Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

He got a smaller share of the vote than every other modern Republican candidate in both of his elections. He also did worse among black voters than every Republican candidate in modern history, except for the two who ran against Obama.

He never got more than 50% of the vote or had over 50% approval for his entire presidency.

His one midterm election was the single largest vote margin loss for a President's party in 40 years.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

He also presided over hundreds of thousands of domestic deaths, mass civil unrest, wholesale economic collapse, numerous scandals, and an impeachment

He still barely lost and got the second largest raw vote total ever

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

I believe you shouldn't make claims like that with such shallow reasoning. The basic fact is he was the president for four years despite looking and sounding like he does and if you're gonna make a claim he was "bad at politics" you should really have some sturdier evidence than this flimsy poo poo, especially since most of it also describes Biden lol

Oracle posted:

Oracle posted:

Did you? There a reason you skipped the conclusion? Other than the fact that it completely contradicts your argument.



Worry not, gentle reader, your fear is unfounded.

Interesting law you've chosen as your example. You should look up just how treason is defined and the conviction rate thereof in the United States. You might find it illuminating.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

So wait, the conclusion from this thing you posted is that there's actually nothing illegal about the president issuing orders to the DoJ and the AG is only "required" to ignore any because of imaginary historical tautology? And you think this strengthens the arguments you've been making today?

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The Senate finally confirmed Biden's postal board of Governors nominees two weeks ago. There are technically a majority of the board appointed by Biden now, although one of them is a Republican because of a partisan balance requirement.

If all 5 of Biden's nominees (or his 4 non-Republican nominees and the Democrat nominated by Trump), decided to hold a no confidence vote, then they could do it now by one vote.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Every single President has gotten the largest raw vote total and the person they beat the second most in every election except for 2016 because that is how population growth works.

yronic heroism posted:

Why is the reasoning shallow? It’s far more than you offered in rebuttal. And as far as I know I am allowed to state my impression Trump is unpopular beyond his base and incompetent to boot. His schemes fail, he was surrounded by grifters, he got himself impeached twice. His successes were all due to what Republicans in Congress handed him, mostly through confirmations.

yronic heroism posted:

he got himself impeached twice.

haveblue posted:

Mail trucks are the ideal case for electrification, they run predictable routes that begin and end at a fixed home base. I hope that lawsuit to block the gas fleet purchase succeeds

Fister Roboto posted:

Why do we need a perfectly neutral arbiter to determine who is actually a fascist or not? I want the people who are trying to kill people and crush human rights to stop, and I want that done by any means necessary. I don't give a single poo poo if that somehow sets a precedent that allows the fascists to purge people, because guess what? They're going to do that poo poo anyway when they have power.

Velocity Raptor posted:

There's lots of hand-wringing about how it will look if Trump gets prosecuted by the DOJ due to the department's proximity of the president, but it all kind of misses the point that there was an attempted coup on our government, and it was allegedly orchestrated by the president who was voted out and his cronies.

No person should be above the law, president or not. And by not going after someone suspected of doing crimes against the government because people might say bad things (GOP will anyway) is cowardice. By not prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law in this instance sends the message that an outgoing president is perfectly within his right to try to hold onto power by any means necessary despite how how people vote.

Jaxyon posted:

See?

No the edited summary that Barr gave set the tone. "it's a nothingburger" when actually it found a ton of wrongdoing

It found that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election, heavily, and that a ton of the Trump administration had ties to Russia, and Russia moved very closely chronologically to when the Trump admin did things.

It didn't say that a criminal conspiracy took place because the proof it takes to say that was higher than what exists.

It indicted over 30 people.

It found at least 10 examples of obstruction of justice but Mueller didn't do anything about because he's a Republican decorum coward. The DOJ could have moved forward on any of those but LOL Barr.

It didn't find "no collusion" it found collusion but also decorum cowardice meant they wouldn't do anything.

quote:

Democrats' 'Battered Wife Syndrome'

By Robert Parry
April 25, 2009

"In recent years, the Washington political dynamic has often resembled an abusive marriage, in which the bullying husband (the Republicans) slaps the wife and kids around, and the battered wife (the Democrats) makes excuses and hides the ugly bruises from outsiders to keep the family together.

So, when the Republicans are in a position of power, they throw their weight around, break the rules, and taunt: “Whaddya gonna do ‘bout it?”

Then, when the Republicans do the political equivalent of passing out on the couch, the Democrats use their time in control, tiptoeing around, tidying up the house and cringing at every angry grunt from the snoring figure on the couch.

