413
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

bUtTrUmPiSwOrSe!

Legitimately just do one thing for people that makes a visible, palpable change in their lives for the better and you'll never lose an election again.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 30 points 7 months ago

Biden has given a massive boost to unions in multiple ways, restarted enforcement of anti-trust laws, eased enforcement of Marijuana laws / moved towards decriminalization, and has forgiven $138 billion in student debt.

I'm no fan of Biden and we should definitely demand better, but it's ridiculous to claim he hasn't done just one thing to make people's lives better. This list is just off the top of my head, except the figure for student debt. I didn't even include climate issues since there has been some bad to subtract from the good, but he's been far better than any Republican would be.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

what is this "move to decriminalization"?

Just appoint a head of the DEA who won't arrest people for pot and pardon everyone in prison for possession/distribution. He chooses to allow the violence of criminalization to continue.

has forgiven $138 billion in student debt.

The overwhelming majority of that was due to a bush-era law.

We saw how much unilateral power the executive has under trump. We see how capable the democrats are of whipping the vote when it's funding to bomb foreigners or lock them in cages. What would it take for you to realize they are not unable to do these things, but unwilling? I struggle to imagine a scenario that would prove that, which hasn't already happened.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

what is this "move to decriminalization"?

Just appoint a head of the DEA who won't arrest people for pot and pardon everyone in prison for possession/distribution. He chooses to allow the violence of criminalization to continue.

You know he already pardoned everyone who was in federal prison for simple possession, 2 years ago, right?

And told the DEA to reschedule it

And passed a bill for full federal legalization, which the Republicans defeated in the senate?

We saw how much unilateral power the executive has under trump.

Yes, Trump famously got everything he wanted. Ukraine never got their military aid that he tried to block, and the Department of Justice famously bent to his every whim and prosecuted his political opponents when he kept ordering them to. I remember it well.

We see how capable the democrats are of whipping the vote when it's funding to bomb foreigners or lock them in cages.

This is actually the most heinously dishonest of the things you've been saying but I have become discouraged and don't want to spend too much more time researching and illustrating why this is all wrong.

Family separation at the border was already dead when Biden took office; it only ran for about a year in the middle of his presidency. But Biden did start the task force to find the kids' families and reunite them. The flow of immigrant children was quite literally in the exact opposite direction of what you're saying under Biden: From being imprisoned in cages to being back with their families. Look up your own citation for it, I'm getting genuinely irritated that I have to spend time talking about this.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And passed a bill for full federal legalization, which the Republicans defeated in the senate?

The president doesn't pass bills, and this one wasn't passed by those that do pass bills. Tell progressives again that they don't know how government works.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'm gonna cut to the chase of a longer comment I typed out. The only part that really needs to be said:

"So, since there's no way to argue with it factually, the combatant seizes on a deliberate misunderstanding of what I was saying and tries to reframe the whole conversation around that misunderstanding, in order to create a thing to disagree about which isn't the factually-indefensible original thing to disagree about."

The rest and the context are pretty self-explanatory.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

You wanted to give him credit for passing something that didn't pass and that he can't pass. If you don't want people getting on your case for it, don't tell others that they don't know how government works.

He proposed legalizing it. Nothing passed. Proposals and failures are not accomplishments. He doesn't get credit for BBB for the same reason: it failed.

You may be willing to give him credit for failures. I give him credit for his successes, such as selling weapons to Netanyahu for genocide.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are trying to spin it into me giving him credit only for failures. I'm almost impressed.

The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.

I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what actually happened, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome

Well, if you're going to try to give him credit for shit he hasn't done, I'm gonna call you on it.

and are trying to spin it into me giving him credit only for failures.

Never said that. You're telling on yourself.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 7 months ago

Okay, fine. Let me try again.

You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are dealing with it as if giving him credit for that attempt was the only thing I'd done, instead of one attempt listed among a big group of demonstrated successes. I'm almost impressed.

The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.

I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what I actually said, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)

Happier with that?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 6 points 7 months ago

Any new DEA administrator would have to be approved by the Senate, and an an appointment that was a defacto decriminalization vote would not pass.

The bar that was set in this discussion was that Biden hasn't done anything to improve lives. I have already made a comment elsewhere in this thread indicating that I do not suffer from the delusions you are putting on me. Biden absolutely should be doing more, that just wasn't the bar presented.

[-] HoustonHenry@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

Or you could just deny reality like some do

this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
413 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3145 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS