Why the hell are you coming at me then? I can’t control the dems policies, nor can I change the psychology of muslims to vote for a guy who is facilitating genocide. Nothing I say would convince someone who is struggling to pay rent because their student loans were resumed by executive order.
The only thing either of us can do is pressure the dems to do the things they need to do to get elected. If Biden stops the genocide, then I could tell muslims “Hey, if you don’t vote Biden, Trump will resume it”, and college grads “Hey, if you don’t vote Biden, Trump will resume loan repayments”, and women “Hey, if you don’t vote Biden, Trump’s gonna remove your right to bodily autonomy” but I can’t do that because he doesn’t give me shit to work with.
That’s nice, but it’s really hard to convince someone to vote for the person still pushing the knife deeper into them. Stopping further damage done via gaza and student loans are an absolute minimum. I’m not even expecting him to pull the knife out, let alone do something to heal the wound. The bar is underwater when I have to set it at “Not actively making your personal material conditions worse”. “Yes he’s making things worse for you and will not stop doing so, but some of the things he did aren’t objectively bad” is not gonna win an election.
Also some of those were objectively bad, such as increasing militarism and oil production.
It’s obvious you didn’t even read one sentence of the link. I know you and the troll farm have a job to do with your “Genocide Joe” rhetoric, but we’re tired of it and don’t want you here.
Except I referenced multiple things in that link; 3 of them were increased militarism, 1 was that oil production in the US had increased. Those are objectively bad things.
I would argue domestic production of oil is a generally good thing, or at least neutral/balanced thing.
Yeah, we need to get away from oil, and we need more green generation, but that takes a long time. There’s a quick win in producing more domestically, by not having to import oil from halfway across the world, and also reducing foreign dependence for energy.
Problem is, last I heard, we are exporting most domestic oil now.
No, it’s not neutral, as oil prices increase, the incentive to invest in green energy decreases. There’s a reason US cars gas efficiency was abysmal until the oil embargo incentivized gas efficiency.
Oil prices should already be higher as it is. It costs roughly $4.40 just to recapture the CO2 that gets emitted from 1 gallon of gas. Gas should be closer to $10/gal (to capture the carbon emitted, and to pay for renewable subsidies, and the market price of oil itself).
But who would that hit? All of the expenses of higher fuel get sent down the consumer in the end, who is already getting squeezed for every cent.
That’s why I didn’t mention oil price at all. That’s a very delicate issue all of its own. How do we severe our dependence on fossil fuels entirely, while also not destroying the economy? Not just the fatcats but every day folk too. The people with gas cars, and stoves, and clothes dryers, and hot water, and heat, that all would need to be retrofitted to electric. That’s a huge expense. I don’t think most Americans are in a place to buy a new car, today, because gas is suddenly $10/gal…and even less so because in this universe, ICE cars are entirely useless so there’s no secondary market and no trade-in value. Let alone replace their appliances and HVAC.
We have to have more carrots for renewables and more sticks for fossil fuels…but too many sticks will collapse the whole damn thing. Not to mention carrots for public transit and walkable/bikable communities and everything else we should have in “the best and most advanced country in the world”. We’re a disgrace. We’re not even the best and most advanced country in America. God damn koolaid turned sour.
Also keep in mind that personal use of fossil fuels isn’t even one of the biggest sources of GHGs. That’s still behind commercial transport/shipping and animal agriculture. It needs to be reigned in, but there are far bigger fish to fry.
That’s why I focussed more on the drawbacks of international transport of oil. It takes energy and GHG emissions to get oil across the world. And there’s a substantial risk to an environmental disaster along the way. The closer it is, the lesser risk of environmental disaster.
There’s other ways we can relieve the consumer, such as removing the tariff on Chinese EVs and other green technology so they can afford it. Instead Biden is quadrupling it. Naturally Trump is already promising to raise it further so anyone who likes tariffs are going to vote Trump anyway, and anyone who wants a cheap EV just sees Biden raising the tariff.
Like Biden’s border policy and foreign policy, it’s morally wrong, but more importantly, every effort to appeal to “moderate republicans” is just electorally stupid. The fascists aren’t gonna vote for diet fascism when they can have the real thing.
Biden attempted to forgive half a trillion dollars in student loans, and the Supreme Court told him no. He’s still managed to do about $150 billion on his own. In what sense are you saying he’s driving the knife in?
