For JPR-er’s willing to share their knowledge:

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | For JPR-er’s willing to share their knowledge:

Viewing 21 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #376252
      snot
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,174

      I have a circle of well-intentioned and not entirely ignorant friends who are ecstatic that Biden won.  One of them started gushing about how much better Biden will be than Trump, in particular mentioning that he’ll respect the Constitution.  While it’s hard to imagine anyone quicker to trash it than Trump, what I know of Biden’s record on it is also pretty shameful, given the Obama administration’s complacency with NSA surveillance, etc.

      So I just spent some time online looking for summaries of Biden’s record, because I’ve seen lots of references to positions he’s taken that I and I think my friends would disagree with; but my own memory of the details isn’t solid enough to be able to describe them very well.  And surprise!  All I found was article after article praising Biden – mostly in very vague terms, since I don’t think it looks so good if you dig into the details; the media have apparently buried the dingier aspects of his record in an avalanche of shiny p.r.

      Can you help me out?  Is there an objective summary somewhere, or can you mention particular actions or issues, preferably with references specific enough that I might be able to find them despite the internet’s reluctance?  I know about the bankruptcy bill and that he voted to invade Iraq; beyond that, I’m shaky on the details.

      Destruction is easy; creation is hard, but more interesting.

    • #376256
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 12,091

      i really am losing it.

      sorry, misread your op

    • #376257
      PADemD
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,234
    • #376258
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 12,091
    • #376259
      jbnw
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,132

      All reasons have references.

      https://westonpagano.medium.com/125-reasons-you-should-not-vote-for-joe-biden-e3cc298cad88

      And my personal favorite – his quid pro quo in Ukraine where he breaks the Geneva Convention non-interference protocol to get the prosecutor fired who was investigating the company where his son was on the board.

    • #376262
      Dragon Turtle
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 86
    • #376266
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,644

      People who are over, say, the age of 30, and have the blinkers on regarding the destruction we laid down in Iraq, and by proxy and missile strikes in Libya and Syria, are capable of tuning out anything.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#United_Kingdom_Parliament_Investigation

      https://www.unocha.org/libya/about-ocha-libya

    • #376267
      JonLP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,211

      Burisma wasn’t even being investigated when he asked for the prosecutor to be fired. Other Western nations asked for the same prosecutor to be fired.

      He was wrong about every major foreign policy, bankruptcy bill, wanting to cut social programs, crime bill, trying to “lock up Willie Horton”, the left is already being thrown under on the bus.

      Now that Trump is gone I’m probably going to give up on politics. If they want my vote in 2024 they need to move left not right. I also gave a donation to Justice Dems.

      Let this radicalize you rather than lead you to despair - Mariame Kaba

    • #376273
      PADemD
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,234
    • #376274
      PADemD
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,234

      The Achilles heel for the Harris campaign has been a perceived lack of authenticity. There is no better example of the gap between public presentation and historical record than her mischaracterization of who she was and what she did from 2004-2015, when she was San Francisco’s district attorney and then California’s attorney general. In truth, Harris’s record reveals that she is a centrist on criminal justice. Had she run on that record or reckoned with it—including acknowledging the harm her status-quo policies inflicted—the outcome might have been different.

      It is understandable that Harris would want to claim the progressive prosecutor label—it is trending nationally now. It signals to voters that a candidate will break from the failed tough-on-crime policies of the past. In the last five years, reform-minded candidates across the country have run and won top prosecutor posts on a message of ending money bail, refusing to prosecute low level drug crimes, and vows to prosecute police officers who shoot unarmed civilians—who are almost always black and brown men.

      Harris positioned herself as the original “progressive prosecutor.” She was first elected as San Francisco’s top prosecutor in 2004. As district attorney, she pledged to never impose the death penalty, defying the city’s police department and Democratic leaders who were clamoring for the execution of a 21-year-old who killed an undercover police officer. She later wrote a book called “Smart on Crime” that urged officials to abandon the “tough on crime” policies of the past and instead favor rehabilitation over punishment. By the standards of the time, claiming a “smart on crime” mantle was lonely territory for an elected prosecutor.

      But Harris fell behind the curve over the past fifteen years, as the nation’s sense of the scope and moral urgency of needed reforms to the criminal legal system—and especially to the role of elected prosecutor—shifted dramatically. The shift revealed that Harris’s brand of “progressive prosecution” was really just “slightly less-awful prosecution”—a politics, and set of policies, that still meant being complicit in securing America’s position as the world’s leading jailer. As attorney general, she weaponized technicalities to keep wrongfully convicted people behind bars rather than allow them new trials with competent counsel and prosecutors willing to play fair. One of them, Kevin Cooper, is on death row. Another, George Gage, will die in prison without intervention from the governor. In both cases, Harris had the power to change the outcome. She could have demanded DNA testing in Cooper’s case. She refused. She could have conceded Gage’s conviction was based on the prosecutor’s decision to suppress evidence that devastated the credibility of the sole witness against him. She didn’t.

       

      https://theappeal.org/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-record-killed-her-presidential-run/

    • #376278
      Jim Lane
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 750

      @snot

      Concerning Biden’s positions, you ask “Is there an objective summary somewhere, or can you mention particular actions or issues, preferably with references specific enough that I might be able to find them despite the internet’s reluctance?”

