this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
401 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19103 readers
4943 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nevoic@lemm.ee -3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

If your goal is to reinforce the pro-Biden crowd, good job. If your goal is to convince anyone who is anti-Biden, this won't do.

Fluff has opposite effects for people with different biases. Someone with a bias in favor of what you're saying reads all the fluff as "yup this is a metric fuckload of facts that weighs in favor of my heuristical understanding of the world", while others would read it as "this person is obviously reaching and fluffing up the pro-Biden rhetoric, so is any of it impressive?"

I'll be more concrete in my criticism, you mention both the climate action (materially important and good to mention) and also his failed attempt to pass marijuana legislation. Even bringing up marijuana legislation when the kinds of discussions we're having are about genocide, climate change, employment, etc. seems out of place, but you bring up a failed attempt to do this comparatively extremely unimportant thing, it reads as you having an immense bias and reaching for anything you can. Same thing with his failure to get proper student loan relief to people.

Essentially the only actual legitimate win he has is the passing of the climate action. Wage growth and unemployment shrinking are parts of natural boom bust cycles, not any executive orders he's put in place or action signed into law by Democrats.

For what it's worth I'm not a moderate, I'm a socialist, so I'm not normally the "truth is in the middle of two positions" type of person, but your comment is the exception to the rule, where you're not spewing out just straight falsehoods but you do have an obvious bias and are fluffing up his achievements more than deserved.

[–] Jyek@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Marijuana legislation has less to do with marijuana as more to do with prisoners in prison for marijuana use, distribution, and or possession. It's a step toward decriminalization of most drugs which accounts for up to 25% of state facility incarceration depending on the state. Why the fuck am I paying tax dollars to keep a drug user in a cell? Why would you want to pay to feed them 3 meals a day?

[–] Nevoic@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

You missed the forest for the trees. He failed to get this passed. It's absolutely fluff to reach to Biden's failures in a list of his greatest accomplishments.

Obviously I agree on decriminalizing marijuana, but that's not what my comment or the broader discussion was about.

I don't know if you genuinely missed the point of my comment, or if you're just arguing in bad faith.