Uncle Joe

[ousdahl]

way to keep the thread on topic, gutman!

I think twitter/X any more in particular is a hotbed of mis- and dis-information, and of kooky (mostly right-wing/anti-dem/certainly anti-"left") hot takes. So go figure the first couple posts about Biden are depicting him negatively, acting like a confused old man.

I think the "see him at Thanksgiving and remark how well he's doing" may be a bit flimsy. (and that's not to say Trump is any better!)

It's just that, at the family get-together, Trump is the kooky old relative who keeps ranting about electrocution and sharks, and Biden is the kooky old relative to seems to forget he's sitting at the Thanksgiving dinner table.

perhaps it's different flavors of kook. But at the end of the day, it's still kook.

choose your own adventure, I guess.

[Shirley]

Back to Joe Biden. Sorry kids.

I decided to go to X and type Joe Biden in the search. These were the first 3 tweets/Xs.

https://twitter.com/DschlopesIsBack/sta ... 5242665469

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1 ... 3723901208

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1801310092869960157

You got totally owned by right-wing propaganda on at least the 2nd tweet.

Congratulations.

[Shirley]

National Average Gas Prices: (According to CNN.)

Today $3.46/gallon
1 year ago: $3.59
2 years ago: $5.02

On an Inflation-Adjusted Basis Gas Prices:

Today: $3.46
June 2019: $3.34
June 2018: $3.61

[twocoach]

You sure this isn’t just more of those blatantly obvious sorts of issues that you cannot, or simply will not, understand?

I don’t think it’s “cannot.” Rather than stoop to other’s levels and suggest you’re stupid, I think you’re certainly bright enough. This is more a stubborn thing.

Cuz fwiw I don’t think they’re distortions, nor falsehoods!

Your refusal to even allow criticisms you don’t like here is wild. Like maybe even starting to get concerning.

A statement that the United States is waging a proxy war in Ukraine is, based on all evidence available to us here, a falsehood. Among many other flaws, your falsehood is based on a premise (someone but Putin bears responsibility for Putin starting his war, and continuing his war) you continue to state or assume as fact, but which is not a fact.

Putin was not justified in making war on Ukraine. He can stop making war on Ukraine at any time.

When you include a falsehood as one of four arguments supporting your point, and the other three arguments are ALSO in gray areas at best (for your point), then taken as a whole your arguments simply do not support your point.

And when you, confronted with this fundamental and fatal weakness of your point, take an absolutist, doubling-down approach (suggesting that this is a "blatantly obvious sort of issue" that I am failing to understand)...well, now you are adopting bad-faith right wing argument strategies, not just the talking point themselves.

And so you continue down a slide nobody here wants to see you on.

I do think it’s blatantly obvious that the evidence here suggests this IS a U.S. proxy war in Ukraine. (Israel too!)

It’s you who summarily disregards the evidence presented, while also gloating about how this war helps U.S. interests like weakening Russia and flexing on China, as if that isn’t even more evidence of war by proxy in itself.

For real, how do you ignore the U.S.’s decades of meddling in Ukraine, the bajillions in weapons support, the more strategic support yet, the boots on the ground, the CIA black ops sites, the victory-lap pep rallies in the immediate aftermath of Maidan, MC’d by none other than Biden himself (oh hey we’re actually on topic here!), even if we somehow don’t bother to consider whether the U.S. was directly involved in Maidan either way.

I didn’t expect “proxy war” to be such a trigger. But I’ll admit, “right-wing” is a trigger for me. Rather, I think the more right-wing position espoused here is your dogged insistence upon the hawk-nationalist rhetoric about unprovoked, unilateral, one-to-tango perception of Ukraine, as if all the evidence just presented to you - once again! - is somehow immaterial.

But let’s not dwell on Ukraine, cuz we all know you can offer little more than another parroting of the WMDs-in-Iraq sort of talking points and a stubborn refusal to understand anything but.

Cuz honestly, I might walk back the “expand the police state.” Biden did sign off on billions to law enforcement, without addressing any sort of law enforcement reform, despite the wake of the BLM protests; not to mention the dozens of Cop Cities currently being built with him in the big chair.

