United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[Floridaman]

Biden is fucking things up so badly that a new MAGA President can actually take back the White House in '24.

Here's the problem: it'll be a poisoned chalice, because the economy will be so utterly fucked up that there's no way to turn things around before the next election. Things will keep crashing, it'll be like the Great Depression all over again, and the establishment (Democrats, RINOs, the media, all the big corporations, the bureaucrats...) will go full throttle blaming the populist Republicans for all of it.

And since many people are complete morons who gobble up whatever they get told if it's just repeated 100 times a day... come next election, they'll vote a Democrat right back into office. (And in fact, if the Dems ever get a majority again -- which I think they will -- they'll immediately abuse it to pack the Supreme Court to a ludicrous degree, kill the filibuster, and if the can get away with it by any crooked means, forever skew all future elections in their favour.)

It's already war, and legality is now just a suggestion. The corrupt establishment already knows this, and they have already thrown out the rule-book. Which is why they'll stay in power for much longer than the terminally optimistic tend to believe.

They will not give up the seat of power until you force them off it with a bayonet.

..... my time table isn’t for things getting better, it is for the rot getting so bad it leads to us exploding like either the Soviet Union did (if you are lucky), or yugoslavia, and right now we seem to be heading to yugoslavia at a record pace.

Unless the people that tune it just eat it all up without investigating further, that is. Those who do investigate, on the other hand, probably have a firmer grasp of what's going on than the rest of their tuned-in kin, as well as those who just ignore it and passively accept the tidbits their friends, families, and neighbors pass onto them.

the people who tune it out and don’t consume news don’t see the propoganda, but they do see things like expensive gas.

 

[Zyobot]

the people who tune it out and don’t consume news don’t see the propoganda, but they do see things like expensive gas.

Right, sorry, misread your initial post.

But anyway, I agree that in the aggregate, people who don't pay attention probably are better adjusted, though... those who both tune in and actively investigate the news they receive (rather than passively absorbing it) have their finger on the pulse of the country, more than people who eat up what the news they consume. That doesn't mean they're mentally healthy, mind you, since the stress of deep research and delving into the fucked up state of the world does take its toll after a while.

 

[Skallagrim]

And yet again, it needs to be said: WE ARE NOT ROME AND LOOKING TO ROME FOR TIMETABLES AND ANSWERS IS PART OF WHY THE RIGHT KEEPS LOSING THE CULTURE WAR.

Tech, society, and the world as a whole move much faster, with greater reach, and with more interconnectednesss than Rome ever had.

Rome is not the end all, be all of what a 'great civilization' looks or operates like.

You want to deal with the reality we face now, look to shit like 1984, Ghost in the Shell, Bladerunner, The Expanse, and Firefly/Serenity for examples of where our culture and world might be going, and learn the lessons they teach, instead of continuing to think you are living in a modern Rome.

You cite fiction, while refusing the damning evidences of real history.

You resort to typically modernist materialism (a premise of leftism) as an excuse, and dare to accuse others of causing the right to lose the culture war.

What more can be said of such statements?

 

[Bacle]

You cite fiction, while refusing the damning evidences of real history.

You resort to typically modernist materialism (a premise of leftism) as an excuse, and dare to accuse others of causing the right to lose the culture war.

What more can be said of such statements?

I look at the past and learn from it, but I do not act like you can copy/paste what happened to Rome onto the US to make useful or meaningful predictions or assumptions, as you seem to.

Leaning on fiction for lessons, that might actually resonate with modern audiences more than obsessing about Rome, is dealing with the realities we face and the likely paths our society may go down.

It's more useful to take lessons from Orwell, Rand, Lucas, or Urobuchi than to keep trying to fit modern times into Rome's mold.

 

[Skallagrim]

I look at the past and learn from it, but I do not act like you can copy/paste what happened to Rome onto the US to make useful or meaningful predictions or assumptions, as you seem to.

Leaning on fiction for lessons, that might actually resonate with modern audiences more than obsessing about Rome, is dealing with the realities we face and the likely paths our society may go down.

It's more useful to take lessons from Orwell, Rand, Lucas, or Urobuchi than to keep trying to fit modern times into Rome's mold.

