06 March 20
Everything? In effect yes. What's the cost of RSN? If it offsets Corporate Information Monopoly then it undermines the monopoly and it no longer costs, it benefits.
RSN: The benefits are huge.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
06 March 20
Nathan Robinson | Stop Saying Biden Is the 'Most Electable.' Trump Will Run Rings Round Him
Nathan Robinson, Guardian UK
Robinson writes: "Supporters of Joe Biden are unlikely to be persuaded by most of the common criticisms. They know he can be rambling and unintelligible."
Nathan Robinson, Guardian UK
Robinson writes: "Supporters of Joe Biden are unlikely to be persuaded by most of the common criticisms. They know he can be rambling and unintelligible."
Did we learn nothing from 2016? Trump is savagely effective at destroying establishment politicians – and Biden would lose
They know his record is unimpressive and that he doesn’t really have “policy proposals”. None of this matters, though, because to them he has the most important quality of all: he can beat Donald Trump. Nothing you can say about the former vice-president’s record, platform or mental state matters next to the argument that he is the best hope Democrats have of getting Trump out of office.
There’s just one problem: it’s a myth. It is a myth just as it was a myth that Hillary Clinton was a good candidate against Trump. Biden is not, in fact, the pragmatic choice. He would not beat Trump. He would lose. And we must say this over and over again. Forget his flubs. Forget his finger-nibbling. Biden would be crushed by Trump. If you want Trump out of office, don’t support Biden.
Last time round, Clinton supporters lived in a strange kind of denial. Anyone could see she had unique vulnerabilities Trump could exploit. She was a Wall Street candidate, and he was running to “drain the swamp”. She was under investigation by the FBI, and his pitch was that Washington was corrupt. She had supported the catastrophic Iraq war, and he portrayed himself as an outsider opponent of those wars. Trump could “run to her left” and make criticisms she would be unable to respond to, because they were accurate. Clinton’s attempts to attack Trump as an out-of-touch, reckless billionaire sex criminal would fail, because Trump would point out that she herself was out of touch, bought by billionaires and had an unrepentant alleged sex criminal as her husband and chief campaign surrogate.
Joe Biden will face many of the same problems. He has been in Washington since the age of 30, representing Delaware, the “capital of corporate America”. He is infamous for his connections to the credit card industry, and he has lied about his degree of support for the Iraq war. Even Matthew Yglesias of Vox calls Biden the “Hillary Clinton of 2020” for his corporate ties and war support. It is worth remembering what being the “Hillary Clinton” of anything means in an election against Trump.
Consider the Ukraine scandal, which is far worse for Biden electorally than usually acknowledged. Democrats have made this the centerpiece of their impeachment case against Trump, setting aside Trump’s most consequential crimes in order to focus on the charge that Trump tried to force the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. For Democrats, the scandal is clear-cut: Trump was abusing the power of his office to “damage a political rival”. And they believe that the American people will agree, and will be disturbed by Trump’s unethical behavior. They insist there was “no evidence” that Joe Biden did anything wrong, and that Trump and his associates have been unfairly trying to smear Biden.
Democrats who think this way are walking into a buzzsaw. Let us recall: Hunter Biden was paid up to $50,000 a month by a Ukrainian oil company. Officially, the chief Ukrainian prosecutor had an open investigation into that company. Joe Biden bragged about pressuring Ukraine to fire that prosecutor, which they did. Hunter Biden says he told his father about his position in Ukraine, and Joe Biden did not ask him to step down. Joe Biden contradicts his son’s story, saying they never discussed Hunter Biden’s “work” in Ukraine. One of them is not telling the truth.
Defenders of the Bidens like to point out that the prosecutor was fired for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with Hunter Biden. In fact, there was widespread pressure to fire the prosecutor because he wasn’t doing enough on corruption investigations, and there was a consensus among experts that this was the case. Biden’s actions had absolutely nothing to do with his son and it is ridiculous to suggest that they did.
All this is true. But the important question is: does it sound good? And the answer is: no. It sounds terrible.
One reason Democrats are bad at politics is that they concern themselves too much with facts and not enough with impressions. With Clinton’s “emails scandal”, they tried to show Clinton had not technically violated the law, but having Barack Obama’s FBI actively investigating Clinton for possible criminal wrongdoing looked terrible regardless of the facts.