As for environment, his big green bill seemed like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, considering all the concessions it made to oil. He also just relaxed fuel efficiency goals for passenger cars. He also crippled environmental regs for the sake of border security.

Speaking of, he did campaign in ‘20 on rhetoric like preserving access to asylum to migrant refugees, to contrast himself with Trump’s more hardline stance; only to now sign off on a more Trumpian limiting of access to asylum to migrant refugees.

Biden's "lack" of addressing police reform:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... -rcna30548

So you're wrong, he hasn't done nothing.

"He also just relaxed fuel efficiency goals for passenger cars"? He didn't "relax" the target. It is just not as low as his original proposal while still being lower than what it was previously.
https://apnews.com/article/gas-mileage- ... e4c69a9847

And we can quibble about the semantics of the term "proxy war" all you want. We are helping a country avoid being taken over by Russia. So are almost all of the nations of Europe with whom we are allies. It is the right thing to do globally.

"He also crippled environmental regs for the sake of border security." Yeah, you're going to need to provide some linked details on what specifically you feel is "crippling environmental regs". Sorry if I don't just assume you are or aren't right about that. You obviously have something specific on your mind.

And I have zero problem with Biden limiting the number of people who have access to asylum requests right now. The numbers are at an unsustainable volume at this time. A good leader adjusts to realities and isn't blindly beholden to their statements from 4 years ago regardless of the reality of the situation. He has not eliminated the ability to request asylum.

[twocoach]

Back to Joe Biden. Sorry kids.

I decided to go to X and type Joe Biden in the search. These were the first 3 tweets/Xs.

https://twitter.com/DschlopesIsBack/sta ... 5242665469

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1 ... 3723901208

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1801310092869960157

Congrats on proving that the right wing users of twitter are officially creating and sharing more content than left wing users.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Back to Joe Biden. Sorry kids.

I decided to go to X and type Joe Biden in the search. These were the first 3 tweets/Xs.

https://twitter.com/DschlopesIsBack/sta ... 5242665469

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1 ... 3723901208

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1801310092869960157

You got totally owned by right-wing propaganda on at least the 2nd tweet.

Congratulations.

I don't know if your post was directed at me specifically or if "you" means a lot of people in general.
Thankfully I didn't get owned by anyone/anything. Other than my falling pray to Elon Musk and his evil entity. I'm ashamed (for several reasons) that I happen to view way too much of what is posted on X/Twitter while carousing for content that interests and entertains me in a positive manner.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Back to Joe Biden. Sorry kids.

I decided to go to X and type Joe Biden in the search. These were the first 3 tweets/Xs.

https://twitter.com/DschlopesIsBack/sta ... 5242665469

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1 ... 3723901208

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1801310092869960157

Congrats on proving that the right wing users of twitter are officially creating and sharing more content than left wing users.

Yes, and proving that Elon Musk helps enable it to take place while not really giving a flying fuck that much of it is false or misleading "information".

[twocoach]

Back to Joe Biden. Sorry kids.

I decided to go to X and type Joe Biden in the search. These were the first 3 tweets/Xs.

https://twitter.com/DschlopesIsBack/sta ... 5242665469

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1 ... 3723901208

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1801310092869960157

Congrats on proving that the right wing users of twitter are officially creating and sharing more content than left wing users.

Yes, and proving that Elon Musk helps enable it to take place while not really giving a flying fuck that much of it is false or misleading "information".

100% agreed. Musk is yet another dummy who thinks that Freedom of Speech means we're free to say whatever stupid shit we want whether it is true or not without consequence.

[Sparko]

Musk is a true believer in free speech except when it involves him or his potential genetic transactions.

[twocoach]

Musk is a true believer in free speech except when it involves him or his potential genetic transactions.

Which means he is only interested in hearing HIS free speech and the speech of things that HE likes and agrees with.

[ousdahl]

A statement that the United States is waging a proxy war in Ukraine is, based on all evidence available to us here, a falsehood. Among many other flaws, your falsehood is based on a premise (someone but Putin bears responsibility for Putin starting his war, and continuing his war) you continue to state or assume as fact, but which is not a fact.

Putin was not justified in making war on Ukraine. He can stop making war on Ukraine at any time.