Biden is holding up military aid for Israel right now. Too little too fucking late, in my opinion, but you are aware that that’s happening, right? That the leader who is actively killing Palestinians is a whole different world leader on a whole different side of the planet?
There’s a whole conversation to be had about 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030; that may be opening up a significant additional topic. But you brought up oil production.
That’s not even the main point. You said elsewhere:
You’d “have to” support Israel, even if they were genociding Palestinians just like they are today, if they weren’t on the same side as the US, because you support all enemies of the US uncritically.
“There is a discrepancy” between you wanting to drive the US as quickly as possible to its destruction, and being deeply concerned about Biden’s strategy and offering critique to what he’s doing (supposedly, ultimately, to help him win the election.)
I don’t know man. I think you wanna think through that discrepancy at some length. I’m pretty doubtful that you’re sincere about what you’re saying. Sorry.
If you actually are an American and this is actually what you believe, then you should know that I carry the same absurd hope that you’re talking about that the US can do better things. If you want better outcomes for the people inside the United States and less evil done in its name on the world stage, I think there are actually some good ways you can work towards that outcome.
Biden attempted to forgive half a trillion dollars in student loans,
He restarted loan repayments. Every dollar paid on every loan he didn’t forgive is the knife going deeper.
You’d “have to” support Israel, even if they were genociding Palestinians just like they are today
No no no, I’d have to support the US against Israel. My fault, “I’d have to support it” was ambiguous, it could have been referring to the US’s opposition to Israel or Israel.
No he didn’t. The relevant quote is, “But this time is different. The debt ceiling bill’s statutory language will tie Biden’s hands. Barring a new national emergency, he will no longer have the statutory authority to extend the current student loan pause.”
The thing that actually was in his power to do – forgive balances – he did. And, when other parts of the federal government cancelled his order to do a massive forgiveness, he did smaller forgiveness packages that added up to around $150 billion so far.
No no no, I’d have to support the US against Israel. My fault, “I’d have to support it” was ambiguous, it could have been referring to the US’s opposition to Israel or Israel.
Got it. Makes sense. So what made you change your mind? What’s different about Israel if they were an enemy of the US that would make you not support them (in a way that you would some other small middle-eastern country that was an enemy of the US)?
I didn’t, the “oppose the US and you’ll be on the right side” heuristic only describes the end result, the core is still anti-imperialism. That is a weird scenario where the US is incidentally opposing its own imperialism.
Same with the US opposition to ISIS after they supplied them with weapons and trucks and personnel they trained and radicalized to fight Assad.
Same with the US opposition to Nazi Germany after they supplied them with materials and weapons to crush the communist at home and in hope they’d go after the USSR.
I didn’t, the “oppose the US and you’ll be on the right side” heuristic only describes the end result, the core is still anti-imperialism
Interesting
Who do you support in the Ukraine war? Who would you support if the Chinese military invaded Taiwan?
Same with the US opposition to Nazi Germany after they supplied them with materials and weapons to crush the communist at home and in hope they’d go after the USSR.
The US government is made of many, many parts and conflicting goals and interests. The actions on student loan forgiveness are one small example, but the same applies even to big actions like what to do with Nazi Germany.
If there was a faction of the US government that was opposing Nazi Germany the whole time, and a faction of it that was supporting the Nazis even during part of the shooting war, is it fair to say you’d support the faction that was fighting the Nazis and oppose the faction that was supporting the Nazis? Or would you assert that the faction that was opposing the Nazis the whole time didn’t exist or things didn’t happen that way?
Who do you support in the Ukraine war? Who would you support if the Chinese military invaded Taiwan?
Re: Ukraine, I oppose the US’s actions. More specifically, I support peace at any cost; every day the war goes on, and every bomb we send there, is a bad day for someone, statistically mostly women and children. The region will never be safe again in our lifetimes. Literally anything would be better than what we’re seeing now. I have significant criticisms of Russia, but right now they would only serve to support more needless deaths.
Re: China. Assuming eventual, peaceful reunification was off the table due to US machinations and not invading meant a hostile state being used to launch hostile actions within PRC, I’d have to support it. The alternative is another Ukraine.
