So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?

[Tom]

"We hate you!"
"These people hate me."
"Shame on you for calling us hateful!"


Again, QAnon predates Trump, and they were openly calling for the murder of Democratic politicians. In what sense are they more hateful now than they were then?

[Wayward Son]

Biden has demonized and "othered" a large segment of Republicans. Once you start bandying about the word Nazi, that means that you are justified in not compromising. Nobody should compromise with Nazis.

True enough.  But what should he do when a large segment of Republicans don't want to compromise with him? How does he embrace those who habitually lie about him and the Democrats?  Who only demonize him?  Who say that he is senile, and a gangster, and bribe Russians, and all sorts of other lies?  How does he compromise with those who say that every action he takes is not just wrong, but evil?  That he and the Democrats bugger children and drink their blood?  How does he unite with those people who think he is the Nazi, or worse, and who will never compromise with him in any way?

What else can he do but try to isolate them so that they wither away alone, with no one else, no other Republicans, to support them?  To call them out for what they are?

The demonization of Democrats started long before Biden.  But you blame him for not being able to overcome it?  When there is a whole right-wing media that is solely devoted to making him the Nazi?  What the hell do you want him to do??

It's like blaming a Jewish leader for not ending the divisiveness with the Nazis. 

[TheDrake]

The people Biden vilified and called dangerous, how would you envision Biden reaching out to them? You know, you've got a really good point that I might have stolen the election. My son can often act like a piece of *censored*, he should probably go to jail. I got loads of cash from the Chinese and Ukranians, I am after all "the big guy". I just *censored* my pants just like you thought I did. I'm doing my best to destroy the economy, just like you knew all along. I can't wait to put you all in concentration camps.

How do you compromise on those values? If we're talking about about some of the divisive policy issues, should Biden support a weak national abortion ban? How about withholding federal education funds used to buy LGBT books? He certainly made his attempt to compromise on gun laws, and he got a "never give an inch" response. Name one thing he could have done to get Republicans to support him, on even just that one issue, that wouldn't have sold out his core beliefs and those of his supporters.

[msquared]

Both sides have to want to come together and the Right does not. MTG is calling liberals hogs that need to be hunted. Does that sound like someone who is willing to discuss things in a civil manner and compromise?  No it does not.

[cherrypoptart]

Mitt Romney is still in office. Surely not all Republicans are so terrible that there's no room for compromise. The guy even voted to impeach Trump. If Biden can't even get a guy like Romney to go along with some of his ideas or meet him part way then I'm not seeing how we can blame only the Republicans anymore.

But on the whole even assuming it's not entirely Biden's fault the nation is so divided, all I'm saying is that he failed and even if he's got his reasons for not giving compromise a good faith effort, the fact is that he hasn't even seriously tried. He's gone scorched Earth with his demonization of the political opposition. My point is that he isn't different from Trump. He's no less a bully, liar, braggart, B.S.er. He's been acting just like Trump in pretty much every way, and that includes racism and sexism, and here I'm including his string pulling puppet masters acting in the background. The difference is that the Biden administration and the new Zeitgeist being thrust upon America is an open, blatant, and proudly arrogant racist misandry directed at white people as a whole and white males as the main target. Again, it's Bizarro Biden in effect. He has all the same powers as Trump, just as strong if not stronger, but the opposite mentality and turned inside out. Bizarro had his reasons too, a main one being that's just who he is. This is just who Biden is and who he's always been. We were sold a false bill of goods. Now just like with the political division, there are reasons or justifications or excuses for all of it but there's no doubt about the reality of what's happening and all I've ever hoped to be is a master of the obvious, or at least a serious student of it.

[Tom]

even if he's got his reasons for not giving compromise a good faith effort, the fact is that he hasn't even seriously tried

In your opinion, who was the last president who tried?

[cherrypoptart]

If you actually try, really try to compromise then by definition you will succeed. You will give up enough to make it worthwhile for the other side to go along. I don't follow all the details enough to know the answer but the people who get real bipartisan support, broad spectrum if grudging support, for their legislation and ideas are the ones who are truly compromising. Ramming through legislation with zero Republican support is the opposite of compromise. We saw that with Obamacare and we're seeing it with Biden too.