When you include a falsehood as one of four arguments supporting your point, and the other three arguments are ALSO in gray areas at best (for your point), then taken as a whole your arguments simply do not support your point.

And when you, confronted with this fundamental and fatal weakness of your point, take an absolutist, doubling-down approach (suggesting that this is a "blatantly obvious sort of issue" that I am failing to understand)...well, now you are adopting bad-faith right wing argument strategies, not just the talking point themselves.

And so you continue down a slide nobody here wants to see you on.

I do think it’s blatantly obvious that the evidence here suggests this IS a U.S. proxy war in Ukraine. (Israel too!)

It’s you who summarily disregards the evidence presented, while also gloating about how this war helps U.S. interests like weakening Russia and flexing on China, as if that isn’t even more evidence of war by proxy in itself.

For real, how do you ignore the U.S.’s decades of meddling in Ukraine, the bajillions in weapons support, the more strategic support yet, the boots on the ground, the CIA black ops sites, the victory-lap pep rallies in the immediate aftermath of Maidan, MC’d by none other than Biden himself (oh hey we’re actually on topic here!), even if we somehow don’t bother to consider whether the U.S. was directly involved in Maidan either way.

I didn’t expect “proxy war” to be such a trigger. But I’ll admit, “right-wing” is a trigger for me. Rather, I think the more right-wing position espoused here is your dogged insistence upon the hawk-nationalist rhetoric about unprovoked, unilateral, one-to-tango perception of Ukraine, as if all the evidence just presented to you - once again! - is somehow immaterial.

But let’s not dwell on Ukraine, cuz we all know you can offer little more than another parroting of the WMDs-in-Iraq sort of talking points and a stubborn refusal to understand anything but.

Cuz honestly, I might walk back the “expand the police state.” Biden did sign off on billions to law enforcement, without addressing any sort of law enforcement reform, despite the wake of the BLM protests; not to mention the dozens of Cop Cities currently being built with him in the big chair.

As for environment, his big green bill seemed like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, considering all the concessions it made to oil. He also just relaxed fuel efficiency goals for passenger cars. He also crippled environmental regs for the sake of border security.

Speaking of, he did campaign in ‘20 on rhetoric like preserving access to asylum to migrant refugees, to contrast himself with Trump’s more hardline stance; only to now sign off on a more Trumpian limiting of access to asylum to migrant refugees.

Biden's "lack" of addressing police reform:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... -rcna30548

So you're wrong, he hasn't done nothing.

"He also just relaxed fuel efficiency goals for passenger cars"? He didn't "relax" the target. It is just not as low as his original proposal while still being lower than what it was previously.
https://apnews.com/article/gas-mileage- ... e4c69a9847

And we can quibble about the semantics of the term "proxy war" all you want. We are helping a country avoid being taken over by Russia. So are almost all of the nations of Europe with whom we are allies. It is the right thing to do globally.

"He also crippled environmental regs for the sake of border security." Yeah, you're going to need to provide some linked details on what specifically you feel is "crippling environmental regs". Sorry if I don't just assume you are or aren't right about that. You obviously have something specific on your mind.

And I have zero problem with Biden limiting the number of people who have access to asylum requests right now. The numbers are at an unsustainable volume at this time. A good leader adjusts to realities and isn't blindly beholden to their statements from 4 years ago regardless of the reality of the situation. He has not eliminated the ability to request asylum.

Like I said, I might be willing to walk back the stuff about the police state. Biden didn’t fully leverage the momentum of BLM and defund the police, but he at least did that EO you link.

I think “just not as low as his original (efficiency) proposal” is more or less synonymous with to “relax” the original proposal, but let’s not bicker about vocabulary.

I also think “helping another country” in matters of war is synonymous with helping by “proxy,” but again.

Here’s the environmental regs link: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politi ... outh-texas

It was discussed here at the time, and, as far as I can remember, I think it’s the last time trad and I agreed about anything…at least out loud. (Sigh)

Fwiw a lot of civil/human rights/immigrant advocacy/other such groups are taking issue with Biden’s limiting of asylum. IIRC there’s also random arbitrary rules in effect like, once granted the asylum provsss a refugee has all of four hours to find a lawyer and begin the legal process, or else they gotta go.

