The Defending Joe Biden Mega-Thread

[Hades]

His foreign policy again is a policy that looks bad but isn’t that bad when you consider additional facts like world events, and alliances.

I don't even think it looks bad. On the foreign policy front Biden led a reasonably united western front against Russian aggression and even managed to expend NATO with nations previously thought unthinkable. Seems a very solid improvement compared to the meekness of Obama and the downright treasonous stance of Trump.

 

[Bedinsis]

I don't even think it looks bad. On the foreign policy front Biden led a reasonably united western front against Russian aggression and even managed to expend NATO with nations previously thought unthinkable. Seems a very solid improvement compared to the meekness of Obama and the downright treasonous stance of Trump.

He also pulled the US out of Afghanistan, the result of which led to the takeover of the Taliban. To what degree one can attribute that result to decisions from earlier administrations is subject to debate, but that still happened under his supervision.

 

[Ag3ma]

He also pulled the US out of Afghanistan, the result of which led to the takeover of the Taliban. To what degree one can attribute that result to decisions from earlier administrations is subject to debate, but that still happened under his supervision.

The USA had a stab at "nation building" in Afghanistan and it failed. In order to prevent the Taliban taking over, the US would have had to sit there indefinitely, at substantial cost and dropping bombs on Afghans with inevitable accidental deaths of civilians on its hands.

That one was a lose-lose for whoever was in power - although certainly Biden takes the reputation hit for the collapse occurring on his watch.

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Silvanus]

(But still an enormous difference)

 

[crimson5pheonix]

There's so much comedy with that graph. So the target line is what Biden promised. The blue Biden line is assuming Biden enacts certain climate legislation (I guess presuming that Biden isn't going to try for his promises, which is a wise assumption), and you kinda have to do your own calculations to figure out the area of the gap between the two might be 4 billion? Maybe?

But I really love that on a 2050 timescale, the envelopes of their policies touch.

Two questions I have though, is Biden's line made with carbon credits that are just hiding CO2 emissions with accounting. And, why did Hillary turn off replies to her original tweet with this shit graph?

 

[tippy2k2]

The perfect encapsulation to voting for Democrats vs Republicans

We're all gonna die with the world on fire but we're gonna do it slightly slower if we vote Democrat. #VBNMW

 

[tstorm823]

We're all gonna die with the world on fire but we're gonna do it slightly slower if we vote Democrat. #VBNMW

To be clear, climate change does not make the world set on fire in any conceivable scenario.

 

[Ag3ma]

To be clear, climate change does not make the world set on fire in any conceivable scenario.

Not the whole world, maybe, but it is almost certainly exacerbating the risk of devastating natural fires in numerous parts of the world.

In practice, to say the world is going to burn is not made in the literal sense, but to point out that climate change poses a significant risk of economic damage, loss of food production and so on that has a high risk of inducing social and political disorder. For instance, significant damage to parts of the world will likely induce mass migration, and potentially war. A recent study said that by 2050 global GDP could be only 4/5ths of what it should have been absent of global warming. Potentially, global GDP may even end up shrinking more than natural economic growth can offset.

Anyone who thinks migration to Europe and North America is a problem and serious threat to our countries, just imagine what it will be like if that ramps up an order of magnitude because poorer parts of the world start falling apart at the seams. There will be nowhere immune

 

[Seanchaidh]

To be clear, climate change does not make the world set on fire in any conceivable scenario.

You literally just conceived it, though.

In any case, the various climate changes that have come before, such as the Late Permian extinction event, might make you wish the world was just on fire.

 

[Silvanus]

The perfect encapsulation to voting for Democrats vs Republicans

We're all gonna die with the world on fire but we're gonna do it slightly slower if we vote Democrat. #VBNMW

Yeah, why would we want more time? It's only a few million lives in the intervening decades/centuries. But they're the poorest, so.

 

[tippy2k2]

Yeah, why would we want more time? It's only a few million lives in the intervening decades/centuries. But they're the poorest, so.

L O fucking L

 

[Silvanus]

L O fucking L

Well, can't argue with that. Though it's mostly because accelerationism is incoherent.

 

[Hades]

Well, can't argue with that. Though it's mostly because accelerationism is incoherent.

Especially in the US context accelerationism is just silly. The ''logic'' being that if the Democrats collapse then a more left leaning new party can rise in their place. But if Republicans get free reign to outlaw democracy then how exactly can this new third party win an election? Because even if this new party becomes widely popular you can't win an election in a one party state if that one party doesn't allow for it.

Its not like Republicans have been very subtle in their view that democracy should just go away so in their hearts of hearts the accelerationists know this.

 

[tippy2k2]

Well, can't argue with that. Though it's mostly because accelerationism is incoherent.

I have no idea why you think I'm an acceleratist or whatever

I vote for people who share my values. Universal Healthcare, helping the homeless instead of sweeping them under the rug, and not funding a genocide are part of my values. So I'm going to vote for someone who believes in those values as well. Not someone who doesn't.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Well, can't argue with that. Though it's mostly because accelerationism is incoherent.

That "fixing the problem" isn't in the cards at all is what makes your posts funny.

 

[Satinavian]

The perfect encapsulation to voting for Democrats vs Republicans

So until 2030 the Democrat strategy is vastly superior to the Republican one. And if the Democrats win because the enviromental conscious vote makes a difference, they might even be convinced to go for a bolder strategy next time. Sounds sensible.

 

[tippy2k2]

So until 2030 the Democrat strategy is vastly superior to the Republican one. And if the Democrats win because the enviromental conscious vote makes a difference, they might even be convinced to go for a bolder strategy next time. Sounds sensible.

"Hold your nose and vote Democrats this time and NEXT time..."

#VBNMW

"Vote for him and we'll push him left"

The Lesser Evil

This has been the voting strategy for three, four decades and look at how well it's worked out. We're not going to "incremental change" our way out of this mess. So again, I'm going to vote for someone whose values are aligned with mine, not for "better things aren't possible so vote for the slightly less evil guy".

If you want to vote for Biden, go nuts. But I think Democrats are in for a HUGE surprise if they think the same song and dance is gonna work this time, especially when "Genocide but slightly less of it" is considered a "selling point" in Biden's favor.

 

[Silvanus]

I have no idea why you think I'm an acceleratist or whatever

"Terrible stuff happening in the future = much worse stuff happening much sooner, so we might as well act in a way that doesn't distinguish between them". That is, for practical purposes, accelerationism.

I vote for people who share my values. Universal Healthcare, helping the homeless instead of sweeping them under the rug, and not funding a genocide are part of my values. So I'm going to vote for someone who believes in those values as well. Not someone who doesn't.

I'm not really interested in convincing people how to vote. I'm making the point that "sooner vs later" is a pretty damn important thing, and has the capacity to be the difference between life and death for a hell of a lot of people.

 

[Silvanus]

That "fixing the problem" isn't in the cards at all is what makes your posts funny.

On the contrary: literally the only way we can possibly have a "fixing the problem" option is by increasing the timeframe. Acting in a way that doesn't distinguish between a longer tineframe and a shorter one is the same as writing off any possibility of fixing it.