politics
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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Why he's doing this:
All this stuff coming out now is just token measures to make it look like he's helping people so they vote for him.
And sure, they're better off than if nothing was done, but it's going to be obvious for voters they're only getting attention because an election is coming up.
Trying to help them the whole term and not just pre election would get a lot more votes, and help a lot more people.
But would be a bigger hit to donors pocketbooks.
The article is light on details too, so I suspect most of this money is going to telecoms again for them to run the fiber, and like every other time we've given them money, they'll likely just keep it and not do anything
Presidents do this every time they're up for re-election. This is nothing new. Of course they're going to pander to states they want to win.
The kleptocracy already paid billions for high speed broadband infrastructure. Telcos stole the money, delivered nothing, and the kleptocracy kept giving them money.
What's changed?
I have no idea what changed. I didn't say anything changed. I said he was pandering to the state, which is just what presidents do when they want to win a state and they're up for re-election.
I think this will be the third time, but maybe the fourth? I'm not sure why it's expected to work this time. Maybe Biden even knows that but just wants the optics? I don't know what would be worse honestly.
And yeah, if we're subsidizing this states internet bills....
The providers are just going to raise the price by that much in a year or two anyways.
You know what we haven't tried and will likely work?
Actually putting the work in and trying to help Americans the entire term and not trying to only do the bare minimum for appearances to trick people into thinking they're being helped...
At least that way, even if we don't get the votes, we're helping people.
For fucks sake, the most common reason most non voters have given for decades is that neither party legitimately wants to help them, they just get tossed crumbs before an election, and that's only if they live in a battleground state.
This shit isn't complicated. It's just helping Americans makes donors unhappy, and Dems consistently underestimate how much voters can see thru this pandering.
What do you call a nation-spanning infrastructure bill? Or offering cash payments to low income families so their kids can buy food in the summer?
I'm all for criticizing Biden, but it should be honest criticism.
Voters have wised up to it? Do you have any actual evidence of that?
Yeah, election results...
In addition to surveys of non voters.
I get a random person on social media not knowing that, but our president and his campaign team should.
Please present this evidence. Just saying you have evidence is not actually having evidence. I would like to see these surveys and how they show that voters have wised up to political pandering.
And
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/945031391/poll-despite-record-turnout-80-million-americans-didnt-vote-heres-why
The article already says NC voted trump the last two elections, and I already quoted it...
So I'm going to assume you don't need another source for that
Well I'm going to need a source for why non-voters matter to a president when pandering to a state. They weren't going to vote anyway.
What?
You want a source for why a candidate pandering for votes would care about people that aren't going to vote?
Literally the only point of pandering for votes, is to get votes...
If not, what the fuck is the point of pandering at all?
And why are you saying it doesn't work?
That's how Obama and Bill Clinton got elected....
And let me guess, you're just going to ignore everything you were wrong about and ask for a source on that too...
That's called "sealioning"
Edit:
Yep. That's definitely what's happening and worth a block
To get votes... from people who vote.
That's a troll, fyi, I've run into him a couple times now. If you drive him into a corner he'll just start name-calling and block you, so you can't debate him in the future. He does not seem to realize this does not prevent us from leaving our own replies to his posts for everyone else to discuss, without him.
Thanks for letting me know.
Echoing this. He's weirdly obsessed with anything that can even sorta kinda be used to shit on Democrats, and bothsidesism is his default response to literally everything. He will never cede ground on anything, no matter how compelling your counterargument.
Just because you only pay attention around election time does not mean Biden has been doing nothing this entire time... that doesn't make any sense. Like he hibernated through the term and only just now regained consciousness to campaign again?
This reeks of both-sideism. Please compare the platforms and policies of the two sides you seem equally disillusioned with.
No, I have been paying attention...
One of the biggest criticism of Biden s early years, was that he appeared to have no plan when he took office. He didn't have anything ready to go, and said he would start to look into his various campaign promises.
And before that was done, we lost the House.
Republicans are a lost cause.
If the only standard for the only other option is "not republican" then we, as a country not just a party, are completely fucked.
1/3 of this country doesn't vote, moving further right for decades isn't working. It's time to go back to FDR style Dems when Republicans could only manage to win two states
https://www.270towin.com/1936_Election/interactive_map
I share your frustration with the two party system for sure. However, let's deal in realities. Biden signed more executive orders in his first 100 days than any president since Harry Truman. Here's some more info:
https://www.politico.com/joe-biden-first-100-days-presidency
Let's criticize Biden for his actual fuckups (Israel anyone?)
Benefit of the doubt that's true and he did get some stuff done that was substantial:
Is it enough to offset alternating with Republicans?
Moderate progress only works if it's steady. Ten steps back and five steps forward is still moving backwards.
If moderate progress is the most we reach for, we'll never make any progress on a long time scale when modern Republicans get equal turns.
And the way to prevent that, is trying for faster progress. The party just won't try that, because their donors don't want it.
Bringing us alllll the way back to 1/3 of voters just not voting.
Read about what he has done. You don't need to make any assumptions.
What should he do? Decree that college is free now and insurance is banned and so is homelessness etc? Realistically, he's done a lot and is far more progressive than leftists tend to credit him for.
At this point it feels like we are just finding ways to be dissatisfied tbh.
Here is an opinion piece with more deets on stuff Biden has done:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/13/why-progressives-winning-inside-democratic-party/
You won't answer my question...
Do you think Biden has done enough in his four years to correct Trump's?
Do you think right now we're better off than when Obama left office.
Because if not, then moderate progress isn't enough of a goal
I'm not sure why you're trying to make a zero-sum argument here. Nothing in life is black and white, and just because Biden couldn't measure up to your standards doesn't mean we need to, or should, replace him.
Also, nobody is required to argue or refute any claims or points you're trying to make. Biden didn't face the same problems that Obama did. He doesn't have the same faults or struggles, so why are we trying to make an apple-to-apple comparison when that's not even what we're discussing?
Personally, Biden's executive orders read as very well intentioned, and I personally have directly and indirectly benefited from many of these. There are some things Biden has done that I have disagreed with, but overall, the executive orders and ruling policy of the Biden administration is a positive. If you read some of the executive orders, it's pretty clear that Biden understands the issues that ail the public in most, if not all, sectors.
Gotta shout out a thanks to @naught for getting me interested in reading executive orders. For anyone curious, you can find it here: https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/joe-biden/2023
Really interesting stuff.
That is the real problem, the government throwing money at Telcos and expecting them to do something other than line their bottom line.
A cynic would say Biden knows this and is trying to get in with giant telecos and trick voters.
Although it would be even worse if he legitimately expects them to go or their end.
Considering Biden legitimately ran his last primary on his ability to cooperate with Republicans...
There's a pretty good chance he's not smart enough to see this coming. If he is, then he's still just lying and doesn't see an issue with that.
i mean it's actually part of the infrastructure bill that was passed earlier but go off i guess