Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Endus]

It's always about the swing voters, as well as energizing your base. I think we tend to focus on the Republican voters, but they aren't really the focus here since we know they won't switch.

Being up front about gun control policy goals, instead of using dogwhistles

"Let's bring back the assault weapons ban" is in no way a "dogwhistle".

Can we genuinely believe that we would have more people showing up to vote Democrat in this case, than would show up to vote Republican? Because I find that really hard to believe - most people voting Democrat were *already* going to do so because the other option is fucking Trump.

Gun control measures have pretty consistent bipartisan appeal, as already handwaved by you. There's no indication Harris' support for an assault weapons ban will be a negative factor, here.

And again; your entire position is just doomerism to block any progress. It isn't a rational position and is not productive involvement. At best, this is a messaging/framing issue. Nobody likes school shootings or gun crime. Trump's cowering behind bulletproof glass at every rally now. Even Republicans have good reason to think maybe gun control is a good idea, now that it's clear the bullets won't entirely be focused on Democrats.

[Grinning Serpent]

Granted this is all subject to change with a new administration, but Joe's been generally pretty good for the environment overall. Hardly a spotless record, but DoInterior has been quietly doing a lot of great work.

It's definitely fallen to a second-order thing for me in light of the whole "resurgent American fascism" thing but protection of state parks and wilderness areas is a big deal to me. Kids 80 years from now deserve to be able to see wolves on more than just a video or photograph, you know?

- - - Updated - - -

"Let's bring back the assault weapons ban" is in no way a "dogwhistle".

No, the dogwhistle was the previous "protect children in schools" type of stuff. Everyone knew what that meant, but because it wasn't being direct and open about it, it allowed for plausible deniability. Even if you know it means "ban the scary guns", how do you attack their position without sounding like an utter sociopath, and in a way that is brief and concise enough that people will actually listen to what you're saying?

Gun control measures have pretty consistent bipartisan appeal, as already handwaved by you. There's no indication Harris' support for an assault weapons ban will be a negative factor, here.

The bipartisan appeal relies on polls, and I don't trust polls. I don't understand why the fuck anyone would, after we saw exactly how unreliable they were in 2016. HRC's campaign made a lot of blunders, but trusting the polling saying she had a nearly free win was surely among the worst.

[Endus]

No, the dogwhistle was the previous "protect children in schools" type of stuff.

Still not a dogwhistle.

Everyone knew what that meant, but because it wasn't being direct and open about it, it allowed for plausible deniability.

What are you talking about?

https://x.com/VP/status/1827781879598112900

"Ban assault weapons" and "Congress must renew the assault weapons ban" seem pretty frickin' direct, dude.

Even if you know it means "ban the scary guns", how do you attack their position without sounding like an utter sociopath, and in a way that is brief and concise enough that people will actually listen to what you're saying?

It really isn't Harris' problem that her opponents can't attack her positions without coming off as "utter sociopaths", dude. That's a Republican problem. They'll probably completely fail, because anyone with greater than an 80 IQ and any sense of morality left the party a while back now.

The bipartisan appeal relies on polls, and I don't trust polls.

I don't and nobody else should give a single shit. You denying evidence that you don't want to acknowledge is not a reasonable basis for discussion. It's like a flat-earther saying they "don't trust scientists". Okay, that doesn't mean anything, other than as a reason people should take you less seriously.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Even if you know it means "ban the scary guns", how do you attack their position without sounding like an utter sociopath?

Well, this clearly isn't the way to do it

[gondrin]

Since you've made it clear that Republicans would oppose this because it's a Democratic bill primarily, you can extend your "argument" to literally any and all legislation. That's advocating that Democrats just give up, and acknowledge that the USA is trapped in a declining doom spiral into eventual collapse, one it cannot recover from. That's . . . a take, certainly, but defeatism when confronted with the possibility doesn't seem rational at all.

Well, there is precedent for this because of the current GOP absolutely tanking or not voting on a bill just because Democrats agreed with it. There was the time that Mitch McConnell filibustered his own bill because Harry Reid agreed to bring it to a vote.



Or how about the time that Trump actively begged, and got, the current GOP to tank a border bill because the Democrats somewhat liked it and had heavy support only because it would help out Biden.

[Edge-]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bid...ds-2024-08-28/

More than 1 million people in the U.S. will save over $1,000 a year beginning in 2025, when an annual $2,000 cap on prescription drug out-of-pocket costs kicks in, the leading lobbying group for older Americans said on Wednesday.

The cap, introduced as part of President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, applies to the Medicare program for people age 65 or over and those with disabilities. Its prescription drug component, known as Part D, provides coverage for around 56 million people.

That's a lot of good savings for older and disabled folks on medication, thanks Joe and Democrats!