This pattern, which now appears to be repeating itself with President Barack Obama’s unwillingness to hold ex-President George W. Bush and his subordinates accountable for a host of crimes including torture, may have had its origins 40 years ago in Campaign 1968 when the Vietnam War was raging.

President Lyndon Johnson felt he was on the verge of achieving a negotiated peace settlement when he learned in late October 1968 that operatives working for Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon were secretly sabotaging the Paris peace talks.

Nixon, who was getting classified briefings on the talks’ progress, feared that an imminent peace accord might catapult Vice President Hubert Humphrey to victory. So, Nixon’s team sent secret messages to South Vietnamese leaders offering them a better deal if they boycotted Johnson’s talks and helped Nixon to victory, which they agreed to do.

Johnson learned about Nixon’s gambit through wiretaps of the South Vietnamese embassy and he confronted Nixon by phone (only to get an unconvincing denial). At that point, Johnson knew his only hope was to expose Nixon’s maneuver which Johnson called “treason” since it endangered the lives of a half million American soldiers in the war zone.

As a Christian Science Monitor reporter sniffed out the story and sought confirmation, Johnson consulted Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Defense Secretary Clark Clifford about whether to expose Nixon’s ploy right before the election. Both Rusk and Clifford urged Johnson to stay silent.

In what would become a Democratic refrain in the years ahead, Clifford said in a Nov. 4, 1968, conference call that “Some elements of the story are so shocking in their nature that I’m wondering whether it would be good for the country to disclose the story and then possibly have a certain individual [Nixon] elected. It could cast his whole administration under such doubt that I think it would be inimical to our country’s interests.”

So, Johnson stayed silent “for the good of the country”; Nixon eked out a narrow victory over Humphrey; the Vietnam War continued for another four years with an additional 20,763 U.S. dead and 111,230 wounded and more than a million more Vietnamese killed.

Over the years, as bits and pieces of this story have dribbled out – including confirmation from audiotapes released by the LBJ Library in December 2008 – the Democrats and the mainstream news media have never made much out of Nixon’s deadly treachery. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Significance of Nixon’s Treason.”]

The Watergate Exception

The one exception to this pattern of the Democrats’ “battered wife syndrome” may have been the Watergate case in which Nixon sought to secure his second term, in part, by spying on his political rivals, including putting bugs on phones at the Democratic National Committee.

When Nixon’s team was caught in a second break-in – trying to add more bugs – the scandal erupted.

Even then, however, key Democrats, such as Democratic National Chairman Robert Strauss, tried to shut down the Watergate investigation as it was expanding early in Nixon’s second term. Strauss argued that the inquiries would hurt the country, but enough other Democrats and an energized Washington press corps overcame the resistance. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

With Nixon’s Watergate-compelled resignation in August 1974, the Republicans were at a crossroads. In one direction, they could start playing by the rules and seek to be a responsible political party. Or they could internalize Nixon’s pugnacious style and build an infrastructure to punish anyone who tried to hold them accountable in the future.

Essentially, the Republicans picked option two. Under the guidance of Nixon’s Treasury Secretary William Simon, right-wing foundations collaborated to build a powerful new infrastructure, pooling resources to finance right-wing publications, think tanks and anti-journalism attack groups. As this infrastructure took shape in the late 1970s, it imbued the Republicans with more confidence.

So, before Election 1980, the Republican campaign – bolstered by former CIA operatives loyal to former CIA Director George H.W. Bush – resorted to Nixon-style tactics in exploiting President Jimmy Carter’s failure to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran.

The evidence is now overwhelming that Republican operatives, including campaign chief Bill Casey and some of his close associates, had back-channel contacts with Iran’s Islamic regime and other foreign governments to confound Carter’s hostage negotiations. Though much of this evidence has seeped out over the past 29 years, some was known in real time.

For instance, Iran’s acting foreign minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh told Agence France Press on Sept. 6, 1980, that he knew that Republican candidate Ronald Reagan was “trying to block a solution” to the hostage impasse.

Senior Carter administration officials, such as National Security Council aide Gary Sick, also were hearing rumors about Republican interference, and President Carter concluded that Israel’s hard-line Likud leaders had “cast their lot with Reagan,” according to notes I found of a congressional task force interview with Carter a dozen years later.

Carter traced the Israeli opposition to him to a “lingering concern [among] Jewish leaders that I was too friendly with Arabs.”