Left-leaning journalists and pundits love to “fact-check” Trump, as if proving that he has lied is in itself persuasive. But 2016 should have showed us how powerless “debunking” is next to “optics”. If you have a Democratic candidate who looks really corrupt, it doesn’t matter if they’re not. People don’t trust the press and they don’t trust politicians.
Imagine Biden running against Trump. Trump will run ads like this, over and over. Good luck responding. Remember that time you have to spend defending yourself against Trump’s accusations is time not spent talking about issues that affect people’s lives. And Biden has already shown little interest in drawing people’s attention to the areas where Democrats should run strong against Trump, such as healthcare, taxation, working conditions and the climate crisis.
His slogan is “no malarkey”, but since Biden himself is a longtime spewer of malarkey, Trump will successfully paint Biden as a hypocrite. Biden’s central case is that he is “not Trump”, that he will return the country to virtuousness and decency. But if Biden doesn’t actually look virtuous and decent – because he isn’t – the argument that he has made for himself collapses completely.
Biden does have some strengths against Trump that Clinton did not. We mock his rambling and tendency for “gaffes”, but these do mean he never sounds like a “scripted politician”. Clinton was criticized as robotic and focus-grouped. Biden is anything but focus-grouped; whatever pops into his head comes out his mouth.
At the same time, compared to Trump, Biden has:
- No money
- No voter enthusiasm
- No organization
- No agenda
- No real argument for himself
Ask yourself: how likely is such a candidate to win? Is such a person really the one you want to run against Trump? Look at the enthusiasm Trump gets at his rallies. It is real. Trump has fans, and they’re highly motivated. How motivated are Biden’s “fans”? Is Biden going to fill stadiums? Are people going to crisscross the country knocking on doors for him? Say what you want about Clinton, but there were some truly committed Clinton fans, and she had a powerful base of support. By comparison, Biden looks weak, and Trump is savagely effective at preying on and destroying establishment politicians.
Complicated factchecks that attempt to explain the nuances of the Ukrainian criminal prosecution system will not help Biden. People’s already limited enthusiasm for Biden will further wane, and Trump will point to his “strong economy” and “job creation” as evidence Obama and Biden were weak failures. Biden will look tired and irrelevant, and possibly forget why he is even running in the first place. Trump will be re-elected comfortably.
If there are Biden supporters in your life, you need to have serious conversations with them. Do not dwell on things that do not matter to them, like Biden’s record on bussing, or his latest nonsensical comment. Instead, keep the focus on the main argument that is sustaining his campaign: the idea that he is the best candidate to beat Trump. He isn’t. His electability is a myth, and when we look honestly at the facts we can see that Biden is actually a dangerously poor candidate to run.
ICE officer. (photo: Getty)
Trump Administration Deploys ICE Officers to 'Flood the Streets' of 'Sanctuary Cities'
Alexandra Kelley, The Hill
Kelley writes: "Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun 24-hour daily surveillance operations near the homes and workplaces of undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities across the country."
READ MORE
Alexandra Kelley, The Hill
Kelley writes: "Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun 24-hour daily surveillance operations near the homes and workplaces of undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities across the country."
READ MORE
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a primary night election rally in Essex Junction, Vermont, on Tuesday. (photo: Charles Krupa/AP)
The NY Times' Latest Attempt to Create a Bernie-Russia Scandal Is an Embarrassment
Ben Mathis-Lilley, Slate
Mathis-Lilley writes: "Bernie Sanders was against nuclear annihilation? Quite a scandal we have on our hands - a mayor participating in the kind of cultural exchange, encouraged by an anti-Communist Republican president, that helped end the Cold War!"
READ MORE
Ben Mathis-Lilley, Slate
Mathis-Lilley writes: "Bernie Sanders was against nuclear annihilation? Quite a scandal we have on our hands - a mayor participating in the kind of cultural exchange, encouraged by an anti-Communist Republican president, that helped end the Cold War!"
READ MORE
Dr. Anthony Fauci, center, speaks at a White House press conference on the coronavirus outbreak on February 29, flanked by President Donald Trump, right, and Vice President Mike Pence, left. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
Trump Continues to Spread Misinformation on the Coronavirus, Contradicting His Own Health Experts
Lauren Egan and Mansee Khurana, NBC News
Excerpt: "As cases of the coronavirus continue to spread around the world and the U.S., President Donald Trump is not backing away from spreading personal beliefs about the virus that contradict veteran health officials and experts."