Now just because you get bipartisan support for something doesn't necessarily indicate a willingness to compromise if it's just something everyone agrees on. It's a good question but I don't know the answer. There are probably some examples of compromise in every administration but when you see legislation getting ramrodded through with no compromise whatsoever it takes the shine off the compromise luster.

[Fenring]

If you actually try, really try to compromise then by definition you will succeed. You will give up enough to make it worthwhile for the other side to go along.

This sounds like a definition that's more of a truism than a reflection of what it sounds like you're looking for. For instance, your definition could be called coherent in the following scenario: a warlord speaks to another warlord, asking him to name what conditions would allow them to come to an accord. The latter says "I will be satisfied when you die." True, the one asking can agree to these terms, although I doubt almost anyone would agree that this is a compromise. But by your definition a full surrender is still a sort of compromise. I would like to suggest that compromise requires at least one other criterion, which is that in order for two parties to agree to a mutually beneficial accord, their goals cannot include the absolute defeat or destruction of the other party. In the case of partisan politics this is almost baked into the system to some extent; and when the partisan rift is large it may well be that you cannot compromise with someone whose primary goal is for you to fail utterly.

[msquared]

To the far right, people like MTG and The MAGA crowd, compromise is losing. They do not want to compromise. They view it as a moral failing.

[TheDrake]

Biden and the Democrats made many attempts to compromise. They ripped out half of their proposal, and we're met with, zero. The only acceptable position to republicans is zero new spending, zero new entitlements, zero new programs. Zero tax increases. That's not possible to compromise with. You can't divide by zero.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/biden-expects-win-full-democratic-support-new-proposal-sweeping-spending-n1282608

“We spent hours and hours and hours over months and months working on this," Biden said. "No one got everything they wanted, including me. But that's what compromise is. That's consensus. And that's what I ran on."

[Tom]

I am still interested in hearing which president cherry believes was the last who tried to compromise.

[NobleHunter]

"Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man. You take a step towards him and he takes a step back. "Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man.

You can't compromise with someone who is unwilling to also compromise.

[rightleft22]

If you actually try, really try to compromise then by definition you will succeed. You will give up enough...

Till those your compromising with gets all that they want and you get....

But if you really really really really try...   

[rightleft22]

Whoever's fault it is, and there is plenty of blame to go around, it hasn't happened, we're not united as a country and things are even worse now than they were the day Biden was sworn in. That's all I ever wanted, an admission of the obvious.

Whoever fault it is... Biden made it worse. So Biden's fault? He tried by didn't really really try.

I  admit that Biden failed in his hop to repair what many of those before him have torn apart and continue to tear apart. That when he points out the latter it can be experienced as being derisive by those doing the tearing. The bully always feels bullied when called out but is it wrong to call him out?

[TheDrake]

I retract my statement about gun control. Republicans did agree to compromise, well 15 out of 50 Republican Sentors did.

What did the Ultra-MAGAs have to say about it?

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, vowed to "remove" GOP senators from office for backing the bipartisan gun bill, describing the 15 lawmakers as "sellouts."

The Senate passed the bipartisan legislation late Thursday in a 65-33 vote, marking the most significant step toward gun reform from Congress in nearly three decades. Fifteen GOP senators, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, voted in favor of the bill, despite the strong opposition of former President Donald Trump.

Conclusion: There is no compromising with the Ultra-MAGA. Anybody who doesn't toe their uncompromising line is a "sellout" or "traitor".

[msquared]

Or a RINO.  For the Ultra MAGA crowd this is a religious thing, mainly white Christian Nationalist.  They do not want to govern a diverse society, they want to rule a white Christian country.

[cherrypoptart]

"I am still interested in hearing which president cherry believes was the last who tried to compromise."

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm sure to some extent they've all tried to compromise in some ways on some things. The last big compromiser? I don't know. But Biden has burned a lot of bridges now with his insults about fascists. Sure there was Trump, but before that you'd have to go back some ways to find a President who is less diplomatic than Biden. Sure it's hard to compromise with Hitler, but it's tough to compromise with someone who just called you Hitler too.