It's a shame Republicans have so little to brag about during their brief two-year stint...just a historically unpopular tax cut.

[Doomcookie]

It's definitely fallen to a second-order thing for me in light of the whole "resurgent American fascism" thing but protection of state parks and wilderness areas is a big deal to me. Kids 80 years from now deserve to be able to see wolves on more than just a video or photograph, you know?

- - - Updated - - -



No, the dogwhistle was the previous "protect children in schools" type of stuff. Everyone knew what that meant, but because it wasn't being direct and open about it, it allowed for plausible deniability. Even if you know it means "ban the scary guns", how do you attack their position without sounding like an utter sociopath, and in a way that is brief and concise enough that people will actually listen to what you're saying?



The bipartisan appeal relies on polls, and I don't trust polls. I don't understand why the fuck anyone would, after we saw exactly how unreliable they were in 2016. HRC's campaign made a lot of blunders, but trusting the polling saying she had a nearly free win was surely among the worst.

It seems like your issue is with the lies and hypocrisy from the GOP and Trump team. There's a separate thread for that.

[Skjaldborg]

Granted this is all subject to change with a new administration, but Joe's been generally pretty good for the environment overall. Hardly a spotless record, but DoInterior has been quietly doing a lot of great work.

For a bit more context, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for 70 million acres of surface in Alaska, so 28 million is a significant portion of that.

I’m trying to figure out if this action has anything to do with the Willow Project, but the press releases about this are sparse on which 28 million acres are now protected - I see a ruling from April 2024 but I’m not sure if they are related.

But yes, what Trump did was super inappropriate if not illegal, since NEPA analysis is required when doing this sort of thing on public lands. I suppose you could have forced it through the BLM offices - you just need signatures to get NEPA done.

Anyway, I’m hoping this leads to terminating the Willow Project. I’ll keep looking for details on where these acres are.

[Poopymonster]

For a bit more context, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for 70 million acres of surface in Alaska, so 28 million is a significant portion of that.

I’m trying to figure out if this action has anything to do with the Willow Project, but the press releases about this are sparse on which 28 million acres are now protected - I see a ruling from April 2024 but I’m not sure if they are related.

But yes, what Trump did was super inappropriate if not illegal, since NEPA analysis is required when doing this sort of thing on public lands. I suppose you could have forced it through the Arctic District office - you just need signatures to get NEPA done.

Anyway, I’m hoping this leads to terminating the Willow Project. I’ll keep looking for details on where these acres are.

It's not illegal if you sign an executive order, no one challenges it, and the final word on legality that you personally filled just shrugs in response.

[Skjaldborg]

Fortunately it was caught super fast. I doubt many operators would be able to get a bunch of land development rolled out in the Alaskan Winter, just south of the Arctic, when Trump signed off on it.

EDIT: I admit that I skated over the fact that Presidents can’t commit crimes anymore, even retroacrively, so Trump unilaterally declaring public lands available for pillaging was not, in fact, a crime.

In other news, pizza is legally a vegetable.

[AntiFascistVoter]

For a bit more context, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for 70 million acres of surface in Alaska, so 28 million is a significant portion of that.

I’m trying to figure out if this action has anything to do with the Willow Project, but the press releases about this are sparse on which 28 million acres are now protected - I see a ruling from April 2024 but I’m not sure if they are related.

But yes, what Trump did was super inappropriate if not illegal, since NEPA analysis is required when doing this sort of thing on public lands. I suppose you could have forced it through the BLM offices - you just need signatures to get NEPA done.

Anyway, I’m hoping this leads to terminating the Willow Project. I’ll keep looking for details on where these acres are.

Biden has been the best president on the environment. Especially considering he was constrained by the gang of six in the SCOUTS. And perma-scolds from the left who refuse to give Dems any kind of credit.


Speaking perma-scolds... Ralph Nader is demanding attention in 2024!
Ralph Nader is furious that the AFL-CIO isn’t doing Labor Day his way.

Ralph Nader releases an angry letter to Liz Shuler saying she reneged on doing cool Labor Day activities because the AFL-CIO is too beholden to the Democratic Party and its "corporate-conflicted political/ media consultants." A deep cut for labor feud connoisseurs.



My contractually obligated Fuck You to Ralph. Also fuck you "Green" Party nitwits, choke on your pURiTy.
A big reason why we have the Robert's court. A big reason why our environment, civil rights are in peril.

Also, lets review what happened when Ralph Nader’s workers wanted a union? SPoiler, its like when Cenk Uygrs workers also wanted a union. Or when the cosplay socialist twit at Current Affairs screwed his workers over....

Three editors fired by consumer advocate Ralph Nader’s organization have filed charges of unfair labor practice against him, claiming he fired them primarily for trying to form a union.

