this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
1456 points (95.0% liked)
tumblr
3432 readers
552 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/[email protected] - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/[email protected] - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I honestly don't get the hate against Biden. From what I've seen, he's old and he's done a whole lot of good, more than the average democratic president.
Him being the choice over Trump should be an obvious, nearly anyone over Trump is the better choice, so what the hell is wrong with these people wanting to vote trump or not vote at all just to stick it to Biden?
There's other good answers here, but there's a more basic one.
Biden simply doesn't have the charisma of Obama or the outlandishness of Trump. The reason he was an effective leader in the Senate was because of his ability to coordinate people and get shit done.
It's what he's done as President as well. It's good organizational leadership, but it isn't flashy.
Biden has also been way better than Obama on policy, which I really didn't expect from his record in Congress. Obama's charisma has really blinded a lot of people to the deep flaws of his administration.
What were the deep flaws of the Obama administration in your eyes?
Not OP, but drone strikes goes on the list.
He campaigned on "change" then governed as a competent manager of the status quo. His first major initiative was to protect Wall Street execs from the crisis they caused and stabilize the banking system on the backs of working Americans.
His crowning achievement was the ACA, which will be a complete economic disaster. It fixed some terrible shortcomings, but it's also been a massive wealth transfer from workers to Wall Street, and the worst is yet to come on that score. He mistakenly gave the health insurance companies a seat at the table as a stakeholder in American healthcare, when they are actually in the financial services business. That philosophical mistake is at the heart of the rapidly accelerating collapse of the system today.
Price controls in the ACA were very badly thought out or, worse, they were well thought out. The rule that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% on healthcare sounds great, but it also means that insurance companies can continue to grow profits out of the 20% by spending more on the 80%. There is a soft cap of 15% on annual rate increases and, sure enough, the industry has aimed to stay just below that. It also means that the insurance companies largely ignores fraudulent claims. Those claims just increase spending on the 80% side, allowing them to increase profits. Anti-fraud enforcement comes from the 20%, which decreases profits. I don't want to write a novel, but I could go on for quite a while on the ACA.
In short, Obama was just another neoliberal who only addressed the worst issues in society when he could sell the solution to Wall Street. The moment he left office he received a flood of cash from the investment community, all under a thin veil of legitimate transactions. He also bankrupted the DNC, setting the stage for Hillary to come in and "rescue" it. The particulars of the resulting takeover led directly to the infamous emails that got leaked and probably threw the election to Trump.
"Looking forward not back"
"Giving the Republicans way more than they should have because that's democracy"
Good organizational leadership and not flashy is exactly what we need rn. I only wish we weren't at risk of it ending so soon
I strongly disagree. A little inspirational leadership would go a long way to calming my nerves about a potential second Trump administration. Biden is incapable of winning a mandate for a second term, and we are all lucky that Trump seems capable of losing anyways.
It's easy enough for some voters to be happy with a competent administration. But, for a lot of Americans, that looks like an extremely privileged point of view.
That's older politics. Speeches made the difference. Now is the dis track and highlights. The tweets and the memes. Sad but true.
I said "leadership". Flowery speeches and clever memes are fine, but what's his vision, and how do we get there? At best, he offers minor tweaks to a system that's starting to implode.
Speeches were the memes back in the day. "Ask not" and "tear down this wall" and "read my lips" and so on.
Oh they definitely were memed. But I don't think speeches resonate as they once did. I personally find people reference memes and jokes more than policy and facts. Maybe it's who I work with.
It’s not a job for a clown. It’s a job for an accountant. You would expect your accountant to honk a horn each return they do so I don’t get this expectation a president is supposed to act like a sideshow reverend in Las Vegas
Definitely not a job for an accountant. It is a job for someone who is good at hiring qualified people and delegating work correctly.
I believe the metaphor was more to do with the most effective attitude. Accountant = boring from the outside and focused on doing the job.
This guy accounts
Loud work wins in corporate America, and I'm sure the same applies here. The reason it wins is simple: this country is full of fucking idiots.