[msquared]

Except if you are Hitler.

[cherrypoptart]

I don't see why gun control is the be all and end all. There are plenty of other things to work on besides that. The concern now is that with Biden poisoning the well in the areas where there would have been room for compromise now that's gone. If you want to say the MAGAs poisoned the well first, I won't argue, but Biden was supposed to be a more refined politician than that. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. He was supposed to be the anti-Trump, the grown up in the room, the distinguished professional, and he's not.

[Tom]

It should also be noted that Trump routinely referred to his political rivals as "enemies of the state", criminals who should be "locked up". So let's say neither Biden nor Trump were particularly good at compromise.

Does that mean Obama was? Or are we skipping over Obama and saying that Bush made a habit of reaching across the aisle? If not Bush, would it be Clinton?

I think what you'll find is that the last Republican compromiser was probably Eisenhower, and that every single Democratic president since Truman has made a routine habit of compromising. But Republicans like to pretend that Democrats refuse to work with them, so it's been a conservative shibboleth to the contrary for longer than I've been alive.

Here in Wisconsin, the Republican legislature has gaveled in and out of a number of sessions called by our Democratic governor to avoid debate or discussion on the record on a number of pressing bills, from budget items to emergency response. It's worth noting that they can do this -- and he HAS to call an emergency session to actually respond to any emergency -- because, during the lame duck session after he was elected but before he took office, they stripped almost all power from the governor's role.

---------------

with Biden poisoning the well in the areas where there would have been room for compromise

Which areas are those?

I should note that there is a huge difference between accurately pointing out that one party is refusing to cooperate and actually refusing to cooperate. Republicans do the latter. You are suggesting that in order for Biden to be less divisive than Trump, he has to refrain from the former -- and I honestly think that's more than a little ridiculous.

[msquared]

Yes he is but the MAGA people do not want to compromise since that would betray Trump. They would have to accept Biden as the legitimate President and that Trump lost.

They can not do that. They will not do that.

[NobleHunter]

Part of the problem is that the GOP doesn't really have policy goals any more. It's hard to compromise with "don't do anything that you can take credit for." The GOP's chief objection to a lot of Biden's policies seem to be that they're being done by Democrats. You'll note they failed to repeal the ACA despite it nominally being one of their main priorities.

As a counter example, Canada's current Liberal government is supported by one of the opposition parties (the left-ish New Democratic Party) agreeing not to bring down the government in exchange for things like national dental care. The Liberals could compromise with the NDP on certain things because the NDP wants something other than defeating the government. I don't think the GOP would sign off on massive tax cuts unless they could keep Biden's name off them.

[cherrypoptart]

"Unrelenting inflation is taking a toll, leaving more Americans living paycheck to paycheck"

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/30/stubborn-inflation-forces-more-americans-to-live-paycheck-to-paycheck-.html

"Even high-income earners are feeling the strain, the report found. Of those earning more than six figures, 45% reported living paycheck to paycheck, a jump from the previous year’s 38%...

... Although real average hourly earnings also rose a seasonally adjusted 0.2% for the month, they remained down 2.8% from a year ago, which means those paychecks don’t stretch as far as they used to.

A separate report by Bank of America found that 71% of workers feel their pay isn’t keeping up with the cost of living, bringing the number of people who feel financially secure to a five-year low.

Many Americans are dipping into their cash reserves, and nearly half are falling deeper in debt."

----------------------------------------

Biden is crushing it. Am I using that term correctly? Well he's crushing Americans under debt and financial insecurity. We used to hear about how the low information MAGA voters were hurting their own financial self interest by voting for Trump but it seems like they knew what they were doing if this is the alternative. Financially, America cut off its nose to spite its face by choosing Biden over Trump.

[cherrypoptart]

An idea on compromise would be to put all the things that both Republicans and Democrats agree on into one bill and then pass that. Do what good you can. Instead the Democrats put out these monster bills and there's plenty the Republicans are on board with, the things that everyone wants, but the bills are loaded down with no-gos so instead of getting done and doing what good can be done we get nothing, or we get the Democrats ramrodding stuff through that has led us to where we are now, in a world of hurt.

