Summary

President Joe Bidenā€™s economic achievementsā€”lowering inflation, reducing gas prices, creating jobs, and boosting manufacturingā€”are largely unrecognized by the public, despite his successes.

His tenure saw landmark legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS Act, and major infrastructure investments.

However, Bidenā€™s approval ratings remain low, attributed to inflation backlash, weak communication, and a media landscape prone to misinformation.

Democrats face a ā€œpropaganda problemā€ rather than a policy failure, with many voters likely to credit incoming President Trump for Bidenā€™s accomplishments due to partisan messaging and social media dynamics.

  • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    14
    Ā·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I had just told her I had a degree in political science.

    All due respect, you are literally brainwashed by the deep state. Universities are institutions of the wealthy; of the status quo. They exist to train the managerial class of capitalist society. The ideas that rule are the ideas of the rulers. You specifically took as your major the mainline ideology of that ruling class. The only way you could have done yourself a worse service in that regard is if you took economics.

    • propofool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      2 days ago

      With all due respect youre simping or even more brainwashed than the people you are trying to argue with. Youā€™re either paid or played, and have enough time to respond to everyone here.

      Why is it that the ā€œdeep state eliteā€ universities always have such liberal voters? Why do liberals and deep state want to expand social welfare programs? Doesnā€™t seem very ā€œwealthy brainwashingā€.

      Most rulers didnā€™t take polysci, they got law degrees. Or bankrupted casinos.

      • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        Ā·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Why is it that the ā€œdeep state eliteā€ universities always have such liberal voters?

        Because liberalism is the governing ideology of capitalism and has been since the 1700ā€™s. The problem youā€™re having is that your definitions of words is mush.

        Why do liberals and deep state want to expand social welfare programs?

        Can you please observe reality? When since LBJ has that been the case? When, since the Soviet Union was a rising threat, has the capitalist state done anything but austerity, union busting, and violently suppressing popular movements?

        Doesnā€™t seem very ā€œwealthy brainwashingā€.

        ā€œIā€™m immune to propagandaā€

        Most rulers didnā€™t take polysci, they got law degrees.

        Oh heavens, Iā€™m sorry. I didnā€™t think about the law, which is completely free of the entrenched governing ideology.

        Perhaps youā€™d like to go to bat for Sociology next? Just because I didnā€™t mention a major by name doesnā€™t mean itā€™s exempt from institutional indoctrination.

        • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          Ā·
          2 days ago

          Idk if any of this will help, but youā€™re very actively involved in the discussions and I encourage that. So, as a friendly commenter who sides with your disgruntlement of the situation, I thought I would at least point out the things that I understand but donā€™t 100% agree with.

          When it comes to degrees, I agree that it is a ā€œmachineā€ (education as a whole) that produces desired individuals to fulfill the roles it has established as ā€œimportant/valuableā€. Everyone can disagree on the opinion of what a ā€œvaluableā€ society is, but I digress. You have to understand that knowledge comes from experience and research though (just like youā€™ve probably done, just as an individual and not mandated by a course). The most succulent of critiques can come from someone deeply established in a field, kinda like how Bernie Sanders made comments about the DNC after the election and it forced the media and all of us to discuss it and the message.

          The truly dangerous ones are those who can fully understand how flawed a system is, but realize they must play it to their advantage to get what they ā€œwantā€ out of life. I just canā€™t demonize the whole entire system when the people Iā€™ve learned and read from were birthed from that experience. A lot of people realize after or during pursuing a degree, just how bad it is so itā€™s some kind of awareness for a certain %. Now if theyā€™ve fully embraced the system, you just have to find the examples they choose to ignore in their flawed beliefs.

          I also donā€™t know how effective the ā€œper quote responseā€ is. Iā€™ve been guilty of it in the past, but honestly I think people just dont really read the ā€œtit-for-tatā€ style comment replies (I find myself scrolling past if itā€™s too long). If they see one thing they disagree with then they downvote the entire comment. I try to hit the points I want but change the length and style of response in regards to how effective I can actually communicate to the person.

          Iā€™m just happy that a little bit of sanity has returned to Lemmy (obvious from the changes in what got downvoted/upvoted or discussed heavily). It felt like everyone just completely drank the kool-aid so we could ā€œsave Democracytm!!ā€ Unfortunately, I think people sold all the common-sense realty in their head for the Blue Superhero fallacy that could save us all from all the boogeymen. It will take time for some to let their head critique things effectively, some will never come back to reality. Itā€™s one of the reasons I just asked a simple question instead of critiquing their entire argument (I think his entire premise is flawed, and happily skewed so Biden is still a hero in their eyes). Itā€™s mostly there so other readers can see it and makes them pause for a second instead of just ā€œbelievingā€ itā€™s true. If the OP comes back with a sane comment Iā€™ll engage in a discussion, but we see from the response to me they donā€™t want to discuss facts so Iā€™m not engaging further.

          • Maeve
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            Ā·
            2 days ago

            If weā€™re going to have the superheroes, theyā€™re going to be us, so I guess it depends how badly we want them.