Where do you think someone like Lucas got his narrative?

But seriously: your shouty post earlier, with its over-reliance on ALLCAPS, makes it very clear that your motivations here are rooted in emotion, not in fact. You don't want certain things to be true, so you display a knee-jerk CANTBETRUECANTBETRUECANTBETRUE whenever those things are brought up.

I note that you have failed to demonstrate how fiction is a better guide for "lessons" than real history. All fiction must by definition be rooted in past experience. That is: whatever lessons we convey in fiction, we must first have learned from history (be it personal history, or history on a far greater scale). In other words: you simply say that we should resort to "second-hand lessons", whereas I propose learning first-hand lessons. I think my way is likelier to get valid results.

The fact that you rely on modernist assumptions (which is categorically left-wing) while hypocrically attacking others for supposedly subverting "the right", I see, is something you prefer not to talk about. Your silence there speaks volumes.

In summation: your arguments don't hold up, and your position is evidently not based on reason but on emotion, and you are in fact someone who views the world through a typically modernist lens. It's no surprise to me that your conclusions are so wrong, when they are based on a foundation so shaky.

 

[Bacle]

Where do you think someone like Lucas got his narrative?

Well, let's see: the Vietnam War (Rebels were akin to Vietcong), Joseph Campbell's hero's journey for Luke, the corruption of the Bush Jr. years for the prequels Palpatine, and the Revolutionary war for the Brits being the bad guys.

But seriously: your shouty post earlier, with its over-reliance on ALLCAPS, makes it very clear that your motivations here are rooted in emotion, not in fact. You don't want certain things to be true, so you display a knee-jerk CANTBETRUECANTBETRUECANTBETRUE whenever those things are brought up.

No, it's rooted in both fact AND emotion.

Human's aren't Vulcan's and pretending emotions don't matter is another failing of the establishment and tradcon Right.

I note that you have failed to demonstrate how fiction is a better guide for "lessons" than real history, since we cannot actually see the future. So all fiction must by definition be rooted in past experience. In other words: you advocate resorting to "second-hand lessons", whereas I propose learning first-hand lessons. I think my way is likelier to get valid results.

You can learn lessons from both the past and visions of the future.

However only one of those sorts presents lessons informed by modern events, instead of assuming modern events must match and replicate a previous historical cycle/timeline.

The fact that you rely on modernist assumptions while hypocrically attacking others for supposedly subverting "the right", I see, is something you prefer not to talk about. Your silence there speaks volumes.

No, I just am trying to keep the Right from making the same mistakes it's continues to make in regards to how modern culture and society have changed the cultural and social paradigms.

Using 'modernist' as an insult itself shows why part of the problem with the Right; it cares more about recreating the past than shaping the future.

In summation: your arguments don't hold up, and your position is evidently not based on reason but on emotion, and you are in fact someone who views the world through a typically modernist lens. It's no surpise to me that your conclusions are so wrong, when they are based on a foundation so shaky.

Again, human's aren't Vulcan's and operation on emotion more than logic, even if that is not something the Right likes to admit. 'Facts don't care about your feelings' may be a nice catchy line to draw more people to Ben Shapiro's show, but it's not borne out by reality.

And again, acting like 'modernist' is an insult shows a glaring flaw in the thinking of parts of the Right.

All the Right gets by clinging to comparisons to Rome is the approval of historians; Roman comparisons don't mean much to a lot of the youth who the Right need to bring on side, but comparisons to modern media they might like and watch can get through to them.

Deal with the electorate you have, not the electorate you wish you had.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Keep one thing in mind, chaps.

Just because the general public stop talking about something does not mean they've forgotten it. And it should be pressed that the "sheeple" have longer memories than many realise. The current political paradigm are going to end up as folklore and cautionary tales for all the wrong reasons.

By the way, sneering at people who are too bloody busy to be political junkies like us is not a good way to win them over.

 

[Zyobot]

By the way, sneering at people who are too bloody busy to be political junkies like us is not a good way to win them over.

Fine, but it's not like I'm telling people they're stupid to their face or anything. I know this is a public forum, but we don't get a whole lot of traffic from more "active" subsections of the population, let alone a general audience that doesn't habitually log onto Spacebattles or some other "niche" site like ours.