[DJQuag]

It's not Biden. It's capitalism. As Churchill said, it's the worst system we have, other then all the rest we've tried. It still has flaws. The US had to tie off some loose ends in the late 19th, early 20th century. It's going to have to do so again.

[TheDrake]

"Unrelenting inflation is taking a toll, leaving more Americans living paycheck to paycheck"

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/30/stubborn-inflation-forces-more-americans-to-live-paycheck-to-paycheck-.html

"Even high-income earners are feeling the strain, the report found. Of those earning more than six figures, 45% reported living paycheck to paycheck, a jump from the previous year’s 38%...

... Although real average hourly earnings also rose a seasonally adjusted 0.2% for the month, they remained down 2.8% from a year ago, which means those paychecks don’t stretch as far as they used to.

A separate report by Bank of America found that 71% of workers feel their pay isn’t keeping up with the cost of living, bringing the number of people who feel financially secure to a five-year low.

Many Americans are dipping into their cash reserves, and nearly half are falling deeper in debt."

----------------------------------------

Biden is crushing it. Am I using that term correctly? Well he's crushing Americans under debt and financial insecurity. We used to hear about how the low information MAGA voters were hurting their own financial self interest by voting for Trump but it seems like they knew what they were doing if this is the alternative. Financially, America cut off its nose to spite its face by choosing Biden over Trump.

Inflation hits record 10% in 19 EU countries using euro

Oddly, Europeans haven't figured out that the inflation is Biden's fault.

[TheDrake]

But other causes are outside policymakers’ control. The European Central Bank, which sets policy for 19 of 27 E.U. countries, has acknowledged it can only do so much to fight inflation caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “The war is obviously something no central bank can do anything about,” Eshe said.

The same is largely true for the trajectory of the pandemic, which now mainly depends on the evolution of new variants.

All of that puts policymakers in a bind: They can address part of the inflation problem, but not all of it. That will limit how much policy can bring down price increases in the coming months.

So if there were a decision that Biden could have made, he could have drawn a line in the sand to prevent the invasion with unpredictable results. Or he could have withheld aid to Ukraine so that it would be overrun quickly, avoided sanctions, and generally sacrifice an entire country to make our stuff cheaper. Neither of those options is particularly palatable to me, and there's no way to avoid inflation with the invasion as-is. None.

[DJQuag]

Big social media. Facebook, Twitter, Amazon.  Cut them down and let's see what happens.

[Tom]

there's plenty the Republicans are on board with

I'm going to call bull*censored* on that.

[cherrypoptart]

So you're saying there is nothing that the Democrats and Republicans agree on?

The way I hear it there's these massive budget bills and the Democrats always slip a few things in there that Republicans just can't stomach. So logic would dictate that if they both just pass what they all agree on then they can work on the stuff they don't agree on separately and of course by definition they won't agree on it so nothing will get done on those issues but in the meantime we'd get a functioning society without the risk of a government shutdown every few months.

Of course that's not how our political system works. Not now anyway.

Apparently there is just no way the Democrats could pass a spending bill in good conscience without funding their shadow army of new IRS agents and the inflation exacerbating climate change stuff which is interesting seeing how Biden has changed his tune on big oil and is now begging for the prices to come down as if the climate change emergency is over just like the pandemic, at least according to him.

[msquared]

Cherry
Again where are you getting this 'Shadow Army" crap from?  The Republicans have slashed the size of the IRS. The number of employees is down almost 13% since 2012. Why do you have a problem with more employees making sure people, especially rich people, pay what they owe?  Notice I did not say fair share. That is another argument.

The IRS is just making sure people pay what they owe.  If you have armed IRS agents showing up you have some serious issues that have gone on over a period of years.

How many people here have ever been visited by an armed IRS agent?  Know of any one, personally, that has>?  My guess is the answer is no one.