If there was a faction of the US government that was opposing Nazi Germany the whole time, and a faction of it that was supporting the Nazis even during part of the shooting war, is it fair to say you’d support the faction that was fighting the Nazis and oppose the faction that was supporting the Nazis?
This is correct. We’re getting into weird hypotheticals and counter-factuals. I’m more comfortable with things that actually happened.
There were Americans who opposed the nazis before 1941. During the mccarthy era, they were smeared as “preeminent anti-fascists” meaning “these people weren’t opposed to the nazis when we thought they were the answer to communism, that must mean they’re secret communists”.
Such a world where they were strongly influential, America might have taken different actions that had different results for the people living there and the heuristic wouldn’t work so well. But we don’t, and it does.
Have you read any Gerald Horne? The Counter Revolution of 1776 and The Counter Revolution of 1860 do a good job of showing how it’s baked into the US’s DNA.
Why the hell are you coming at me then? I can’t control the dems policies, nor can I change the psychology of muslims to vote for a guy who is facilitating genocide. Nothing I say would convince someone who is struggling to pay rent because their student loans were resumed by executive order.
The only thing either of us can do is pressure the dems to do the things they need to do to get elected. If Biden stops the genocide, then I could tell muslims “Hey, if you don’t vote Biden, Trump will resume it”, and college grads “Hey, if you don’t vote Biden, Trump will resume loan repayments”, and women “Hey, if you don’t vote Biden, Trump’s gonna remove your right to bodily autonomy” but I can’t do that because he doesn’t give me shit to work with.
One fucking Google search and this was the second link: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/02/joe-biden-30-policy-things-you-might-have-missed-00139046
That’s nice, but it’s really hard to convince someone to vote for the person still pushing the knife deeper into them. Stopping further damage done via gaza and student loans are an absolute minimum. I’m not even expecting him to pull the knife out, let alone do something to heal the wound. The bar is underwater when I have to set it at “Not actively making your personal material conditions worse”. “Yes he’s making things worse for you and will not stop doing so, but some of the things he did aren’t objectively bad” is not gonna win an election.
Also some of those were objectively bad, such as increasing militarism and oil production.
It’s obvious you didn’t even read one sentence of the link. I know you and the troll farm have a job to do with your “Genocide Joe” rhetoric, but we’re tired of it and don’t want you here.
Except I referenced multiple things in that link; 3 of them were increased militarism, 1 was that oil production in the US had increased. Those are objectively bad things.
I would argue domestic production of oil is a generally good thing, or at least neutral/balanced thing.
Yeah, we need to get away from oil, and we need more green generation, but that takes a long time. There’s a quick win in producing more domestically, by not having to import oil from halfway across the world, and also reducing foreign dependence for energy.
Problem is, last I heard, we are exporting most domestic oil now.
No, it’s not neutral, as oil prices increase, the incentive to invest in green energy decreases. There’s a reason US cars gas efficiency was abysmal until the oil embargo incentivized gas efficiency.
Oil prices should already be higher as it is. It costs roughly $4.40 just to recapture the CO2 that gets emitted from 1 gallon of gas. Gas should be closer to $10/gal (to capture the carbon emitted, and to pay for renewable subsidies, and the market price of oil itself).
But who would that hit? All of the expenses of higher fuel get sent down the consumer in the end, who is already getting squeezed for every cent.
That’s why I didn’t mention oil price at all. That’s a very delicate issue all of its own. How do we severe our dependence on fossil fuels entirely, while also not destroying the economy? Not just the fatcats but every day folk too. The people with gas cars, and stoves, and clothes dryers, and hot water, and heat, that all would need to be retrofitted to electric. That’s a huge expense. I don’t think most Americans are in a place to buy a new car, today, because gas is suddenly $10/gal…and even less so because in this universe, ICE cars are entirely useless so there’s no secondary market and no trade-in value. Let alone replace their appliances and HVAC.
We have to have more carrots for renewables and more sticks for fossil fuels…but too many sticks will collapse the whole damn thing. Not to mention carrots for public transit and walkable/bikable communities and everything else we should have in “the best and most advanced country in the world”. We’re a disgrace. We’re not even the best and most advanced country in America. God damn koolaid turned sour.
Also keep in mind that personal use of fossil fuels isn’t even one of the biggest sources of GHGs. That’s still behind commercial transport/shipping and animal agriculture. It needs to be reigned in, but there are far bigger fish to fry.