 

[Skallagrim]

Well, let's see: the Vietnam War (Rebels were akin to Vietcong), Joseph Campbell's hero's journey for Luke, the corruption of the Bush Jr. years for the prequels Palpatine, and the Revolutionary war for the Brits being the bad guys.

You take great care not to mention the fall of the Roman Republic, and its replacement by the Empire. Even though that is literally the example that the larger narrative is based on. I understand why you very much don't want to mention it, but it's a bit dishones, don't you think? Also, it's glaringly obvious.

As for the hero's journey. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Campbell was strongly inspired by the work of 20th century histoians who were of a macro-historical bent. That is: recognising universal patterns in civilisational history. He applied that same search for recurring patterns to mythology. Again: applying to fiction that which had already been applied to reality.

Funny story, Lucas knew that. He even references how patterns keep recurring in both history and in mythology, and even made it explicit that this was how he could, yes, reference both Bush and Caesar when it comes t Palpatine. Because he recognised a recurring motif/pattern that'all about the degradation of democracies and republics, as demogoguery and ruthless power politics increasingly become the norm. (In the case of Bush, as was also the case in ancient Rome, foreign military adventurism was a tool of the power-hungry.)

I think it's pretty funny that you cite George Lucas as a supposed argument against my analysis, when his stories are strongly rooted in historical assumptions very similar to my own. (And antithetical to yours, I daresay.)

No, it's rooted in both fact AND emotion.

Human's aren't Vulcan's

Again, human's aren't Vulcan's and operation on emotion more than logic, even if that is not something the Right likes to admit. 'Facts don't care about your feelings' may be a nice catchy line to draw more people to Ben Shapiro's show, but it's not borne out by reality.

Another funny case: you mntioned Rand as another example. Would that be the same Rand who was noted for stating that reality is not subject to your opinions, and that clear-minded reason is the correct way to approach the world? That Rand?

I mean, if you're going to list some names to support your case, at least pick the names of people who actually agree with you.

You can learn lessons from both the past and visions of the future.

However only one of those sorts presents lessons informed by modern events, instead of assuming modern events must match and replicate a previous historical cycle/timeline.

"Visions" -- unless you are of course referring to religious revelation or enlightenment -- are by definition extrapolations informed by experience. The best experience, I would say, is long experience.

You stress modern events. In other words: you have a horizon of experience that is very close-by. It's like being near-sighted and refusing to wear glasses. There's so much you don't see, with that approach.

I advocate taking the long view. Don't treat the last twenty minutes like they're somehow special. Look at all of history. Take in the big picture. You can't see the shape of the forest if you're standing on ground level, right in the middle of it.

Once you take the long view, the shape of things reveals itself. Recurring patterns become clear. Then, it becomes possible to say more sensible things about the future -- because you can learn from the past, and can grasp why things keep happening in very similar ways, time after time.

(You also learn that people in all ages have believed themselves special; have thought that "this time, it'll all be different"; and that they were all wrong about that.)

how modern culture and society have changed the cultural and social paradigms.

Typically modernist ideas here. Pure presentism. Nothing of consequence has changed, and the limited parcel of history that you deign to consider important ("modernity") is barely more than a brief flicker of lightning. A turmoil, an uproar, flashy and shouty and... utterly meaningless.

You are chaining yourself to the suicidal premises a dying age. Worse, you'd have the rest of us make the same fatal error.

is another failing of the establishment and tradcon Right.

I just am trying to keep the Right from making the same mistakes it's continues to make

a glaring flaw in the thinking of parts of the Right.

It's funny how you are such an arbiter of what if good for "the right", but you keep on saying stuff that isn't in any way fitting with right-wing thought. Almost like you're a culturally left-wing modernist who got fed up with the SJWs and sort of gravitated to the right, but knows very little about it, and now tries to re-shape it into something more palatable to your sensibilities...

Using 'modernist' as an insult itself shows why part of the problem with the Right; it cares more about recreating the past than shaping the future.

The error in your thinking is clear. It's not about recreating the past. It's about recognising what is timeless, and prioritising that.