[cherrypoptart]

My point isn't actually whether it's a good idea or not. The point is that if that and a few other things were taken out, the things the Republicans are complaining about, then we could get something done. That's a form of compromise. But Democrats want to just ram everything through and then complain about how there isn't bipartisanship when they can't get everything they want. As for the IRS, that's probably a whole 'nother topic. But if they wanted to go after people cheating on their taxes, they could start with all the companies hiring illlegals and paying them under the table. That could be another way to compromise. They could hire this shadow army of IRS agents but they have to use them to go after companies hiring illegals which depresses wages of American citizens and drives honest businesses out of business because they can't compete when they have to pay taxes and benefits while the other guys don't. Of course the Democrats would never agree to that in a million years. Some crimes get a wink and a nod, even from the IRS.

[NobleHunter]

That's something the GOP and the Democratic Party agree on: not holding business owners responsible for hiring illegal immigrants. They disagree on a legislated solution though.

[msquared]

Cherry

I agree with you but I would not charge the employees that are illegal.

[Tom]

The point is that if that and a few other things were taken out, the things the Republicans are complaining about, then we could get something done.

I suspect the reality, as we saw during the Obama Administration, is that if you take out everything the Republicans are complaining about, they will STILL vote against it, and if you have the votes to push the watered-down bill through anyway, they'll accuse you of passing a bill that doesn't really do anything.

[msquared]

Also there are member of the GOP that would vote against any bill the Dems put forth just so Biden and the Dems would not get a "win". Every single member of the Freedom Caucus comes to mind.

[TheDrake]

My point isn't actually whether it's a good idea or not. The point is that if that and a few other things were taken out, the things the Republicans are complaining about, then we could get something done. That's a form of compromise. But Democrats want to just ram everything through and then complain about how there isn't bipartisanship when they can't get everything they want. As for the IRS, that's probably a whole 'nother topic. But if they wanted to go after people cheating on their taxes, they could start with all the companies hiring illlegals and paying them under the table. That could be another way to compromise. They could hire this shadow army of IRS agents but they have to use them to go after companies hiring illegals which depresses wages of American citizens and drives honest businesses out of business because they can't compete when they have to pay taxes and benefits while the other guys don't. Of course the Democrats would never agree to that in a million years. Some crimes get a wink and a nod, even from the IRS.

Did you miss the part where Democrats throw out half of what they originally wanted for things like infrastructure and relief bills, and still only get a couple dozen republicans on board?

How about when Republicans say "we can't afford it" and then reject new taxes to fund a program? Its hard to compromise with a group that thinks any government money spent is a bad idea unless it is buying missiles, border walls, or law enforcement.

With less than 36 hours before funding was set to lapse, lawmakers raced to unite behind a deal that would keep the government open through Feb. 18 and provide $7 billion for the care and resettlement of Afghan refugees. The House voted 221 to 212 to approve the measure, with just one Republican, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, joining Democrats in support.

There is a method by which one can remove things.

The Senate then cleared the bill on a 69-to-28 vote, sending it to President Biden’s desk for his signature. Nineteen Republicans joined all 50 Democrats in supporting the measure. The action came after senators voted down an amendment to bar funding to carry out Mr. Biden’s vaccine mandates for tens of millions of American workers, including many in the private sector.

So you act as though there isn't a consequence to this type of compromise. Millions of people are being affected by this. Hundreds may die. Yet Biden and the Democrats were willing to do it in order to avoid hurting even more people with a failure to agree.

We're not talking about taking out "a few other things". its also about "putting in a few other things".

On Thursday, Freedom Caucus members rallied outside the Capitol to urge their party’s leaders to whip against any short-term stopgap that doesn’t run into early next year.

They said Republicans need to be able to shape the budget to deal with priority issues like the southern border, lowering energy costs and ending COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Freedom Caucus members also pointed to FBI funding, slamming the agency for an August raid of Trump’s Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.

“Republicans are going to take back the House,” Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry, R-Pa., said. “In light of that, why would Republicans cast one vote in favor of this tyranny?”

The final quote sums it up, Perry wouldn't back any bill no matter what was removed, because he wants a clean canvas for when he thinks Republicans can ram their versions through, the way they did in 2017.