READ MORE
Lauren Egan and Mansee Khurana, NBC News
Excerpt: "As cases of the coronavirus continue to spread around the world and the U.S., President Donald Trump is not backing away from spreading personal beliefs about the virus that contradict veteran health officials and experts."
READ MORE
Sample copies of 2020 Census forms at the Meriden Public Library, in Meriden, Connecticut, Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2020. (photo: Dave Zajac/AP)
It Looks Like Trump Is Trying to Trick People Into Filling Out "Census" Forms Online
Shirin Ghaffary, Vox
Ghaffary writes: "Shortly ahead of the US National 2020 census, President Trump's campaign is running ads on Facebook that some are saying are misleading users into thinking that a data-gathering and fundraising survey for the Trump presidential campaign is actually the official US national census."
READ MORE
Shirin Ghaffary, Vox
Ghaffary writes: "Shortly ahead of the US National 2020 census, President Trump's campaign is running ads on Facebook that some are saying are misleading users into thinking that a data-gathering and fundraising survey for the Trump presidential campaign is actually the official US national census."
READ MORE
Evo Morales speaks during a news conference at the presidential palace in La Paz, Bolivia, Oct. 24, 2019. (photo: David Mercado/Reuters)
Evo Morales Fears Fraud in Upcoming Bolivian Elections
teleSUR
Excerpt: "Evo Morales, the Bolivian ex-president, expressed his concern about a new coup d'etat against his party, Movement to Socialism, in the case of a new electoral victory next May."
READ MORE
teleSUR
Excerpt: "Evo Morales, the Bolivian ex-president, expressed his concern about a new coup d'etat against his party, Movement to Socialism, in the case of a new electoral victory next May."
READ MORE
Exxon Mobile gas station. (photo: Reuters)
ExxonMobil 'Tried to Get European Green Deal Watered Down'
Jillian Ambrose, Guardian UK
Ambrose writes: "The US oil firm ExxonMobil met key European commission officials in an attempt to water down the European Green Deal in the weeks before it was agreed, according to a climate lobbying watchdog."
Jillian Ambrose, Guardian UK
Ambrose writes: "The US oil firm ExxonMobil met key European commission officials in an attempt to water down the European Green Deal in the weeks before it was agreed, according to a climate lobbying watchdog."
Climate lobbying watchdog claims US oil giant met EC officials in run-up to policy
Documents unearthed by InfluenceMap revealed that Exxon lobbyists met Brussels officials in November to urge the EU to extend its carbon-pricing scheme to “stationary” sources, such as power plants, to include tailpipe emissions from vehicles using petrol or diesel.
Green groups believe this would be the least effective way to disincentive fossil fuel vehicles, and would rather allow countries to set their own emissions standards and targets for road emissions.
The move appears to be an attempt to stall the rollout of electric vehicles by keeping a lid on the cost of driving a traditional combustion engine vehicle running on fossil fuels. The European commission stopped short of proposals to phase out combustion engine vehicles and has plans to consult on whether to include vehicles in its carbon-pricing scheme.
Edward Collins, a director at InfluenceMap, said the document “represents yet another evidence piece” of ExxonMobil’s long-term strategy of delaying climate action by focusing on “long-term technical solutions” to try to avert “decisive regulatory action” that is urgently required to tackle the climate crisis.
A Guardian investigation last year found that Exxon has spent €37.2m (£32.4m) lobbying the EU since 2010, more than any other major oil company, according to the EU’s transparency register. It revealed that Shell spent €36.5m and BP spent €18.1m lobbying Brussels officials to shape EU climate policy.
Exxon is also facing legal action in the US courts after accusations that it misled investors over the business risks caused by regulations aimed at addressing the climate crisis.
The lawsuit claims that Exxon scientists told the company’s management in 1977 there was an “overwhelming” consensus that fossil fuels were responsible for increasing the levels of carbon in the atmosphere that lead to global heating. In 1981, an internal company memo warned that “it is distinctly possible” that CO2 emissions from the company’s 50-year plan “will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the Earth’s population)”.
Exxon’s latest lobbying efforts have surfaced after documents emerged earlier this year showing that BP successfully lobbied US policymakers to weaken a landmark environmental law to clear the way for fossil fuel projects to move forward.
A spokesman for ExxonMobil said the company “complies fully” with the EU’s transparency rules and supports the Paris climate agreement. He added that Exxon, “like many companies”, had “a responsibility” to engage in a public policy dialogue that impacted its business.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.