Protests don’t mean anything if it isn’t disruptive to people who hold the power. They have a better chance protesting against a politician who isn’t going to put them down with lethal rounds and who has a lot to loose right now, rather than against the same politician after they have nothing to loose and a demonstrated history of not giving a fuck about progressive issues, or against a different politician who has no problem putting them down with paramilitary forces.
Protesting against Biden now is the best time and person to be protesting, and threatening to withhold support is as much leverage any leftist will ever have outside of less-than-legal economic disruption.
Protesting against Biden now is the best time and person to be protesting, and threatening to withhold support is as much leverage any leftist will ever have outside of less-than-legal economic disruption.
Yeah, sounds great. I talked about this with respect to Gaza; I think this is a good idea.
We are however all the way back at the full-circle point of, where does making up things that Biden didn’t do and accusing him of doing them and so laying some propaganda groundwork for Trump to win the general election fit into that.
where does making up things that Biden didn’t do and accusing him of doing them and so laying some propaganda groundwork for Trump to win the general election fit into that
I am having a really hard time parsing this one out, and i’m not sure what inaccurate accusations this is in reference to, but I’m reminded of this quote from Malcom X:
Early in life I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise.
Expressing objections loudly is the actual definition of protest, which is effective solely by a function of its potential to damage reputation or public support. A protest lacking genuine threat is nothing more than political self-indulgence.
You might as well be complaining that the protest is too effective, IMHO.
i’m not sure what inaccurate accusations this is in reference to
So like two examples would be saying Biden’s bad on marijuana policy, or saying he’s bad for the climate because he’s not doing enough to drag the US government into the vague proximity of something that will enable us to continue existing in 100 years.
Expressing objections loudly is the actual definition of protest, which is effective solely by a function of its potential to damage reputation or public support. A protest lacking genuine threat is nothing more than political self-indulgence.
You might as well be complaining that the protest is too effective, IMHO.
Not sure how else to say it. Doing this sounds great. Doing it over things that Biden didn’t do, I don’t agree with. Attacking him from the left and saying he better pass another climate bill that’s 5 times more effective during his second term because what he did isn’t nearly enough, sure, sounds great. In combination with trying to give the people who blocked him from being able to do more have some trouble in their elections sounds even better. Attacking him from the nonsense-perspective that he’s actively hurting the climate on purpose and using right-wing talking points to make that case, giving him trouble in his election against Donald Trump with no particular way that he could address your concern and thus no productive pressure on him that will produce a good result, that sounds less great. Surely that makes sense?
(I’m not saying that you’re doing any of the above things – just saying what I most firmly disagree with about OP and a lot of the people I’ve been talking to about this.)
Doing it over things that Biden didn’t do, I don’t agree with
So like two examples would be saying Biden’s bad on marijuana policy, or saying he’s bad for the climate because he’s not doing enough to drag the US government into the vague proximity of something that will enable us to continue existing in 100 years.
Ok, well, sure, but you can see how these two assertions aren’t fabrications about something Biden ‘did’, it’s a statement that he isn’t doing enough to address the problem or even mitigate the bulk of the harm those things have… Right?
I understand you don’t like criticisms of Biden because it feels like a threat to his re-election, but that doesn’t make those criticisms a fabrication nor does it make them misplaced.
Attacking him from the nonsense-perspective that he’s actively hurting the climate on purpose and using right-wing talking points to make that case, giving him trouble in his election against Donald Trump with no particular way that he could address your concern and thus no productive pressure on him that will produce a good result, that sounds less great.
I’m not sure who if anyone has said he’s ‘actively hurting the climate on purpose’, but I see a potential misinterpretation if someone said something about his approval of new oil drilling in Alaska (after campaigning on ‘no new drilling contracts’) - or approval of new gas pipelines - as an indication of “active” harm to the environment. A huge part of our disagreement exists in a difference of opinion on what ‘reasonable’ action he could take. And while a case could be made that he’s done what he can without threatening US interests, a lot of leftists would say that the US has far too many interests and influences to begin with.