Two reasons. First, there's GOP just blanket hating on anything without their party's Seal of Approval, sometime posing as democrats.
Second, it's in the nature of progressives to want something better. To point out that, while [thing] may be OK, it could be improved, even in small ways. So, while you're comparing Biden and Trump, they're comparing Biden with some Platonic ideal President. Most of them will, when it comes to the actual ballot, and they have to choose between the two actual candidates, vote against Trump, but they'll grouse about it. The others probably weren't going to get off the couch for anyone, anyway.
The only people who are really pushing the trump agenda are Russian bots. Like they did during his first campaign only then it was pizzagate Hilary bullshit.
They're angry and justify to avoid challenging their own worldview. Apart from general evil, that basically sums it up. To expand: Plenty of them are convinced what they are doing is right. They legitimately believe they are on the right side. We don't really see this because we aren't constantly soaking up the same news every single day. We aren't surrounded by people parroting false truths without a check (though we are in our own nodes), and we challenge one another's beliefs, something people leaning left tend to do. For the rest it is about hurting others. A much smaller percentage could be convinced they're wrong and just haven't found a strong enough reason to challenge what they believe in.
None of this is good. Though we will gain the most ground by attempting to be understanding and being firm whenever needed.
I hate on Biden, even though I believe he is a good president overall. My hate stems for the very obvious (maybe petty) reason:
He is the wrong direction. The way to beat fascism is by being bold, progressive and forward thinking. Biden is basically the “let’s play it safe” candidate. All well and good, but clearly he did not reduce the appetite for fascism.
And yes, I think Bernie would have.
I agree almost entirely. Boldness is the way to defeat fascism, and Biden is not bold enough.
At the same time, I do think there is a caveat. Reducing the appetite for fascism is reliant on success, and, if I am being honest, fucking no one was going to be successful in this political climate with this Congress and electorate. If Bernie flounders, progressivism is discredited, even if it's not at all his fault; even if he, individually, is doing the best anyone could be expected to do. If Biden, who is very much a moderate on most issues, flounders, appetite for change increases.
There's a sick calculus in politics that, though you as a voter should always vote for the best candidate who has a serious chance to win, in objective analysis, the best candidate winning isn't always the best thing for the cause.
I voted for Bernie in the 2016 and 2020 primaries, and if the 2024 primary was at all serious instead of locked-in to the incumbent, seriously speaking, I would vote for him in 2024 too, just to be clear.
That's great and everything, and overall I agree, but Bernie lost two primaries. But somehow the trolls ignore that and move to how he should run for president in 2024 because he'd be better than Biden when clearly that'd just help elect Trump.
Prior to being the VP and now President, he had a long political career as an establishment corporate Democrat. His home state is where almost all US usury is headquartered, and he consistently sold out the American people to those corporations. He sponsored the bill removing bankruptcy options from student loans, sided with the banks and credit card companies on interest rates and fees, was a war hawk, and was more than "it was just how it was at the time" racist.
Essentially every bit of the "whole lot of good" has been an 11th hour change of heart and fixing problems he was more than complicit in creating. Add to that the DNC manipulation to block other candidates, and you have the South Park special of a Douche vs. a Turd Sandwich.
You like "usury" don't ya. The word. I noticed you used it a couple of times already.
Usury. Has some weight to it, doesn't it. Some heft. It's got . . . connotations.
Do you have a better word for lending money and charging exorbitant interest rates, fees, or conditions to unjustly enrich the lender? I could just call them legally gray loan sharks, which they are, but the laws surrounding the governance of money lending are actually called usury laws. That's why I used the term. I think the Banks and Credit companies that have bled the countries bottom 50% dry and have nearly succeeded in eliminating the middle class qualify for the label, but you do you.
i honestly don't get the hate against drumpf, isn't the us a fascist state already?
moon logic from lemmy.ml users as expected
We know you don't. Authoritarian sycophants like you love people like him.