All the Right gets by clinging to comparisons to Rome is the approval of historians; Roman comparisons don't mean much to a lot of the youth who the Right need to bring on side, but comparisons to modern media they might like and watch can get through to them.

Deal with the electorate you have, not the electorate you wish you had.

You think I'm trying or some kind of electoral result by referencing history? Not at all. I'm just explaining why things happen as they do. But that doesn't change that they happen, regardless of what I say. If I write ten books on this, or never speak of it again, it makes a difference only to the small minority of people who care about such matters. But regardless, the socio-eonomic pressures will keep building, and the outcomes will be the same.

History doesn't care about my opinion, either.

 

[Bacle]

*Snippet of a point going completely over someone's head*

Buddy, I got a degree in General Geology, I guarantee you I have a longer view of what 'history' means than you do, and it is that deep time that helps inform my views.

Adapt or die is a universal constant through out time, and is the only thing that is 'timeless'; nothing humans have ever done or thought is 'timeless' because entropy is a bitch.

You keep harkening back to Rome because of how Rome influenced the foundations of the West, but keep forgetting that a fuck load of shit has happened between when Rome/Constantinople fell and now.

You also don't seem to get that it's not that I don't understand the tradcon and establishment Right's view of things, I very much do. I simply hold the fossils in contempt for not being able to adapt to a changing world, while their opponents shape the cultural and social battlefields of the future as the Right just wants to grill.

As I've said, I wish there was a viable third party that actually represented people like me, instead of forcing me to go with the 'lesser evil' that is the modern GOP and the parts of its base that do not want to adapt, and insist the world stop changing.

The only contast in the universe is change, and until the GOP can grock that, they will continue to be behind the social and cultural curve.

 

[Skallagrim]

*arrogant shrieeking that doesn't actually answer or refute any pertinent point*

You reveal yourself; your misplaced contempt and your true beliefs.

Suffice to say, we are not in agreement. I don't think we can be, because your premises are utterly materialistic. When I speak of timeless things, I don't mean material things. You reference geology; my background is in ethics and metaphysics. Something of another language, you might say.

As far as entropy is concerned, though: that does relate to what I consider essential. Entropy is the return to the formless, undifferentiated void, and it is inevitable. The purpose of the traditionalist mindset that you so disdain is to fight against entropy, and preserve that which is rightfully cherished, for a given time. To preserve distintion, order, structure. In other words, to preserve the "kosmos" against the yawning "khaos". And this is surely hopeless, but it is still worth the effort. Tolkien called it "the long defeat". (How's that for a reference to fiction?)

One final note: you say that the only constant is change. You fail to take into account that change doesn't only occur in one direction. Things swing one way, then back the other way. Almost... predictably.

This is why your insistence on embracing modernist dogmas (and, indeed, delusions) is so idiotic. You blindly assume that there will be no change, or only more of the same change. You act as if modernity is forever. By your own reasoning, this cannot be true.

I am keeping in mind that there is a world after modernity. You might, at some point, take a few moments to consider that.

 

[Cherico]

we are not nearly as important as we think we are, and not nearly as powerful as we belive we are.

We will have our hubris laid low with in our lifestimes.

 

[Bacle]

You reveal yourself; your misplaced contempt and your true beliefs.

Suffice to say, we are not in agreement. I don't think we can be, because your premises are utterly materialistic. When I speak of timeless things, I don't mean material things. You reference geology; my background is in ethics and metaphysics. Something of another language, you might say.

As far as entropy is concerned, though: that does relate to what I consider essential. Entropy is the return to the formless, undifferentiated void, and it is inevitable. The purpose of the traditionalist mindset that you so disdain is to fight against entropy, and preserve that which is rightfully cherished, for a given time. To preserve distintion, order, structure. In other words, to preserve the "kosmos" against the yawning "khaos". And this is surely hopeless, but it is still worth the effort. Tolkien called it "the long defeat". (How's that for a reference to fiction?)

One final note: you say that the only constant is change. You fail to take into account that change doesn't only occur in one direction. Things swing one way, then back the other way. Almost... predictably.

This is why your insistence on embracing modernist dogmas (and, indeed, delusions) is so idiotic. You blindly assume that there will be no change, or only more of the same change. You act as if modernity is forever. By your own reasoning, this cannot be true.