In a bitter dispute at the Nader publication Multinational Monitor, Nader’s group has changed the locks on the office door and attempted unsuccessfully to have the chief editor arrested, alleging he took away files on a crucial story.

Nader, in an interview, said the charges filed against him last month with the National Labor Relations Board are a “ploy,” and that the reason for the firings was that the editors disobeyed his strict orders by publishing a highly controversial story about alleged bribery by Bechtel Corp. before Nader had a chance to read the final version.

[Edge-]

Why does Ralph sound like a marketing consultant that got humored, ultimately told no, and can't process that he was told no?

Ralph, stop desperately clinging for relevancy and just fuck off already, please.

[Grinning Serpent]

It seems like your issue is with the lies and hypocrisy from the GOP and Trump team. There's a separate thread for that.

It was something posted by the Harris campaign and is about her campaign. It's relevant to this thread, not the other one.

[Endus]

It was something posted by the Harris campaign and is about her campaign. It's relevant to this thread, not the other one.

So you're just going to dodge the fact that you accused Harris of "dogwhistling" to hide a platform point of gun control, when the truth (as already demonstrated in my response above) is that she's openly pushing for bringing back the assault weapons ban as a first step?

Yes, banning assault weapons would help protect kids. You're complaining it's hard to argue against that without coming off as an "utter sociopath", but that should tell you more about the deep flaws in your opposition to it than anything wrong with the notion of an assault weapons ban itself.

[Doomcookie]

It was something posted by the Harris campaign and is about her campaign. It's relevant to this thread, not the other one.

No, it seems relevant to your "concern" over an issue where you are clearly trying to lie about the narrative.

[Grinning Serpent]

So you're just going to dodge the fact that you accused Harris of "dogwhistling" to hide a platform point of gun control, when the truth (as already demonstrated in my response above) is that she's openly pushing for bringing back the assault weapons ban as a first step?

Yes, banning assault weapons would help protect kids. You're complaining it's hard to argue against that without coming off as an "utter sociopath", but that should tell you more about the deep flaws in your opposition to it than anything wrong with the notion of an assault weapons ban itself.

Considering you ignored what I said, I didn't think there was any more discussion to be had. The Harris campaign has been talking about things like "protecting our schools and children" since the beginning - that is the dogwhistle I described.

But if it helps you hurl vitriol at other people, I guess it's okay to ignore that, right?

- - - Updated - - -

No, it seems relevant to your "concern" over an issue where you are clearly trying to lie about the narrative.

What in the fuck are you even talking about? What lie? What narrative? If you need someone to vomit vitriol at, I'm sure there's some MAGA cultists around here somewhere, but please don't waste my time if you can't be bothered to have an actual conversation.

[Doomcookie]

Considering you ignored what I said, I didn't think there was any more discussion to be had. The Harris campaign has been talking about things like "protecting our schools and children" since the beginning - that is the dogwhistle I described.

But if it helps you hurl vitriol at other people, I guess it's okay to ignore that, right?

- - - Updated - - -



What in the fuck are you even talking about? What lie? What narrative? If you need someone to vomit vitriol at, I'm sure there's some MAGA cultists around here somewhere, but please don't waste my time if you can't be bothered to have an actual conversation.

That's the point, you keep claiming she's somehow dogwhistling by stating a well-known Democrat platform policy. It's embarrassingly transparent, nobody is actually fooled by it.

[Endus]

Considering you ignored what I said

What you said was false, and I was pointing out that it was false. That's not "ignoring", at all.

The Harris campaign has been talking about things like "protecting our schools and children" since the beginning - that is the dogwhistle I described.

Still not a dogwhistle. You're using the word incorrectly. As I already pointed out.

But if it helps you hurl vitriol at other people, I guess it's okay to ignore that, right?

Pointing out that you're wrong, dodging points made against you, and ignoring evidence is not "hurling vitriol". If you don't like such things being pointed out, just stop doing such things. Stop playing the victim just because you got caught out making up bullshit stories and presenting them as if they were truth.

[draynay]

I don't see any reason to be "concerned" about actual policy when the opposition is already claiming Kamala wants to take away guns and burgers and abort newborns. Get a grip.

[Sunseeker]

I don't see any reason to be "concerned" about actual policy when the opposition is already claiming Kamala wants to take away guns and burgers and abort newborns. Get a grip.

I agree, these calls for "show us your policy!" are nothing but an excuse to give Republicans more ammo, and by extension, the media to tear her down.

We have literal fascism on one side, and weve just had 4 years of Biden, I may have a wish list, but if you were to tell me Harris' "policy" is just "more of the last 4" well damn, there aint much of a choice!