728
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
728 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19047 readers
3457 users here now
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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Good. Just because he appointed the excellent Lina Khan doesn't mean that he deserves credit for the work of her and the agency.
Especially since it's a reasonably safe bet that her appointment wasn't his idea to begin with, but rather that of a more progressive member of whichever committee suggests cabinet picks.
Doesn't he, and his administration, deserve credit, even if it's just for listening to other people? If it were a particular other president it wouldn't happen, so his administration deserves to be praised for it. Criticize where it needs to be done, but also praise where it's deserved. If you only criticize then you're unable to be won and aren't worth trying to win.
No, Biden doesn't deserve credit for not being Trump. That's putting the bar so low that you'd need specialized drilling or diving equipment to reach it.
Likewise, Biden does not deserve credit for not stopping people within his administration from doing good things that he himself would likely not have done.
Conversely, if you set the bar too low, demanding nothing except "don't be ridiculously awful" from the people who have the power to enact positive change, that positive change will never happen.
I didn't say for not being Trump. I said he deserves credit for what his administration has chosen to do. Regardless of who's idea it is, his administration chose to listen to them, if it wasn't from them. They deserve credit for that.
You aren't even setting the bar too high. You're not even setting it, and then saying they came in short. You're saying they don't deserve credit for something they literally did. How dumb is that?
No, but given the context, it was a fair assumption that you were implying it.
He doesn't. Not his choices, not his credit.
You're conflating Biden with thousands of other people.
Yes, the people in his administration deserve credit for the good thing they do.
No, the administration as a whole doesn't get credit for the work of the FTC. Because the rest of the administration didn't do it.
That's not true. I've consistently said that Lina Khan and the FTC are doing great work AKA rising above the bar.
Not giving Biden and the rest of the administration credit for work they didn't do isn't even criticism. It's a "lack" of undeserved credit, which is neutral rather than negative.
Other than Lina Khan and the FTC, who I AM giving credit, they literally didn't.
Your interpretation of what I'm saying is very dumb indeed.
What I'm ACTUALLY saying isn't the least bit dumb, though. It's just proper assigning of credit based on merit rather than just association.
The president doesn't do much of anything themselves ever. Their job is to pick people who will handle their jobs well. A good leader is one who is capable of picking good advisors. In what way does he not deserve credit? Sure, she does also. It doesn't take anything away from her. You just literally cannot admit that you appreciate something Biden has done for some reason.
Nope. You guys just literally can't countenance that hiring someone doesn't mean that you get to take credit for work of theirs that you didn't otherwise contribute to.
Sounds like a reason to eliminate the position.
Not a reason to heap praise on an old white conservative man politically stuck in the 90s (at the latest) for the hard work and success of a brilliant young progressive woman of color and her agency.
OK, I'm don't arguing with you. If your job is to select people who do a particular job well, and then they do that job well, then your job was done well also. If you somehow don't agree then I don't know what's wrong with you.
Elizabeth Warren, btw.
She's the one who recommended Khan? Well done, Warren!
She only recommended her! Everything she does after she doesn't get credit for, right! /s
You can't stay consistent, can you? "Biden bad" is the only difference between Warren getting credit for recommending her and Biden getting credit for choosing that recommendation because it was the best choice for what he wanted to accomplish.
Correct. That was exactly what I gave her credit for and that alone.
I have throughout. Just because I'm not as impressed by Biden's ability to say "oh, alright" to someone better's suggestion doesn't make it inconsistent to appreciate Warren's good suggestion.
No. If a group of people suggest which restaurant to eat at and you accept one of the suggestions, you don't get credit for the quality of the food.
The person whose idea it was gets credit for the idea to eat there, and the restaurant get credit for THEIR work.
Best choice? Yes.
What HE wants to accomplish, rather than what more progressive parts of the party care about? Highly doubtful based on a congressional career where he was always on the side of corporations, a notable example being championing the BAPCPA, which was a major reason why the CFB was founded to protect regular people from corporations.
The FTC is part of the executive branch. Biden absolutely deserves credit for putting an actual trust buster in charge instead of a corporate lackey.
He deserves a little bit of credit for listening to the recommendations of people more progressive than himself with regards to the appointment itself, sure.
That doesn't mean that he gets to take credit for everything she does, though, much of which he most likely wouldn't have done in her place.