[Discussion] Welcome to the Biden Administration!

Anything related to Biden and his upcoming administration. May this thread be less active and controversial as that last guys thread.

I love Matt Bors.

As A.R. Moxon wrote on Twitter: "So weird that a conservative loss, like a conservative win, means the exact same thing, which is that liberals have to listen to conservatives more. One wonders what circumstance might result in the opposite conclusion, unless one realizes that the national narrative rests on the assumption that conservative white people are the story's protagonists.

If they win, it's a mandate.

If they lose, it's a redemption arc."

I mean, of course we always wind up having to listen to conservatives. If a person was capable of listening, they wouldn't be a conservative in the first place!

I feel like it's less about listening to conservatives like it's some moral duty, and more like knowing your enemy better as to disrupt their recruiting tactics. Especially when you're counting on Demographics to deliver you a better Destiny, but conservatives have foiled that before by redefining who are the story's protagonists enough to hold onto power.

Less about a national narrative and more about the pragmatism of realizing that if someone has been the protagonists in a country's story, they're going to be over represented in things like Senates and Electoral Colleges.

Maybe the answer comes down to "they're not worth it" but it's always worth being honest with one's self if that's a pragmatic or a moral conclusion. Especially when it rests on them not recruiting current minorities into conservatism by tempting them with whiteness.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Maybe the answer comes down to "they're not worth it" but it's always worth being honest with one's self if that's a pragmatic or a moral conclusion. Especially when it rests on them not recruiting current minorities into conservatism by tempting them with whiteness.

It's amazing that "We'll treat you like second-class white people instead of third-class minorities until we forget that you were a minority or we don't need you anymore and kick you out" is a recruitment tactic that works. Goes to show how powerful and beneficial whiteness is in this country.

Are the differences between red/blue, urban/rural, Planet 1/Planet 2 America irreconcilable?

If yes, what do?

If no, what do?

Top_Shelf wrote:

Are the differences between red/blue, urban/rural, Planet 1/Planet 2 America irreconcilable?

If yes, what do?

If no, what do?

We just need to redefine the zero sum, red/blue, urban/rural conflict as: wealthy/everyone else. The wealthy have defined the current conflict to benefit themselves, and we have fallen for it.

Start with the 1% and go from there. At some point many Goodjers will need to flee the country, but it's a small price to pay to save America, right?

One side of this equation is living in a false reality and the leaders reinforce that false reality to stay in power.

It’s impossible to have a conversation about anything if one side refuses to accept facts and actively dismisses the facts as lies.

We just need to plant the correct six words into the Q sphere and let it go from there.

IMAGE(https://i.imgflip.com/1ox0yu.jpg)

Top_Shelf wrote:

Are the differences between red/blue, urban/rural, Planet 1/Planet 2 America irreconcilable?

If yes, what do?

If no, what do?

Not entirely.

Build a vast communication network to get people talking so that they can enlighten each other. Continue to improve it so that it's difficult to completely ignore or silence each other. (This has been happening over a long time.)

EDIT: It's mostly white, cis, heteronormative people who act like these divisions are somehow new, or are somehow worse than before. Consider why this is the case.

Spoiler:

A big part of it: White, cis, heteronormative people no longer present as united a front against 'other'. You're noticing white people arguing with white people more. Congrats.

Top_Shelf wrote:

Are the differences between red/blue, urban/rural, Planet 1/Planet 2 America irreconcilable?

If yes, what do?

If no, what do?

The current manifestation of the Republican Party with its white power terrorists, QAnon cults, its own propaganda network, and deep alliances to hostile foreign powers constitutes a threat to national security. Therefore, the party must in whole or in part be suppressed legally or extra-judicially.

Outlaw and disarm the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, KKK, QAnon, NRA, and the American Nazi Party. Imprison those who resist. Shut down and sell off FOX News for parts. Prosecute the Trump family to the fullest possible extent and seize their assets. And that's just a start.

We are days away (if that) from a possible white nationalist coup (unlikely only because Trump and his inner circle are incompetent) and people are talking about it like it's another episode of Homeland. As horrible as the Trump regime has been circumscribed by laws, it will be much much worse circumscribed by none.