Israel already had begun playing a key middleman role in delivering secret military shipments to Iran, as Carter knew. But – again for “the good of the country” – Carter and his White House kept silent.

Since the first anniversary of the hostage crisis coincidentally fell on Election Day 1980, Reagan benefited from the voters' anger over the national humiliation and scored a resounding victory. [For more details on the 1980 “October Surprise” case, see Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

GOP’s Growing Confidence

Though much of the public saw Reagan as a tough guy who had frightened the Iranians into surrendering the hostages on Inauguration Day 1981, the behind-the-scenes reality was different.

In secret, the Reagan administration winked at Israeli weapons shipments to Iran in the first half of 1981, what appeared to be a payoff for Iran’s cooperation in sabotaging Carter. Nicholas Veliotes, who was then assistant secretary of state, told a PBS interviewer that he saw those secret shipments as an outgrowth of the covert Republican-Iranian contacts from the campaign.

Veliotes added that those early shipments then became the “germs” of the later Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal.

But the Republicans seemed to have little to fear from exposure. Their media infrastructure was rapidly expanding – for instance, the right-wing Washington Times opened in 1982 – and America’s Left didn’t see the need to counter this growing media power on the Right.

The right-wing attack groups also had success targeting mainstream journalists who dug up information that didn’t fit with Reagan's propaganda themes – the likes of the New York Times Raymond Bonner, whose brave reporting about right-wing death squads in Central America led to his recall from the region and his resignation from the Times.

This new right-wing muscle, combined with Ronald Reagan’s political popularity, made Democrats and mainstream journalists evermore hesitant to pursue negative stories about Republican policies, including evidence that Reagan’s favorite “freedom fighters,” the Nicaraguan contras, were dabbling in cocaine trafficking and that an illegal contra-aid operation was set up inside the White House.

In mid-1986, when my Associated Press colleague Brian Barger and I put together a story citing two dozen sources about the work of NSC official Oliver North, congressional Democrats were hesitant to follow up on the disclosures.

Finally in August 1986, the House Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Democrat Lee Hamilton and including Republican Rep. Dick Cheney, met with North and other White House officials in the Situation Room and were told that the AP story was untrue. With no further investigation, the Democratic-led committee accepted the word of North and his superiors.

Lucky Exposure

It was only an unlikely occurrence on Oct. 5, 1986, the shooting down of one of North’s supply planes over Nicaragua and a confession by the one survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, that put the House Intelligence Committee’s gullibility into focus.

The plane shoot-down – and disclosures from the Middle East about secret U.S. arms sales to Iran – forced the Iran-Contra scandal into public view. The congressional Democrats responded by authorizing a joint House-Senate investigation, with Hamilton as one of the mild-mannered co-chairs and Cheney again leading the GOP’s tough-guy defense.

While the Republicans worked to undermine the investigation, the Democrats looked for a bipartisan solution that would avoid a messy confrontation with President Reagan and Vice President Bush. That solution was to put most of the blame on North and a few of his superiors, such as NSC adviser John Poindexter and the then-deceased CIA Director Bill Casey.

The congressional investigation also made a hasty decision, supported by Hamilton and the Republicans but opposed by most Democrats, to give limited immunity to secure the testimony of North.

Hamilton agreed to this immunity without knowing what North would say. Rather than show any contrition, North used his immunized testimony to rally Republicans and other Americans in support of Reagan’s aggressive, above-the-law tactics.

The immunity also crippled later attempts by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh to hold North and Poindexter accountable under the law. Though Walsh won convictions against the pair in federal court, the judgments were overturned by right-wing judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals citing the immunity granted by Congress.

By the early 1990s, the pattern was set. Whenever new evidence emerged of Republican wrongdoing – such as disclosures about contra-drug trafficking, secret military support for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and those early Republican-Iran contacts of 1980 – the Republicans would lash out in fury and the Democrats would try to calm things down.

Lee Hamilton became the Republicans’ favorite Democratic investigator because he exemplified this approach of conducting “bipartisan” investigations, rather than aggressively pursuing the facts wherever they might lead. While in position to seek the truth, Hamilton ignored the contra-drug scandal and swept the Iraq-gate and October Surprise issues under a very lumpy rug.

In 1992, I interviewed Spencer Oliver, a Democratic staffer whose phone at the Watergate building had been bugged by Nixon’s operatives 20 years earlier. Since then, Oliver had served as the chief counsel on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and had observed this pattern of Republican abuses and Democratic excuses.

