• chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Biden wasn’t that bad a choice. I would have preferred someone to the left of him, by a lot, but I can acknowledge that he’s done an objectively good gob, all things considered.

      That infrastructure bill is already righting the economy. I think it could go further, but these things take time. Even so, we’re in a much better position today than 4 years ago. We could be better, but where we are isn’t horrible for where we came from.

      So yes, Biden has enacted policy competently. Overall a C+. Maybe even a B- but there are things I’m unhappy with.

      Like his DoJ slow walking the Jan 6th prosecutions, and not being aggressive about them. I mean, it was an open conspiracy to overthrow the US government. That had the wife of a Supreme Court Justice involved, along with about a dozen former and current Republican lawmakers.

      The sentencing hearings for all of them should have been held last year, and yet most of them haven’t even been charged.

      Then there are the genocides… I can understand the ones where the US is not involved at all (beyond them being organized on Facebook, we should be doing something about that after all…) but the genocide in motion that the US is actively enabling… that shit needs to stop for Biden to get that coveted A.

      Still miles better than Trump… And due to First Past the Post, that’s the options we have. Come November 10th (for incumbents that win, Jan 10th for the newly elected) I’ll be sending letters to my congressmen, and anyone else who’s address I can find, talking about voting reform. Real voting reform, not the flawed RCV bullshit. But things like Approval and STAR.

      Harris seems like the sort of person who will at least focus on the DoJ, so carrying on the Biden policies, and maybe a few tweaks of her own, she’d be in solid B- range. Maybe up to a B+ if she enacts some actual social policy. But no A until the Genocides stop, or at least is US stops enabling them.

  • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The guy is so fucking delusional it isn’t funny. He was always a dumbass even back in the 80s.

    • 800XL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I used to see him on Entertainment Tonight and think “this guy is an idiot. How is he so rich?”

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Every accusation is a 40-minute impromptu concert to cover a dementia-addled man’s sudden confusion by what all these people are doing in his house

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Lol … at this point they should just put him in a room full of about a hundred of his supporters and tell their leader that he is emperor of the United States. Then just feed them all AI generated CNN news broadcasts of his nation doing everything he wants. Let them all live like this until they die … none of them would probably notice the difference.

        In the meantime, the rest of could go about our lives trying to save humanity on this planet.

        • martyfmelb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I’ve seen this be called, “heavenbanning” — you are shadowbanned from a platform, but instead of just shouting into the void, the void caresses your ego with AI slop.

        • thefartographer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          If you used them as batteries, this would be the beginnings of The Matrix. I wanna be Tank so I can die off-screen between storylines.

  • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    18 hours ago

    He’s talking about how long young people will last on the supreme court. Still gross, but this article is click-baity and dumb with its premise.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The title is basically a blatant lie, easily shown to be deceptive simply by reading the article.

      Yet look at this comments section and how many people have bought the deception hook, line, and sinker.

      We shit on Republuicans for being idiots who support Trump, which is true, but it’s almost like we are trying to out-stupid them.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Yeah, it’s a bad look essentially saying you should only put young justices on the SCOTUS in order to control it for longer. However, that is not a dumb thing to say. It’s logical if your goal is control, which his obviously is. It’s why the lifetime appointments are so bad. It encourages putting young, less qualified justices on the court instead of older, potentially more qualified ones.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        No, it doesn’t apply, at least not for the same logic. He didn’t say that because the older people are less capable. He said it because a younger person will give you control for longer most likely. They’re lifetime appointments, so the logical choice for maintaining control is to appoint healthy young people, not the most qualified people.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          I follow the logic, but I would also argue if the chances are always higher of a sitting President to win the following term, the GOP would have been better off running anyone who had not already held office and can maintain control for a possible 8 years and not just 4? So he would be saying Republicans should have voted for Nicky Haley in the primaries.

          Edit: Nah - I guess that is a bit different, because they could argue idiots already liked him, so he stood a better chance at getting back in and they didn’t believe she could I guess

      • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Yeah I’m not arguing that. But the point is different… He’s talking about longevity, not acumen.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    That was a loaded headline, since he was referring only to Supreme Court judges who get to stay in for as many decades as they’d like.