[Wayward Son]

The point is that if that and a few other things were taken out, the things the Republicans are complaining about, then we could get something done. That's a form of compromise. But Democrats want to just ram everything through and then complain about how there isn't bipartisanship when they can't get everything they want.

You have to remember, cherry, that Republicans use the budget negotiations to try to nullify legislation they don't like.

Everything in the budget has already been passed by Congress.  So everything needs to be funded.  Because Congress has already budgeted money in the legislation for it.  They have already promised to pay for it.

So anything Republicans don't want to fund in the budget is a back-door veto of existing law. 

Agreeing to illegal vetoes is hardly a "compromise." 

[wmLambert]

The point is that if that and a few other things were taken out, the things the Republicans are complaining about, then we could get something done. That's a form of compromise. But Democrats want to just ram everything through and then complain about how there isn't bipartisanship when they can't get everything they want.

You have to remember, cherry, that Republicans use the budget negotiations to try to nullify legislation they don't like.

Everything in the budget has already been passed by Congress.  So everything needs to be funded.  Because Congress has already budgeted money in the legislation for it.  They have already promised to pay for it.

So anything Republicans don't want to fund in the budget is a back-door veto of existing law. 

Agreeing to illegal vetoes is hardly a "compromise." 

Off the mark. Since there is no compromise with the Dems, and their main danger lies in overspending - any brakes on their profligate printing of dollars is a positive effect. There is plenty of money floating around unspent that the Dems are looking at for pet self-enrichment projects - and also a quid-pro-quo for votes. If they ever stop giving millions to union bosses to spend, then they would never get the union executives to continuously ignore their rank and file.

What you miss is that when the Dems have overspent by trillions of dollars, issues of which Dem supporter gets graft is not about supposed issues. The single impetus of their money game is fear of being indicted for illegal actions. They know if the Red Wave does switch the majority, then those indictments will go forward. What the Dems realize, is that the GOP is hopelessly splintered and can'y guarantee 100% votes on anything. They think a few RINOs will always help them out with enough graft lining their pockets. However; the GOP leaders will foster the investigations and transformation away from the Dems' current lock on the DOJ and education. That they fear. So since the end justifies their means - anything goes.

[Wayward Son]

See, cherry.  How do you "compromise" with that? 

[Wayward Son]

The single impetus of their money game is fear of being indicted for illegal actions. They know if the Red Wave does switch the majority, then those indictments will go forward.

Indictments?  From whom?? 

Republicans are hopeless for indicting.  How many Benghazi hearing were there?  How many emails hearing were there?  How many times has Hillary been indicted?  Obama?  Any truly high-level Democrats that Trump supporters have been chanting "lock him/her up?" You'd have a better chance of the Keystone Kops arresting Hillary than the Republicans. 

And that is because, regardless of how many hearings they have, Republicans realize that they can't pull one over the courts.  Sure, they can tell their faithful that they have rock-solid evidence that Trump won the elections, but they know it doesn't hold up in court.  They could indict Hillary for having emails in her own private account, but then they would have had to indict Colin Powell and Trump's kids for doing the same.   They can convict Democrats in the court of public opinion, but in the real courts, where they have to show real evidence, they never can do it. 

So don't think a majority of Democrats are worried about indictments.  A few here and there, sure, but not the vast majority.  Because they haven't done anything that wrong.

And if they did, well, they only have the Republicans to worry about, and they are so incompetent they couldn't indict Biden's dogs. 

[msquared]

If they ever stop giving millions to union bosses to spend, then they would never get the union executives to continuously ignore their rank and file.

Change that subject of that from union bosses to Corporate CEO's and you have the issue on the other side.

[rightleft22]

But Biden has burned a lot of bridges now with his insults about fascists.

I thought it was Liberals who were thin skinned? What is that saying about bullies they can dish it out but can't take it.
Kidding sort of. I think its closer to the truth that Conservatives like to pretend to be insulted and that don't really care about being called names or such. I might even argue that in general conservatives take such insults as a badge of honor reveling getting to use them against those Libs that pretend to be above such things.

Beg the question of which bridges the GOP have and are burning down. 

So you're saying there is nothing that the Democrats and Republicans agree on?