And I think this goes back to what I originally said: liberals are just not in alignment with leftist interests. Leftists give more weight to real climate impact over things liberals tend to give weight to, such as economic growth and GDP or international energy independence or hostile foreign relations. A lot of the reasons Biden doesn’t do more are reasons leftists fundamentally disagree with. He is unwilling to take action that harms the system we seek to dismantle, and that means he frequently falls short of any kind of satisfactory result.
Maybe that’s why you remain frustrated that we don’t recognize his accomplishments; we see them as the continued prioritization of interests that are in conflict with progressive goals.
it’s a statement that he isn’t doing enough to address the problem or even mitigate the bulk of the harm those things have… Right?
So on those specific topics: He introduced a bill to legalize marijuana federally, he set free anyone in federal prison for possession, and he requested for the DEA to reschedule marijuana (although the latter isn’t real impactful in comparison to the first two). What else would you like him to do? Why does that represent him not doing enough to address the problem and a reason to oppose him specifically?
I see a potential misinterpretation if someone said something about his approval of new oil drilling in Alaska (after campaigning on ‘no new drilling contracts’) - or approval of new gas pipelines - as an indication of “active” harm to the environment.
Scientists estimate that his climate bill is set to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030. He tried to do more, but Manchin and Sinema blocked him, and he tried again and got the 40% version through. Why is that not mitigating the harm? If we posit that he doesn’t have a magic wand that he can use to directly alter the behavior of every government agency and company in the US, can we measure his overall impact based on the overall expected emissions in total based on what he did?
Here’s one summary of why Biden might have approved the Willow project.
Here’s one summary of why he might have approved the Mountain Valley pipeline.
You might look at that and say, well, that’s establishment crap, and if he were a good leftist he would have done X, Y, and Z instead of approving those projects. And sure, for all I know you’d be right in saying that. To be honest, I’m not real qualified to say; I’m just showing you what I just found in the news about it. But let me ask this – do you think that judging his impact on the climate based on an overall reduction in emissions from all of his legislative actions in total is a fair way to judge his impact?
Leftists give more weight to real climate impact over things liberals tend to give weight to, such as economic growth and GDP or international energy independence or hostile foreign relations.
What is climate impact, if not emissions? I haven’t said a word here about GDP or anything like that as a way of judging the impact of his actions.
So… Much… Time… Probably billable, I’m really starting to wonder who you’re a staffer for in DC, or which think tank you work for. Maybe military contractor?
Protests don’t mean anything if it isn’t disruptive to people who hold the power. They have a better chance protesting against a politician who isn’t going to put them down with lethal rounds and who has a lot to loose right now, rather than against the same politician after they have nothing to loose and a demonstrated history of not giving a fuck about progressive issues, or against a different politician who has no problem putting them down with paramilitary forces.
Protesting against Biden now is the best time and person to be protesting, and threatening to withhold support is as much leverage any leftist will ever have outside of less-than-legal economic disruption.
Yeah, sounds great. I talked about this with respect to Gaza; I think this is a good idea.
We are however all the way back at the full-circle point of, where does making up things that Biden didn’t do and accusing him of doing them and so laying some propaganda groundwork for Trump to win the general election fit into that.
I am having a really hard time parsing this one out, and i’m not sure what inaccurate accusations this is in reference to, but I’m reminded of this quote from Malcom X:
Expressing objections loudly is the actual definition of protest, which is effective solely by a function of its potential to damage reputation or public support. A protest lacking genuine threat is nothing more than political self-indulgence.
You might as well be complaining that the protest is too effective, IMHO.
So like two examples would be saying Biden’s bad on marijuana policy, or saying he’s bad for the climate because he’s not doing enough to drag the US government into the vague proximity of something that will enable us to continue existing in 100 years.
