and chose small amounts that he still means tested to death, like Dem leadership always do when they do anything that helps regular people more than their owner donors.
To reiterate: yes, he’s objectively corrupt. Yes he’s objectively right wing, and yes, he’s objectively reactionary.
I appreciate your thorough and non-confrontational response, I will respond once I’ve had time to read give your points the time and research they deserve.
Eh, it’s more about choosing to lose slowly vs. choosing to lose quickly.
Either way we lose, which is what the lesser-evil means. At least with Trump winning, people might change their strategy to prevent similar wins in the future.
Biden winning means that the lesser-evil is still in style and we have no reason to address the root of society’s problems.
I’m sorry you need to resort to personal insults, but that just tells me you’re not confident about your point.
Wen you elect fascists they don’t always allow free and fair elections in the future so this “similar wins int he future” clause is ignorant. Especially when the fascist in question already attempted one coup to stay in power when he lost an election.
If a third of registered Democrats stopped voting for DNC-backed candidates who do not represent them (by not voting or by voting for the Green Party candidate) and the Democrats lost in a landslide, the DNC would have two options:
move left to regain the voters
move right to keep the corporate bribes coming and try to sway Republican voters.
I am not at all confident that they would select option 1.
Except that if Trump wins there wont be any voters to win since we won’t have elections anymore. What part about a dictatorship do you people not understand?
You get two choices, mostly shit and complete shit. That’s how the system works in the US. Most people have figured this out by the time they reach voting age.
My faith in lemmy users actually replying to facts and informative posts like this without some type of online emotional outburst or downvotes is pretty much nil at this point.
As a whole Lemmy users are deeply stupid or deeply ignorant or both. I think it’s an age thing, but I could be wrong. Most of what gets tossed around here as Lemmy’s received orthodoxy is pure amateur hour bullshit that has very little to do with reality.
Another cause for this is that Lemmy’s userbase tends to be very ideologically driven as opposed to forming political views on the basis of evidence and solutions based rationality.
Obviously I’m not very popular around here. Fortunately I don’t care. I’m just killing time and if I can shake even one person’s ill-founded convictions, I am happy.
Except it’s not true. Executive orders have no teeth. They’re not legislation so there’s no criminal or civil penalty for ignoring them. Which means legislation doesn’t need to do anything to override them. At most, the president can replace positions under his authority if the orders are not followed.
i think the executive branches crazy override powers are by design. it needs to be quick to respond to issues of national security or something.
i think it would be nice if there were a process to sue the crap out of parties which are abusing these mechanisms, though im not sure what that would look like.
This is incorrect. The executive was never intended to be anywhere near as powerful as it has become. It has become increasingly powerful over the years for a suite of reasons, some perfectly legitimate (like the threat of nuclear war), but most because of cowardice in the legislative together with the conservative theory of the unitary presidency.
There’s an entire body of literature in poly sci on the subject and how it can be addressed.
But if Biden can just ignore congressional oversight, what will this do? Can someone sue to enforce oversight?
He’s currently behind the mango Mussolini in the polls and, other than “at least I’m not the other guy” being a much less effective strategy for an incumbent than a challenger no matter how awful the challenger is, this is the main reason.
Biden may be a corrupt right wing reactionary, but he’s not enough of a fool that he’s not beginning to realize the fact that he probably has to change course on this or run a very high risk of losing the last fair and open US presidential election.
I’ve heard a lot of joke names for trump, but “Mango Mussolini” takes the cake lol
It fits IMO lol
Calling Biden “corrupt right wing reactionary” is untrue.
That isn’t to say I wouldn’t prefer Bernie Sanders, or that I agree with everything Biden’s done.
I just think that accusation is inflammatory and baseless. It would be more helpful to use accurate descriptors.
I’m not a fan of him ordering the rail union back to work but he’s also asked for the DEA to review a proposal to reschedule marijuana, acquitted existing inmates on marijuana charges and forgiven as much student loan debt as he is able without intervention from Congress.
To me this does not paint the picture of a “corrupt right with reactionary”
He was known as The Senator From MBNA for shamelessly acting as if he was working for the then second largest credit card company in the country rather than the US people.
He championed the pro-corporate bankruptcy reform that was so anti-consumer that it inspired Elizabeth Warren to advocate for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to shield consumers from similarly predatory practices by the rich and powerful.
He’s said that “of course” he’d be more likely to agree to talk to someone if they first donated a lot of money to his campaign.
He’s repeatedly championed cutting medicare and medicaid.
He initially opposed desegregation bussing, saying he didn’t want his kids to “grow up in a racial jungle”
He’s bragged about his close cooperation with such segregationists as racism end boss Strom Thurmond.
He has said that he would veto Medicare For All if congress passed a bill allowing any version of it.
He was the only 2020 Dem primary candidate that categorically ruled out decriminalization of the use and possession of cannabis.
He is one of the staunchest international supporters of a fascist government currently engaged in a horrendous genocide because “they’ve always been our allies, so we need to support them no matter what”
He used to brag that nobody in Washington went to more of the events of that fascist government’s lobbying arm, AIPAC.
If that doesn’t “paint the picture of” a corrupt right wing reactionary to you, that’s not because he isn’t one.
Well you’re half right. It IS inflammatory. Unpopular truths tend to be.