That’s why I focussed more on the drawbacks of international transport of oil. It takes energy and GHG emissions to get oil across the world. And there’s a substantial risk to an environmental disaster along the way. The closer it is, the lesser risk of environmental disaster.
There’s other ways we can relieve the consumer, such as removing the tariff on Chinese EVs and other green technology so they can afford it. Instead Biden is quadrupling it. Naturally Trump is already promising to raise it further so anyone who likes tariffs are going to vote Trump anyway, and anyone who wants a cheap EV just sees Biden raising the tariff.
Like Biden’s border policy and foreign policy, it’s morally wrong, but more importantly, every effort to appeal to “moderate republicans” is just electorally stupid. The fascists aren’t gonna vote for diet fascism when they can have the real thing.
That’s not even the main point. You said elsewhere:
I don’t know man. I think you wanna think through that discrepancy at some length. I’m pretty doubtful that you’re sincere about what you’re saying. Sorry.
If you actually are an American and this is actually what you believe, then you should know that I carry the same absurd hope that you’re talking about that the US can do better things. If you want better outcomes for the people inside the United States and less evil done in its name on the world stage, I think there are actually some good ways you can work towards that outcome.
He restarted loan repayments. Every dollar paid on every loan he didn’t forgive is the knife going deeper.
No no no, I’d have to support the US against Israel. My fault, “I’d have to support it” was ambiguous, it could have been referring to the US’s opposition to Israel or Israel.
No he didn’t. The relevant quote is, “But this time is different. The debt ceiling bill’s statutory language will tie Biden’s hands. Barring a new national emergency, he will no longer have the statutory authority to extend the current student loan pause.”
The thing that actually was in his power to do – forgive balances – he did. And, when other parts of the federal government cancelled his order to do a massive forgiveness, he did smaller forgiveness packages that added up to around $150 billion so far.
Got it. Makes sense. So what made you change your mind? What’s different about Israel if they were an enemy of the US that would make you not support them (in a way that you would some other small middle-eastern country that was an enemy of the US)?
I didn’t, the “oppose the US and you’ll be on the right side” heuristic only describes the end result, the core is still anti-imperialism. That is a weird scenario where the US is incidentally opposing its own imperialism.
Same with the US opposition to ISIS after they supplied them with weapons and trucks and personnel they trained and radicalized to fight Assad.
Same with the US opposition to Nazi Germany after they supplied them with materials and weapons to crush the communist at home and in hope they’d go after the USSR.
Interesting
Who do you support in the Ukraine war? Who would you support if the Chinese military invaded Taiwan?
The US government is made of many, many parts and conflicting goals and interests. The actions on student loan forgiveness are one small example, but the same applies even to big actions like what to do with Nazi Germany.
If there was a faction of the US government that was opposing Nazi Germany the whole time, and a faction of it that was supporting the Nazis even during part of the shooting war, is it fair to say you’d support the faction that was fighting the Nazis and oppose the faction that was supporting the Nazis? Or would you assert that the faction that was opposing the Nazis the whole time didn’t exist or things didn’t happen that way?
Re: Ukraine, I oppose the US’s actions. More specifically, I support peace at any cost; every day the war goes on, and every bomb we send there, is a bad day for someone, statistically mostly women and children. The region will never be safe again in our lifetimes. Literally anything would be better than what we’re seeing now. I have significant criticisms of Russia, but right now they would only serve to support more needless deaths.
Re: China. Assuming eventual, peaceful reunification was off the table due to US machinations and not invading meant a hostile state being used to launch hostile actions within PRC, I’d have to support it. The alternative is another Ukraine.
This is correct. We’re getting into weird hypotheticals and counter-factuals. I’m more comfortable with things that actually happened.
There were Americans who opposed the nazis before 1941. During the mccarthy era, they were smeared as “preeminent anti-fascists” meaning “these people weren’t opposed to the nazis when we thought they were the answer to communism, that must mean they’re secret communists”.
Such a world where they were strongly influential, America might have taken different actions that had different results for the people living there and the heuristic wouldn’t work so well. But we don’t, and it does.
Have you read any Gerald Horne? The Counter Revolution of 1776 and The Counter Revolution of 1860 do a good job of showing how it’s baked into the US’s DNA.