It’s just surprising how quickly so many dems went from “Trump’s border policies are racist” to “a good leader adjusts to realities”

[Shirley]

We all know where Biden's heart is, but immigration often ranks as the issue that motivates the MAGA cult more than any other. If you don't win an election, you can't do shit. Moving toward the "middle" and winning beats the hell out of being a purist and losing, especially when your opponent and his cult seem likely to not only not honor the results of this election, again, but given the opportunity, put an end to future elections as we've known them for nearly 250 years. Losing in '24 because you insisted on getting everything you want in a country as diverse as the US is unrealistic and likely disastrous. Grow up.

“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.”

Otto von Bismarck

[jfish26]

Or, to riff on your point, whatever number of people he might feel are unfairly negatively affected by the actions he’s taking in an effort to win reelection, is a fraction of what the number will be if he loses.

[ousdahl]

holy shit, that's quite the riff.

"Vote for me so that what is currently happening under my leadership doesn't happen even more!"

as for the "effort to win reelection," what exactly IS the political strategy here? Is getting tough at the border really "moving toward the middle?" Or, "winning?"

I think it's been discussed, but I don't think a harder stance on immigration is going to gain Biden many votes from among the "MAGA cult," even if they do support the policies themselves.

It may, however, be likely to loose some votes from among the of-color and more progressive voter demographics.

[DeletedUser]

It may, however, be likely to loose some votes from among the of-color and more progressive voter demographics.

Link?

Or just a gut feeling?

[jfish26]

holy shit, that's quite the riff.

"Vote for me so that what is currently happening under my leadership doesn't happen even more!"

as for the "effort to win reelection," what exactly IS the political strategy here? Is getting tough at the border really "moving toward the middle?" Or, "winning?"

I think it's been discussed, but I don't think a harder stance on immigration is going to gain Biden many votes from among the "MAGA cult," even if they do support the policies themselves.

It may, however, be likely to loose some votes from among the of-color and more progressive voter demographics.

I get that all of this is icky.

But accepting some controlled portion of ick as a means of NOT having to suffer greater (or even uncapped) ick is something all (or at least most) of us do every single day.

Biden's campaign strategy has generally been pretty sound. I would imagine - and this is no firmer of a guess than yours - that the votes that will be lost in the states that matter is far less than the votes to be gained from the middle (in those states that matter).

[ousdahl]

It may, however, be likely to loose some votes from among the of-color and more progressive voter demographics.

Link?

Or just a gut feeling?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/politics ... index.html

[ousdahl]

holy shit, that's quite the riff.

"Vote for me so that what is currently happening under my leadership doesn't happen even more!"

as for the "effort to win reelection," what exactly IS the political strategy here? Is getting tough at the border really "moving toward the middle?" Or, "winning?"

I think it's been discussed, but I don't think a harder stance on immigration is going to gain Biden many votes from among the "MAGA cult," even if they do support the policies themselves.

It may, however, be likely to loose some votes from among the of-color and more progressive voter demographics.

I get that all of this is icky.

But accepting some controlled portion of ick as a means of NOT having to suffer greater (or even uncapped) ick is something all (or at least most) of us do every single day.

Biden's campaign strategy has generally been pretty sound. I would imagine - and this is no firmer of a guess than yours - that the votes that will be lost in the states that matter is far less than the votes to be gained from the middle (in those states that matter).

If that’s the case, and if a candidate thinks their actions will be some net gain of votes, then it makes a little more sense.

I’m wondering how many “border-hawk-but-otherwise-undecided” sorts of voters are out there.”

I guess time will tell.

And for Biden’s sake I’m concerned his bigger issue may still be the economy.

[jfish26]

Biden’s biggest issue isn’t really a substantive political issue at all (like “the economy” or immigration or even reproductive rights), it is that something like a diamond-hard 30-40% of the electorate would believe in their souls, against all evidence, that the sky is magenta, if instructed to do so.

And so what you’re seeing is shoring up margins in the few states that matter (and forcing the Trump campaign to spread its VERY limited resources far too thin; making Trump fight in places like Florida and the Carolinas is the sort of thing that wins elections, even if you lose those states).

[KUTradition]

i very much agree with that