Those are 100% accurate descriptors. They don’t encompass ALL of what he is, but corrupt, right wing and reactionary is objectively three things that he is.
A proposal that concluded with no qualifications that rescheduling would be the only defensible course of action. Nothing to review unless he disagrees and wants the war on drugs people to justify it for him.
That’s prescribing an aspirin for a migraine while you have but refuse to use the cure for the underlying disease.
Categorically untrue. It’s within the constitutional powers of his secretary of education to cancel literally all of it, which he would have done had Biden asked.
Biden knew that he’d get pushback from the GOP no matter how much or how little was forgiven and chose small amounts that he still means tested to death, like Dem leadership always do when they do anything that helps regular people more than their owner donors.
To reiterate: yes, he’s objectively corrupt. Yes he’s objectively right wing, and yes, he’s objectively reactionary.
I appreciate your thorough and non-confrontational response, I will respond once I’ve had time to read give your points the time and research they deserve.
I’m voting for Trump just to piss off biden supporters.
If they have a problem with me doing that, they can nominate someone who represents my interests.
I’m gonna wear a big shirt if Trump wins that says, “I voted for Trump because democrats nominated Biden.”
Removed by mod
Or just insult me, that’ll work wonders.
Removed by mod
Eh, it’s more about choosing to lose slowly vs. choosing to lose quickly.
Either way we lose, which is what the lesser-evil means. At least with Trump winning, people might change their strategy to prevent similar wins in the future.
Biden winning means that the lesser-evil is still in style and we have no reason to address the root of society’s problems.
I’m sorry you need to resort to personal insults, but that just tells me you’re not confident about your point.
Wen you elect fascists they don’t always allow free and fair elections in the future so this “similar wins int he future” clause is ignorant. Especially when the fascist in question already attempted one coup to stay in power when he lost an election.
voting for a fascist is voting against future elections… just giving power to those who must never, ever, have it.
Accelerationism like that does not work. It makes things worse for everyone and nothing improves in the end.
Sure bud.
If a third of registered Democrats stopped voting for DNC-backed candidates who do not represent them (by not voting or by voting for the Green Party candidate) and the Democrats lost in a landslide, the DNC would have two options:
I am not at all confident that they would select option 1.
Except that if Trump wins there wont be any voters to win since we won’t have elections anymore. What part about a dictatorship do you people not understand?
Are you serious?
deleted by creator
Why? Do you often base your voting intentions on whether people are mean to you on the internet?
deleted by creator
You get two choices, mostly shit and complete shit. That’s how the system works in the US. Most people have figured this out by the time they reach voting age.
Somebody doesn’t understand basic game theory.
You’re not about to change your mind anyway, so why not have some fun calling you out for what you are?
It’s rude and against the rules to resort to personal insults.
Ever heard of the saying “don’t cut off your nose to spite your face”?
What you’re suggesting is like getting an NFL kicker to kick you in the balls as hard as he can to spite the yoga mom trying to slap you.
Cool analogy.
Yes let me just unilaterally go do that, no problem. Oh wait I can’t. What now?
Now blame everyone who is nominating the ‘lesser-evil’ instead of someone who is good.
Wow that’s pretty fucking stupid of you
It’s pretty obvious that the person that represents your interests won’t represent my interests, so no, I don’t think I’ll be doing that.
Okay then.
Removed by mod
I can’t bring myself to vote for the guy that’s probably going to put me in a camp for being trans.
Instead I’m voting for Hillary Clinton. It’s still her turn!
Congress can override an executive order. But the president can veto that action. But Congress can stop a veto with a 2/3s vote.
So if they controlled 2/3s of Congress they could stop anything he tries to do.
That actually seems pretty balanced.
My faith in lemmy users actually replying to facts and informative posts like this without some type of online emotional outburst or downvotes is pretty much nil at this point.
As a whole Lemmy users are deeply stupid or deeply ignorant or both. I think it’s an age thing, but I could be wrong. Most of what gets tossed around here as Lemmy’s received orthodoxy is pure amateur hour bullshit that has very little to do with reality.
Another cause for this is that Lemmy’s userbase tends to be very ideologically driven as opposed to forming political views on the basis of evidence and solutions based rationality.
Obviously I’m not very popular around here. Fortunately I don’t care. I’m just killing time and if I can shake even one person’s ill-founded convictions, I am happy.
Except it’s not true. Executive orders have no teeth. They’re not legislation so there’s no criminal or civil penalty for ignoring them. Which means legislation doesn’t need to do anything to override them. At most, the president can replace positions under his authority if the orders are not followed.
The president can sanction states and companies that don’t follow them. So it’s a bit more than they can just be ignored.
i think the executive branches crazy override powers are by design. it needs to be quick to respond to issues of national security or something.
i think it would be nice if there were a process to sue the crap out of parties which are abusing these mechanisms, though im not sure what that would look like.
This is incorrect. The executive was never intended to be anywhere near as powerful as it has become. It has become increasingly powerful over the years for a suite of reasons, some perfectly legitimate (like the threat of nuclear war), but most because of cowardice in the legislative together with the conservative theory of the unitary presidency.
There’s an entire body of literature in poly sci on the subject and how it can be addressed.
Impeachment?
It’s a bad solution for a number of reasons, but it’s the one we were given for punishing officials who abuse their power.