I am keeping in mind that there is a world after modernity. You might, at some point, take a few moments to consider that.

Society is not a pendelum that can only swing one of two ways, and thinking that 'modernaity' is something that can 'end' is farcical and right wing cope.

Stop trying to reach 'post-moderniaty' and instead deal with the modern society we have now and the issues it faces.

You cannot fight the chaos of the world and entropy, but you can mold it to your advantage; the Left does this, the Right tries to pretend they can force order onto the chaos.

This is why the Dems were able to cheat Biden into office; what parts of the GOP establishment weren't complicit in the steal were hamstrung from being effective against it by philosophical blinders to the realities of the modern world.

 

[Skallagrim]

Society is not a pendelum that can only swing one of two ways, and thinking that 'modernaity' is something that can 'end' is farcical and right wing cope.

Stop trying to reach 'post-moderniaty' and instead deal with the modern society we have now and the issues it faces.

You cannot fight the chaos of the world and entropy, but you can mold it to your advantage; the Left does this, the Right tries to pretend they can force order onto the chaos.

This is why the Dems were able to cheat Biden into office; what parts of the GOP establishment weren't complicit in the steal were hamstrung from being effective against it by philosophical blinders to the realities of the modern world.

Now you're just ranting incoherently, again outright contradicting your earlier statements, and repeatedly not actually answering any points that have been raised.

I can tell you're not going to discuss anything seriously. That's too bad.

 

[Bacle]

Now you're just ranting incoherently, again outright contradicting your earlier statements, and repeatedly not actually answering any points that have been raised.

I can tell you're not going to discuss anything seriously. That's too bad.

No, I'm not giving you the fight you want, because I deal with the material and the current/modern realities, instead of trying to pretend that some vague, nebulous 'post-modernaity' can be achieved by fanboying over Roman history.

 

[49ersfootball]

CA Governor Gavin Newsom (D), MI Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) & NC Governor Roy Cooper (D) among many Dems as future contenders for the Presidency in 2024 if Uncle Joe doesn't seek reelection.

 

[49ersfootball]

Never underestimate the public's ability to forget things.

I suspect a GOP takeover in the mid terms and probably for president, but 4 years after that all of Biden's and the Democrat' fuck ups will be entirely forgotten and the election will be up for grabs.

If DeSantis runs for the Presidency & wins in 2024, he'll get reelected in 2028.

Assuming Trump doesn't pull the trigger on a comeback bid.

 

[Skallagrim]

No, I'm not giving you the fight you want, because I deal with the material and the current/modern realities, instead of trying to pretend that some vague, nebulous 'post-modernaity' can be achieved by fanboying over Roman history.

But everything changes! That's the only constant!

So how can you assume anything other than the inevitability of modernity ending?

Of course, this is where you are entangled in your own contradiction. For your assumption to hold, modernity must be the magical exception to your universal rule. Because if it isn't, then your approach cannot be coherent.

Let's face it. You just don't want certain things to be true. That's well-evidenced by the fact that you've gone off on irate allcaps rants in various discussions on the matter. And because you have to keep shouting this, you'll twist yourself every which way to keep telling yourself that modernity will always be there, and the republic will never falter but also everything changes and nothing is forever except when you need it to be because stories are more true than reality except when they tell you things you don't like to hear and also conservatives are wrong and you treat them with contempt but you do know what's best for them, and, and, and--!

You're bullshitting, mate. And that's the end of this particular discussion. Bye now.

 

[Rocinante]

If DeSantis runs for the Presidency & wins in 2024, he'll get reelected in 2028.

Assuming Trump doesn't pull the trigger on a comeback bid.

Desantis is my guy. I think he will win in a landslide if he runs. They don't even be able to cheat enough to stop him.

 

[Skallagrim]

Desantis is my guy. I think he will win in a landslide if he runs. They don't even be able to cheat enough to stop him.

He's done a pretty impressive job "capturing the moment". If he keeps that up, his chances are good.

He'll still inherit a ruined economy and a governmental apparatus filled to the rafters with mortal enemies. It's hard to swim against the current -- especially when they're actively trying to drown you.