Not sure how else to say it. Doing this sounds great. Doing it over things that Biden didn’t do, I don’t agree with. Attacking him from the left and saying he better pass another climate bill that’s 5 times more effective during his second term because what he did isn’t nearly enough, sure, sounds great. In combination with trying to give the people who blocked him from being able to do more have some trouble in their elections sounds even better. Attacking him from the nonsense-perspective that he’s actively hurting the climate on purpose and using right-wing talking points to make that case, giving him trouble in his election against Donald Trump with no particular way that he could address your concern and thus no productive pressure on him that will produce a good result, that sounds less great. Surely that makes sense?
(I’m not saying that you’re doing any of the above things – just saying what I most firmly disagree with about OP and a lot of the people I’ve been talking to about this.)
Ok, well, sure, but you can see how these two assertions aren’t fabrications about something Biden ‘did’, it’s a statement that he isn’t doing enough to address the problem or even mitigate the bulk of the harm those things have… Right?
I understand you don’t like criticisms of Biden because it feels like a threat to his re-election, but that doesn’t make those criticisms a fabrication nor does it make them misplaced.
I’m not sure who if anyone has said he’s ‘actively hurting the climate on purpose’, but I see a potential misinterpretation if someone said something about his approval of new oil drilling in Alaska (after campaigning on ‘no new drilling contracts’) - or approval of new gas pipelines - as an indication of “active” harm to the environment. A huge part of our disagreement exists in a difference of opinion on what ‘reasonable’ action he could take. And while a case could be made that he’s done what he can without threatening US interests, a lot of leftists would say that the US has far too many interests and influences to begin with.
And I think this goes back to what I originally said: liberals are just not in alignment with leftist interests. Leftists give more weight to real climate impact over things liberals tend to give weight to, such as economic growth and GDP or international energy independence or hostile foreign relations. A lot of the reasons Biden doesn’t do more are reasons leftists fundamentally disagree with. He is unwilling to take action that harms the system we seek to dismantle, and that means he frequently falls short of any kind of satisfactory result.
Maybe that’s why you remain frustrated that we don’t recognize his accomplishments; we see them as the continued prioritization of interests that are in conflict with progressive goals.
So on those specific topics: He introduced a bill to legalize marijuana federally, he set free anyone in federal prison for possession, and he requested for the DEA to reschedule marijuana (although the latter isn’t real impactful in comparison to the first two). What else would you like him to do? Why does that represent him not doing enough to address the problem and a reason to oppose him specifically?
Scientists estimate that his climate bill is set to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030. He tried to do more, but Manchin and Sinema blocked him, and he tried again and got the 40% version through. Why is that not mitigating the harm? If we posit that he doesn’t have a magic wand that he can use to directly alter the behavior of every government agency and company in the US, can we measure his overall impact based on the overall expected emissions in total based on what he did?
Here’s one summary of why Biden might have approved the Willow project.
Here’s one summary of why he might have approved the Mountain Valley pipeline.
You might look at that and say, well, that’s establishment crap, and if he were a good leftist he would have done X, Y, and Z instead of approving those projects. And sure, for all I know you’d be right in saying that. To be honest, I’m not real qualified to say; I’m just showing you what I just found in the news about it. But let me ask this – do you think that judging his impact on the climate based on an overall reduction in emissions from all of his legislative actions in total is a fair way to judge his impact?
What is climate impact, if not emissions? I haven’t said a word here about GDP or anything like that as a way of judging the impact of his actions.
(Edit: Here’s a breakdown of the climate bill and its expected impacts)
So… Much… Time… Probably billable, I’m really starting to wonder who you’re a staffer for in DC, or which think tank you work for. Maybe military contractor?
Maybe it takes me less time to type these things than you have as frame of reference
Is that what it says to say on the time card, or is it all digital. If you aren’t getting paid for this, you are wasting your talents my friend.
There are campaigns that would love you and enjoy this. But I think you’re already working for one, frankly.
deleted by creator