The reality is that liberals and Conservatives have more in common then they have not in common. Never before in history have so many been as blessed. Perhaps the reason that politics focuses  on culture war issues.

In general the main difference is economic theory and who deserves help and who does not.
Today the GOP economic theory is no longer conservative IMO its just blindly cut taxes (UK) and let the church's help the less fortunate. The GOP used to be small government, except where it comes to policing, incarceration and defense. Today small government means no governing. Still heave on the enforcement but without governing it. Very confusing.

[TheDeamon]

If they ever stop giving millions to union bosses to spend, then they would never get the union executives to continuously ignore their rank and file.

Change that subject of that from union bosses to Corporate CEO's and you have the issue on the other side.

Not really these days. They're basically the same, as mich of the fortune 500 is unionized.

Cut a nice big contract for unionized workers to get paid working on, and allow the CEO and top execs from the contracting company to walk away with big fat bonus paychecks.

The Democratic party represents mega-corporate CEO's and big union leadership fron those entities.

[cherrypoptart]

"Saudi Arabia and Russia plan deep oil cuts in defiance of US"

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/57bc1a18-98d9-3762-9eef-78585e628c9b/saudi-arabia-and-russia-plan.html

https://www.ft.com/content/476d8174-1ad5-4dbe-8092-37853b2a7673?ftcamp=traffic/partner/feed_headline/us_yahoo/auddev

"Saudi Arabia is seeking to raise oil prices at a crucial meeting in Vienna in a move set to anger the US and help Russia."

-------------------------------------------------------------

This is classic Joe. So he runs on shutting down fossil fuels and then he burns a jet load of fuel flying off to Saudi Arabia to beg them on bended knee to open wide their oil spigots. Is their oil less damaging to the climate than ours? It makes no sense. But of course, Joe Biden makes no sense. If he was being true to what he ran on, he'd be celebrating the cuts in oil production. It almost looks like Saudi Arabia and Russia care more about stopping man made climate change. "But kiddo, I want you to just take a look, okay, you don't have to agree, but I want you to look in my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We're going to end fossil fuel and I'm not going to cooperate with them." - Joe Biden

[msquared]

Why not work to reduce dependence on fossil fuel completely? Then it does not matter what Russia and SA do. But the Republicans have been fighting alternate fuel sources for decades.

[Fenring]

Why not work to reduce dependence on fossil fuel completely? Then it does not matter what Russia and SA do. But the Republicans have been fighting alternate fuel sources for decades.

That is not something (a) Biden can do, or (b) we can do, in the short term. Unless you want soaring inflation on a permanent basis steps have to be taken to ensure a steady supply of affordable oil. The Fed thinks it's tightening to avoid inflation, probably causing a recession? Imagine the global economy if oil prices soar going forward. It will probably mean WWIII.

[msquared]

I meant if we had been working towards less reliance on oil as a whole over the past 10-20 years, not just the past few months.

[cherrypoptart]

Higher fossil fuel prices were Biden's plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuel entirely. What else would anyone expect the result of his campaign promises if carried out to be? And it's a plan that could work but there's only one problem and that is the election coming up.

Getting prices down only makes it take longer to transition and it could knee cap the development of the technology just like it happened in the 70s when oil prices skyrocketed we had all the big talk about developing new technologies and mass implementation of existing tech until the prices went back down and all that talk went out the window while the more expensive tech was busted by economics.

If the prices get high enough, people will be forced to transition. The invisible hand of the free market economy will smack them upside the head. Of course that transition will be super painful but everyone knows that including all of the politicians like Joe running on ending fossil fuels. If people want a more gradual less dramatic transition, if they want to increase oil production every time there is a price spike before an election, then all of this talk about ending big oil is just nonsense and lies.

The big picture though is Joe is giving us the worst of both worlds. He's destroying the American economy with his war on domestic oil while he's wanting to destroy the climate anyway with demands for Russia and Saudi Arabia to produce more. None of it even makes any sense.

[Tom]

Higher fossil fuel prices were Biden's plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuel entirely.

You keep saying this, but I see very little evidence that this was ever the case.