      Apparently you’ve encountered only articles that praise Biden. The responses in this thread seem limited to articles that condemn him. If you want something that at least attempts to be objective, the relevant Wikipedia article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden.

      If that’s more detail than you want, here’s a summary – the text of the relevant section within the main bio article (link):

      Biden has been characterized as a moderate Democrat.[382] He supported the fiscal stimulus in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;[383][384] the increased infrastructure spending proposed by the Obama administration;[384] mass transit, including Amtrak, bus, and subway subsidies;[385] reproductive rights;[386] same-sex marriage;[387] and the reduced military spending in the Obama administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget.[388][389] Biden supports the Roe v. Wade decision and since 2019 has been in favor of repealing the Hyde Amendment.[390][391] Biden has proposed partially reversing the corporate tax cuts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, saying that doing so would not hurt businesses’ ability to hire.[392][393]

      Some political scientists gauge ideology by comparing the annual ratings by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) with the ratings by the American Conservative Union (ACU).[394] Biden has a lifetime liberal 72% score from the ADA through 2004, while the ACU awarded Biden a lifetime conservative rating of 13% through 2008.[395] Using another metric, Biden has a lifetime average liberal score of 77.5%, according to a National Journal analysis that places him ideologically among the center of Senate Democrats as of 2008.[396] The Almanac of American Politics rates congressional votes as liberal or conservative on the political spectrum in three policy areas: economic, social, and foreign. For 2005–06, Biden’s average economic rating was 80% liberal and 13% conservative, his social rating was 78% liberal and 18% conservative, and his foreign rating was 71% liberal and 25% conservative.[397] This has not changed significantly over time; his liberal ratings in the mid-1980s were also in the 70%–80% range.[59]

      The American Civil Liberties Union gives him an 80% lifetime score,[398] with a 91% score for the 110th Congress.[399] The AFL–CIO gave Biden an 85% lifetime approval rating.[400]

      Biden opposes drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and supports governmental funding to find new energy sources.[401] He believes action must be taken on global warming. He co-sponsored the Sense of the Senate resolution calling on the United States to take part in the United Nations climate negotiations and the Boxer–Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, the most stringent climate bill in the United States Senate.[402] He wants to achieve a carbon-free power sector in the U.S. by 2035 and stop emissions completely by 2050.[403] His program includes reentering Paris Agreement, nature conservation, and green building.[404] Biden wants to pressure China and other countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, by carbon tariffs if necessary.[405][406] He voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).[407] Biden pledged, if elected, to sanction and commercially restrict Chinese government officials and entities who carry out repression.[408]

      As a senator, Biden forged deep relationships with police groups and was a chief proponent of a Police Officer’s Bill of Rights measure that police unions supported but police chiefs opposed. As vice president, he served as a White House liaison to police.[409][410]

      As for the references you request, each number in brackets is a footnote with a citation to a source.  If you go to either of those Wikipedia articles, you can click on any footnote and find the source that a Wikipedia editor thought supported the statement.  There are also useful wikilinks within the text.  For example, in the passage above, the reference to the Hyde Amendment is linked to the article on that subject, for the benefit of any reader who doesn’t know what the Hyde Amendment is.

      It’s important to remember that one of Wikipedia’s policies is its Neutral Point of View (NPOV).  It’s an encyclopedia, not a political message board.  For example, with regard to Iraq, the discussion in Wikipedia (link) reports his vote in 1990 against the first Gulf War, without denouncing him as a quisling, the way a right-wing site would; it then reports his vote in 2002 in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, without denouncing him as a militarist, the way a left-wing site would.  Unlike some of the links you’ve been given, Wikipedia is not written from the point of view of criticizing Biden.

      Of course, Wikipedia is written by fallible human beings.  The policy is NPOV but it isn’t always observed.  I haven’t given either of these Biden articles a careful reading.  There may be violations of neutrality.  You can try correcting any you find, or you can go to the article’s talk page (click the “Talk” link in the upper left) to point out the flaw and request correction.

       

    • #376280
      JonLP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,211

      Because the prosecutor was bad at investigating corruption. Ukraine is the second most corrupt country in Europe after Russia. I know fact checks point out at Burisma wasn’t a target of investigation at the time.

      I do think the Ukranian people probably prefer no interference from either the West or Russia.

      Let this radicalize you rather than lead you to despair - Mariame Kaba

    • #376281
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,836

      No one gets to define how a politician’s actions areto be regarded, as regards to good or bad or ruinous or whatever, for anybody else.  I realise that pundits and shills  would beg to differ, but that’s what they get paid for.