Breaking: Biden's first climate appointment is one of the Democratic Party’s top recipients of fossil fuel industry money, who has repeatedly voted with Republicans against Democratic environmental legislation and for bills to help oil and gas companies.
{thread + article}

Oh great.

I don't know much about dailyposter(dot)com, but Washington Post and NPR are reporting that Cedric Richmond is being tapped as "a senior adviser who will also lead his Office of Public Engagement". Is the Office of Public Engagement a climate appointment?

Not saying I agree with Rep Richmond's politics, but as someone who has apparently worked hard on outreach for Biden it seems like a natural extension of his campaign work.

But I'm VERY open that I am missing something.

Edit: Ahhhh, I get it. He'll be reaching out to climate change activists as part of his outreach to all advocacy groups. From the original Politico article linked by dailyposter:

Richmond, a national co-chair to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, will focus on outreach with grassroots organizations, public interest groups and advocacy groups, including the NAACP. He’s also expected to serve as a liaison with the business community and climate change activists.

That's hardly a 'climate appointment' and I'm giving serious side-eye to any group willing to claim it as such to discredit a Biden administration for filling an outreach position with someone who has historically worked hard at that for the campaign.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I don't know much about dailyposter(dot)com, but Washington Post and NPR are reporting that Cedric Richmond is being tapped as "a senior adviser who will also lead his Office of Public Engagement". Is the Office of Public Engagement a climate appointment?

Not saying I agree with Rep Richmond's politics, but as someone who has apparently worked hard on outreach for Biden it seems like a natural extension of his campaign work.

But I'm VERY open that I am missing something.

David Sirota is a well known journalist who has written for Jacobin, Guardian US, various national publications, etc. Dailyposter is just his own site he started.

As for the office, it's hard to say I guess what it covers currently because there's no evidence of it existing under donald. Under Obama it looked like this.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Edit: Ahhhh, I get it. He'll be reaching out to climate change activists as part of his outreach to all advocacy groups.

And if you don't see a problem with leaving this responsibility to a person clearly in the pocket of oil lobbyists, I dunno what to tell you. I'm sure he'll be very sure to be honest and forthright in his dealings with green energy activists.

The linked article is rather misleading, intentionally or not. The 'Office of Public Engagement' seems to be a rather open ended department. Calling it a 'climate appointment' is a bit of a stretch. The linked article calls it a 'climate appointment' based off of a quote from a Politico article

Richmond, a national co-chair to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, will focus on outreach with grassroots organizations, public interest groups and advocacy groups, including the NAACP. He’s also expected to serve as a liaison with the business community and climate change activists.

The dailyposter.com article linked to "conveniently" skipped that first sentence.

Under Obama it looked like this.

Yeah, that's the site I found, too. And while I accept Sirota is a well known journalist I'm now incredibly skeptical of his general ability to describe basic functions. For instance, "climate" doesn't appear anywhere in that description of Obama's Office of Public Engagement.

Jolly Bill wrote:
Under Obama it looked like this.

Yeah, that's the site I found, too. And while I accept Sirota is a well known journalist I'm now incredibly skeptical of his general ability to describe basic functions. For instance, "climate" doesn't appear anywhere in that description of Obama's Office of Public Engagement.

Sure, but it does appear in the Politco article, and if the role is to:

Obama site wrote:

The Office of Public Engagement helps open the two-way dialogue, ensuring that the issues impacting our nation’s proud and diverse communities have a receptive team dedicated to making their voices heard within the Administration, and even more importantly helping their concerns be translated into action by the appropriate bodies of the Federal Government.

...I can see where he's coming from, despite the fact that his wording was a bit of a stretch. The dude's history is the dude's history. His voting record is his voting record.

A bad look, regardless, imo.

Quote isn't edit.

r013nt0 wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

I don't know much about dailyposter(dot)com, but Washington Post and NPR are reporting that Cedric Richmond is being tapped as "a senior adviser who will also lead his Office of Public Engagement". Is the Office of Public Engagement a climate appointment?

Not saying I agree with Rep Richmond's politics, but as someone who has apparently worked hard on outreach for Biden it seems like a natural extension of his campaign work.