Oliver said: “What [the Republicans] learned from Watergate was not ‘don’t do it,’ but ‘cover it up more effectively.’ They have learned that they have to frustrate congressional oversight and press scrutiny in a way that will avoid another major scandal.”

The Clinton Opportunity

The final chance for exposing the Republican crimes of the 1980s fell to Bill Clinton after he defeated President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Before leaving office, however, Bush-41 torpedoed the ongoing Iran-Contra criminal investigation by issuing six pardons, including one to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger whose cover-up trial was set to begin in early 1993.

Special prosecutor Walsh – a lifelong Republican albeit from the old Eisenhower wing of the party – denounced the pardons as another obstruction of justice. "George Bush's misuse of the pardon power made the cover-up complete," Walsh later wrote in his book Firewall.

However, the Iran-Contra investigation was not yet dead. Indeed, Walsh was considering empanelling a new grand jury. Walsh also had come to suspect that the origins of the scandal traced back to the October Surprise of 1980, with his investigators questioning former CIA officer Donald Gregg about his alleged role in that prequel to Iran-Contra.

The new Democratic President could have helped Walsh by declassifying key documents that the Reagan-Bush-41 team had withheld from various investigations. But Clinton followed advice from Hamilton and other senior Democrats who feared stirring partisan anger among Republicans.

Later, in a May 1994 conversation with documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, Clinton explained that he had opposed pursuing these Republican scandals because, according to Sender, “he was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships. …

“It seemed even at the time terribly naïve that these same Republicans were going to work with him if he backed off on congressional hearings or possible independent prosecutor investigations.” [See Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

No Reciprocity

But the Democrats – like the battered wife who keeps hoping her abusive husband will change – found a different reality as the decade played out.

Rather than thanking Clinton, the Republicans bullied him with endless investigations about his family finances, the ethics of his appointees – and his personal morality, ultimately impeaching him in 1998 for lying about a sexual affair (though he survived the Senate trial in 1999).

After the impeachment battle, the Republicans – joined by both the right-wing and mainstream news media – kept battering Clinton and his heir apparent, Vice President Al Gore, who was mocked for his choice of clothing and denounced for his supposed exaggerations.

Though Gore still managed to win the popular vote in Election 2000 and apparently would have prevailed if all legally cast votes had been counted in Florida, the Republicans made clear that wasn’t going to happen, even dispatching rioters from Washington to disrupt a recount in Miami.

George W. Bush’s bullying victory – which was finalized by five Republican partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court – was met with polite acceptance by the Democrats who again seemed to hope for the best from the newly empowered Republicans. [For details on Election 2000, see our book, Neck Deep.]

Instead, after the 9/11 attacks, Bush-43 grabbed unprecedented powers; he authorized torture and warrantless wiretaps; he pressured Democrats into accepting an unprovoked war in Iraq; and he sought to damage his critics, such as former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Now, after eight destructive years, the Democrats have again gained control of the White House and Congress, but they seem intent on once more not provoking the Republicans, rather than holding them accountable.

Though President Barack Obama has released some of the key documents underpinning Bush-43’s actions, he opposes any formal commission of inquiry and has discouraged any prosecutions for violations of federal law. Obama has said he wants “to look forward as opposed to looking backward.”

In dismissing the idea of a “truth and reconciliation commission,” Obama also recognizes that the Republicans would show no remorse for the Bush administration’s actions; that they would insist that there is nothing to “reconcile”; and that they would stay on the attack, pummeling the Democrats as weak, overly sympathetic to terrorists, and endangering national security.

On Thursday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs admitted as much, saying that Obama rejected the idea of a bipartisan “truth commission” because it was apparent that there was no feasible way to get the Republicans to be bipartisan.

“The President determined the concept didn’t seem altogether workable in this case,” Gibbs said, citing the partisan atmosphere that already has surrounded the torture issue. “The last few days might be evidence of why something like this might just become a political back and forth.”

In other words, the Republicans are rousing themselves from the couch and getting angry, while the Democrats are prancing about, hands out front, trying to calm things down and avoid a confrontation.

The Democrats hope against hope that if they tolerate the latest Republican outrages maybe there will be some reciprocity, maybe there will be some GOP votes on Democratic policy initiatives.

But there’s no logical reason to think so. That isn’t how the Republicans and their right-wing media allies do things; they simply get angrier because belligerence has worked so well for so long.

On the other hand, Democratic wishful thinking is the essence of this political “battered wife syndrome,” dreaming about a behavioral transformation when all the evidence – and four decades of experience – tell you that the bullying husband isn’t going to change."