      As far as politicians are concerned, Wikipedia is as objective as the last person or group who edited a politician’s page.  Lots of activity in that regard during campaign season.  And you may have missed the fact that JPR loathes what Third Way Vichy Dems stand for and what they do.  I do hope your mission is not to try and render Biden and his past and future actions  palatable to JPR.  Or maybe not, could be fun, but still – hardly worth the effort, innit?  Biden won!!!!!!  Without us!  As we all knew he would.  Also continuing to try to “guide” JPR opinions into the “hey, Third Way war and austerity ain’t so bad!  be neutral about that shit!” channel seems an odd way to spend your no doubt very valuable time.   @jimlane

      America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

    • #376291
      Gryneos
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,441

      for political info. It’s fine for hard science and the other liberal arts, just not politics. Way too biased. Just look at Max Blumenthal’s Wikipedia page as an example of how one super-editor can get in there and prevent any positive info from being disseminated. It’s nothing but negative info, as one would expect from a hit-piece. What makes it worse is how so few people are willing to question the status quo. If only they bothered to look for more info elsewhere, but Wikipedia has trained them into stopping there, as if it were a real encyclopedia (like Britannica).

      https://mronline.org/2020/06/15/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/


      @snot
      I’d probably just send your friends some of the videos from The Grayzone and Jimmy Dore, maybe TYT though they are leaning to the status quo more and more these days (probably due to their wealthy funders). Perhaps also have a look on the Internet Archive. It’s an excellent source of media which has been forgotten, but you’ll have to do your own searching :~)

      https://archive.org/search.php?query=Joe Biden

      Who are you? | What do you want? | Why are you here? | Where are you going? | Do you have anything worth living for? | Who do you serve and who do you trust?

    • #376305
      Electrolyte Orchestra
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 374
    • #376338
      Pam2
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 7,725

      ..some people don’t want to know the truth. I found that out in 2016.

       

    • #376380
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 12,091

      “as if it were a real encyclopedia (like Britannica)”

      ‘real’ encyclopedias were also susceptible to non-neutrality: contributors were chosen by ‘editors’

      the (biased) information lasted longer too.

      whats different about wikipedia is the speed at which things can be altered, whereas encyclopedias used to be kept in libraries for years, so you could easily reference info from different editions to see differences (not that most people ever took the trouble, but it was doable).

      wikipedia theoretically lets you check their edits page but last time i checked it looked like they’d had some policy changes on their edit page policy, not for the better, but i was too tired to get into the heavy weeds and see what the ramifications were.

       

      • #376396
        Gryneos
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,441

        https://www.greanvillepost.com/2020/06/20/information-war-wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/

        Information War: Wikipedia formally censors The Grayzone as regime-change advocates monopolize editing
        June 20, 2020

        This is part 1 in a series of investigative reports on the systemic problems with Wikipedia. Read part 2 here: “Meet Wikipedia’s Ayn Rand-loving founder and Wikimedia Foundation’s regime-change operative CEO

        Internet encyclopedia giant Wikipedia is censoring independent news websites by adding them to an official blacklist of taboo “deprecated” media outlets.

        The Grayzone is among the news websites targeted by the censorship campaign. Others include leftist and anti-imperialist outlets like MintPress News and the Latin American news broadcaster Telesur, along with several prominent right-wing political sites, including the Daily Caller.

        The campaign to blacklist The Grayzone was initiated by Wikipedia editors who identify as Venezuelans and openly support the country’s right-wing, US-backed opposition. These users obsessively monitor Venezuela-related articles, aggressively pushing a regime-change line and working to excise any piece of information or opinion that interferes with their agenda.

        This online cabal of Venezuelan opposition supporters has been joined by an assortment of neoconservatives who spend countless hours per day, every day of the week, inundating Wikipedia articles with talking points defending Western intervention and demonizing NATO’s Official Enemies.

        @ColdMountainTrail

        Who are you? | What do you want? | Why are you here? | Where are you going? | Do you have anything worth living for? | Who do you serve and who do you trust?

    • #376392
      MistaP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,926
    • #376416
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,644

      @jonlp

      So very many agreed with the Bush administration that Saddam Husein had an active WMD program, was even dealing with yellow cake Uranium, and therefore Iraq should get invaded, and its oil fields liberated.

      Joe Biden’s actions sent the message to the Ukraine that it better leave itself open to Western grifting, including that of the Biden family, and the grifting political class of our allies hastened to agree with Joe Biden on that.

      Other nations like France and Italy agreed we should liberate Libya, especially its oil fields, by way of supporting terrorists, and using missile strikes, and throwing it into chaos. They also agreed with us on freeing up Syria, by way of blowing parts of it up, and destabilizing it, for Western pipelines, instead of a Syrian controlled  one.

    • #376418
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,644

      @pademd

      Just a few such encounters getting national media coverage, followed by Harris doing so abysmally bad in the California primary, would have be an embarrassment to the party establishment, its anti-progressive shills in the media, and it would have wrecked the viability of Harris being picked as Biden’s running mate.

      IIRC, and I’m pretty sure I do, Harris was polling so badly in her home state that it was close to scandalous, and that’s why she dropped out before the primary voting in California took place. This was extra notable, as California having decided to move the day for its voting way forward on the calendar should have helped that State’s very own Senator.

    • #376607
      eridani
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,451

      –get involved with organizations fighting for the policies that they want.  This would be necessary no matter who won.

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #378368
      snot
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,174

      Very helpful – I’m saving this whole thread for future reference!

      Destruction is easy; creation is hard, but more interesting.

Viewing 21 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.