But I'm VERY open that I am missing something.

David Sirota is a well known journalist who has written for Jacobin, Guardian US, various national publications, etc. Dailyposter is just his own site he started.

As for the office, it's hard to say I guess what it covers currently because there's no evidence of it existing under donald. Under Obama it looked like this.

It exists under Donald, it just went back to its old name of "Office of Public Liaison". It's less clear to me if it doesn't anything of substance these days; they do not seem to have their own website anymore.

Under donald I'd say it's pretty much guaranteed it doesn't do anything of substance.

Hopefully I can edit this out before a response. Sounds like we agree it's a bit of a stretch, and that's good enough for me.

r013nt0 wrote:

Breaking: Biden's first climate appointment is one of the Democratic Party’s top recipients of fossil fuel industry money, who has repeatedly voted with Republicans against Democratic environmental legislation and for bills to help oil and gas companies.
{thread + article}

I would be very wary of taking the hyperbolic BernieBro Sirota entirely seriously (although he just published a Guardian piece critical of the Democrats that I thought was quite good) until all the facts are out. I just went on AOC's (a non-hyperbolic Bernie supporter) Twitter feed, and there's nothing there. Sirota may be right...or he could be pushing a baseless rumor.

Natus wrote:

I would be very wary of taking the hyperbolic BernieBro Sirota entirely seriously (although he just published a Guardian piece critical of the Democrats that I thought was quite good) until all the facts are out. I just went on AOC's (a non-hyperbolic Bernie supporter) Twitter feed, and there's nothing there. Sirota may be right...or he could be pushing a baseless rumor.

Fair enough. Here's a Guardian story from December of 2019 about Richmond.

I'll leave it up to others to decide how they feel about him.

e: And here's a gizmodo link about him, though this one also brings up the climate liaise angle.

Let's see who gets appointed to EPA, Interior and Energy.

Tomorrow should be fun. I assume Republicans will demand a recount of the recount.

Georgia audit on track to finish Wednesday and affirm Biden win, official says

r013nt0 wrote:
Natus wrote:

I would be very wary of taking the hyperbolic BernieBro Sirota entirely seriously (although he just published a Guardian piece critical of the Democrats that I thought was quite good) until all the facts are out. I just went on AOC's (a non-hyperbolic Bernie supporter) Twitter feed, and there's nothing there. Sirota may be right...or he could be pushing a baseless rumor.

Fair enough. Here's a Guardian story from December of 2019 about Richmond.

I'll leave it up to others to decide how they feel about him.

e: And here's a gizmodo link about him, though this one also brings up the climate liaise angle.

Has he been definitely confirmed as the climate czar by any reputable news organization?

I beg you to remember that the business model of the far Left pundits is to jump all over the Democrats without fail. If they cease doing this, they are out of a job, which led to the spectacle of Briahna Joy Gray and a fellow podcaster, after a discussion with Noam Chomsky, boasting that they had "owned him" and won their debate about whether or not to vote for Biden (they did not). It's deeply tiresome, because their decisions seem based less on close analysis of the situation than on pre-programmed ideology and $$$.

I'm not sure that either The Guardian or Gizmodo are leftists news orgs. Left-leaning, yes, but not leftist.

Obama gave positions to plenty of lobbyists and industry insiders/execs, so it's not super hard to believe that Biden will do the exact same since he takes plenty of that money himself (and always has) and other positions he has filled so far are also filled with lobbyists.

For the record I like BJG but cannot stand Virgil Texas or any other member of Chapo.

r013nt0 wrote:

I'm not sure that either The Guardian or Gizmodo are leftists news orgs. Left-leaning, yes, but not leftist.

I'm not criticizing The Guardian at all, except in their hiring of Nathan Robinson.

r013nt0 wrote:

Obama gave positions to plenty of lobbyists and industry insiders/execs, so it's not super hard to believe that Biden will do the exact same since he takes plenty of that money himself (and always has) and other positions he has filled so far are also filled with lobbyists.

I absolutely and totally share your anxieties about this.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/DjeIGbb.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/AeAhV6h.png)