4 ms·

Some of Biden's first executive actions were environmental and the US oil industry has been highly critical of him. That doesn't fit your narrative of only serv

Some of Biden's first executive actions were environmental and the US oil industry has been highly critical of him. That doesn't fit your narrative of only serving corporations except near elections.

user3939382 4y ago
I could argue canceling Keystone XL was a gift to the saudis disguised as care about the environment. It’s not like delaying these permits does anything to curb oil demand or net production. I’m extremely cynical when it comes to almost any of these people in DC, there’s always an agenda, always an ulterior motive, and the People are rarely served and last priority. You have Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders types who appear to actually care and believe what they say but they’re ineffective even for those who agree with their positions.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  > It’s not like delaying these permits does anything to curb oil demand or net production. Sure, one action in isolation does nothing. But you cherry picked one thing he did and took it out of the context of all the other things he did. Both early things and more recent executive actions. Tell the entire story and that early action looks entirely different. > People are rarely served and last priority. The US has one of the highest living standards in the world. I'm not saying there's no room for improvement. But lots of good laws are passed without an agenda other than the goals of the law itself. There's no need for extreme cynicism. What we need is less cynicism and more people exercising their right to vote. > they’re ineffective even for those who agree with their positions. No one who impacts the national discourse in such a visible and lasting way can be said to be ineffective. Sanders, along with the help of others, has shifted the Democratic party from right central to almost central. That's highly effective.
  - user3939382 4y ago
    I mean this with all due respect but you sound very naive IMHO. The Democratic party is as corporatist and right as it has ever been. Voting for either major party will do nothing to solve the problem as has been proven by a study from Princeton on this, which is summed up wonderfully in these graphs: https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PrincetonPaper.png https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Princ... Basically your vote almost doesn’t matter at all.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      > Basically your vote almost doesn’t matter at all. That's an easily disprovable claim based on recent history. Roe v. Wade would not have been turned over if Hillary had been appointing SC Justices instead of Trump appointing them. You're far too cynical.
      - cudgy 4y ago
        This is too simplistic. Perhaps there would be other poor decisions made by the Hillary judges that mitigates the Roe v Wade decision.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        > Perhaps there would be other poor decisions made by the Hillary judges that mitigates the Roe v Wade decision. Sure. Bad stuff might happen no matter what choices you make. You've described cynicism in a nutshell. That adds nothing to this conversation. Progressive leaning judges do not have a history of taking away basic human rights. The reason people lost a basic human right that was protected for decades is because of a shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court. That shift happened due to who was elected as president. Which proves that elections and who you vote for does matter.
        cudgy 4y ago
        Fine. Ignore the obvious point that picking a single matter that judges consider as a sole focus of efficacy contributes nothing to the conversation.

Some of Biden's first executive actions were environmental and the US oil industry has been highly critical of him. That doesn't fit your narrative of only serving corporations except near elections.

user3939382 4y ago

I could argue canceling Keystone XL was a gift to the saudis disguised as care about the environment. It’s not like delaying these permits does anything to curb oil demand or net production. I’m extremely cynical when it comes to almost any of these people in DC, there’s always an agenda, always an ulterior motive, and the People are rarely served and last priority. You have Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders types who appear to actually care and believe what they say but they’re ineffective even for those who agree with their positions.

tchaffee 4y ago
> It’s not like delaying these permits does anything to curb oil demand or net production. Sure, one action in isolation does nothing. But you cherry picked one thing he did and took it out of the context of all the other things he did. Both early things and more recent executive actions. Tell the entire story and that early action looks entirely different. > People are rarely served and last priority. The US has one of the highest living standards in the world. I'm not saying there's no room for improvement. But lots of good laws are passed without an agenda other than the goals of the law itself. There's no need for extreme cynicism. What we need is less cynicism and more people exercising their right to vote. > they’re ineffective even for those who agree with their positions. No one who impacts the national discourse in such a visible and lasting way can be said to be ineffective. Sanders, along with the help of others, has shifted the Democratic party from right central to almost central. That's highly effective.
- user3939382 4y ago
  I mean this with all due respect but you sound very naive IMHO. The Democratic party is as corporatist and right as it has ever been. Voting for either major party will do nothing to solve the problem as has been proven by a study from Princeton on this, which is summed up wonderfully in these graphs: https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PrincetonPaper.png https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Princ... Basically your vote almost doesn’t matter at all.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    > Basically your vote almost doesn’t matter at all. That's an easily disprovable claim based on recent history. Roe v. Wade would not have been turned over if Hillary had been appointing SC Justices instead of Trump appointing them. You're far too cynical.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      This is too simplistic. Perhaps there would be other poor decisions made by the Hillary judges that mitigates the Roe v Wade decision.
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        > Perhaps there would be other poor decisions made by the Hillary judges that mitigates the Roe v Wade decision. Sure. Bad stuff might happen no matter what choices you make. You've described cynicism in a nutshell. That adds nothing to this conversation. Progressive leaning judges do not have a history of taking away basic human rights. The reason people lost a basic human right that was protected for decades is because of a shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court. That shift happened due to who was elected as president. Which proves that elections and who you vote for does matter.
        cudgy 4y ago
        Fine. Ignore the obvious point that picking a single matter that judges consider as a sole focus of efficacy contributes nothing to the conversation.