He announced a broad cancellation that was going to happen months in the future, and the courts paused and then later said it wasn’t allowed. If it had progressed very quickly it would have been harder to block. One could argue it was intended to give the court a chance to block it.
This current forgiveness is an executive order, so if it’s not completed by the time Trump is the executive he can stop it easily.
And they will stop him how exactly?
Obama won by 10 million votes in 2008, and he wasn’t up against an incumbent with a (until Biden) historically low approval rating and in the middle of a crisis he was failing. Before the Democratic primary even started 56% of voters said they were definitely going to vote against Trump. Biden’s 6 million votes were by running up numbers in safe states, not a convincing electoral victory. The actual difference between winning and losing was 44k votes. Less than what would have flipped 2016 (80k), so unless you’re going to call Trump vs. Clinton a solid victory, Biden’s was a squeaker in an election that shouldn’t have been close.
Biden didn’t win in 2020 because he was a great politician, he was just the default. Nothing about either that primary or that election suggests a talented politician who just needed to refine his message and keep trying. Most of the early primary was the moderate lane desperately searching for someone other than Biden, and then in the general he barely beat Trump in an election that should have been a cake walk.
“Throw someone under the bus” implies the other person going under the bus is bad for them and you’re doing it so they receive the harm instead of you. If someone says “hey, who shit in my flower bed” and you blame your dog, the dog isn’t going to suffer any consequences. I think Alito’s wife probably thinks he’s outplayed the haters, not that he’s harmed her to save himself, because nothing at all will happen to her.
It’s easy to do that when she will suffer no consequences whatsoever for it. He’s not sacrificing her to save himself, he’s using a convenient excuse whereby the member of the household who has some nominal expectation of impartiality and civic support keeps their hands clean because their spouse has apparently have zero implications for their impartiality or ethics (see Thomas, Ginni).
How is this comment relevant to anything that’s been said anywhere here? No one has crucified Biden anywhere in this comment thread.
I swear people are just running on scripts here and aren’t reading the comments to figure out if their script is applicable. First “Biden can’t do anything, it’s all Congress” when Biden wasn’t even being told to do anything and he currently IS doing something, then “what’s the alternative, don’t be critical of Biden” when again, no one has been critical of Biden.
All good things are being done in secret for some reason, but they’re happy to be very publicly bad.
He still banned the strike. They didn’t get to use their own power to demand the terms they wanted, they had to accept what the outside negotiators were willing and able to get for them.
I’m not disagreeing with the article’s premise, Biden is the most pro-labor president in a long time, but this gaslighting just makes Democrats look deceptive.
Edit: See @rockSlayer@lemmy.world’s response for a great way to respond to this. You don’t need to pretend his shit doesn’t stink, acknowledge it and then talk about the good stuff.
What exactly do you think is the difference here? They used US weapons on civilians and now won’t supply more for some time because this violation means they’re likely to be used on civilians again.
Whatever you think you’re doing here is not helpful to Biden. You’re preemptively arguing that Biden’s current pause isn’t actually something he can do and implying it will fail because the rules say only Congress can make decisions. Neither of which is true. You seem like you’re just taking guesses about how things work rather than having any concrete knowledge to back up your declarative statements about what’s possible (most arms laws are simply money-pots to be managed by the executive in consultation with our ally). The executive has incredibly broad powers to stop arms transfers based on whether they’re for “legitimate self-defense” (not defined), which is why Republicans are trying to take that ability away.
I never said this was a thing Biden alone needed to do, so I’m not sure why you’re acting like I did.
That said, there are lots of steps along the way where an administration can hold or reject transfers. We have various requirements and regulations and choices that reside in the executive well after “Congress approves X funding”. The whole reason this article even exists is because Biden put a stop to a transfer that had already been “approved” by Congress years ago. State Department approval also means a possible result is “State Department rejection”.
That was surprisingly informative for a Politico article.
Also, I feel like even if Israel stops doing genocide, withdraws from Gaza, and pays reconstruction and reparations (admittedly a fantasy of restitutive action), they should still be on big bomb timeout for a while. They’ve shown they can’t be trusted with their use.
And with one ill-conceived stunt the media is now leading with the fluff rather than the purpose of his visit and the critical issues at play.
Practically any other writer in their opinion section would have paired this title with something like “wokeness on campus is the reason a 59 year old suburban business owner wearing a MAGA hat told me he isn’t voting for Joe Biden” or “we should all put aside the rancor and rally behind our new president, whoever it is, so they can make America great again”. He is very much the exception to the NYT Opinion rule.
Jamelle Bouie, basically the only good opinion writer at the NYT in a sea of festering shit materially contributing to the problems in our society.
I hadn’t heard about this until it was linked in this article. Wow. And I’m surprised Charlemagne set it up and encouraged it. I’d always gotten the impression he was sort of a centrist shithead.
Activist Olayemi Olurin channeled a whole city’s frustration to grill the mayor on morning radio.
other Israelis worry their leaders are losing the vital war for global support.
The time to worry about that was a while back, before other western countries talked about arms restrictions and their primary supporter and supplier publicly told them no. They were riding the high of Biden sticking with them as other sentiment turned rather than recognizing they were pushing that relationship to the breaking point.
Holy fuck man, that’s not what you said! I quoted the claim I was correcting, I was very specific, then requoted it so you’d recognize your own words. Jesus the forum brain.
You literally didn’t read anything I wrote. Your chart is for a different thing than you claimed. You claimed most Americans support or don’t care, I gave you two polls, one where that exact question was asked and it was just flat out untrue (which you ignored completely), and a second one to demonstrate that even in more favorable splits it was only true if you care what Republicans think. You apparently weren’t put off by a direct poll answering the direct question you asked and figured digging into a related question in the poll that at least gave you a shot at sticking to your wrong statement was a totally important thing to do.
“Do you support the president’s actions” is different than “do you approve of Israel in the conflict” with a whole lot of partisan defaulting and nothing in your wrong statement was about the president or about aid, not to mention “not sure” being an entirely different thing than “I don’t care”. This follow up trying to pretend people who think Israel is “going to far” isn’t the same as not supporting Israel in the conflict is just pathetic. Just fucking accept you were wrong and move on with your life rather than dedicating yourself to these sad follow-ups.
This could have been a one line “oh, I guess it’s changed from when I last looked”. Or even nothing at all.
The Supreme Court denial is just words. He stopped implementing the previous plan because he accepted and followed those words, but he could not. Maybe his bureaucracy will reject him and refuse to go against the Supreme Court words, but that’s a question for his bureaucracy.
And yes, that’s how coups work. Sometimes the army/police/whatever backs down because some other entity in the civil power structure says “you can’t do that”. And other times, they don’t. It’s all decided based on the perceived power and righteousness of the two sides, not because the court just decides stuff and then it happens by some sort of magic.