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Every single President has gotten the largest raw vote total and the person they beat the second most in every election except for 2016 because that is how population growth works.

Main Paineframe posted:

There's numerous practical, philosophical and ethical reasons why you'd want to have some sort of due process attached beyond "just permanently purge anyone the president doesn't like, without even the slightest hint of oversight or restraint". It's not even just a matter of "what if the fascists get back in power" - there's a whole lot of rough edges that come out if you think for a minute about "how would this function in the real world". If we're talking real political advice and not just idealistic dreaming, it's worth thinking about that at least a little bit.

What if some non-fascists accidentally (or not so accidentally) get on the purge list? If there's no arbiter and no due process and no recourse for those affected, then they're just hosed over.

And why stop at just accidental abuses? Let's not forget that the current Democratic leadership isn't exactly a bunch of progressives. What if President Joe Biden decides he's going to use this "purge anyone with politics the president considers dangerous" power against socialists too? There's plenty of precedent in US law and history for declaring socialists to be a danger to American democracy. Without any checks on the power, there's nothing to restrain him from doing it to whoever he wants.

And even if he doesn't go hog wild with it, anyone who isn't a direct political ally of Joe Biden and the Democratic leadership will (with good reason) fear the potential abuse of the power and push back strongly against it. Unless the system is considerably limited to restrain its use and provide lots of checks on its power, it'll be a political own goal that drives a bipartisan pushback against the administration, a blatant overreach that'll get everyone else in politics feeling threatened, and turn the undecided voters sympathetic for the plight of those poor persecuted Trump supporters. These kinds of emergency disenfranchisement powers have, historically, been quite often abused, after all.

Maybe that could be avoided if the Dems had clear majority political support for purges. Say, perhaps, to the point that they could get a bill for it through the Senate. Hell, even Adolf loving Hitler - the poster boy for brutal dictators - got legislative approval via majority vote before he enacted the Reichstag Fire Decree and started jailing those violent political movements that he insisted were dangerous terrorists who threatened the government and needed to be dealt with by any means. But I don't think the Dems have that much support. And going authoritarian with neither public support nor political support is quite unlikely. How many generals do you think would line up behind the president unilaterally suspending the Constitution and conducting mass political purges? I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of US military leaders, but I have a feeling the answer to that question is "not nearly enough".

A big flaming stink posted:

The Democrats needed to do this by the way. They needed to do this because the Republicans are playing to win and the Democrats clearly aren't. All the respect of decorum and taking the high road in the world won't do poo poo when your opponents are planning on permanently instilling themselves into power.

You get that, right?

Oracle posted:

Needed to do what, exactly? why are you emptyquoting me? I don't even know what you're talking about as a result.

A big flaming stink posted:

You quoted my post in that post. The action needed was skullfucking Trump and his enablers

quote:

PFEIFFER: These charges come as the House committee that's investigating January 6 prepares for its first public hearings. Is it clear whether that influenced the timing today?

JOHNSON: You know, it's not clear. Members of the panel have been very tough on the Justice Department. They want to see more action on what they consider an attack on democracy. The panel already planned to highlight some of the activities of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers during its public hearings. But what we don't know is how close the DOJ might be to that next level, the funders and organizers of the political rallies in late December and early January 2021.

We do know the FBI has been investigating. There have been some grand jury subpoenas, but we're really waiting to see what happens next. Remember; Attorney General Merrick Garland has vowed to go after anyone accountable for January 6 at, quote, "every level."

Oracle posted:

Siccing the DOJ on Trump and his supporters isn't about decorum, taking the high road, or whatever other made up excuse you want to ascribe because you're starting from a conclusion and working your way back to supporting it. Its illegal and undermines the very democratic process Trump himself was trying to subvert.

Fister Roboto posted:

Yeah, that sounds it could possibly lead to pretty bad things, but still less bad than letting the fascists have their way. We're far past the point where we have many realistic alternatives. Inaction is just going to make things worse.

Oracle posted:

Needed to do what, exactly? why are you emptyquoting me? I don't even know what you're talking about as a result.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

What was the meaningful impact of this again?

Describe the meaningful impact like you would to someone who isn’t terminally decorum brained.

Because he’s the front runner for 2024 Republican nominee, giving him the chance to run the country again.

yronic heroism posted:

You omit the context of the quote where it is specifically cited as an example of his incompetence. He didn’t want to get impeached. He was specifically warned that his dumbass impulses would get him impeached. He proceeded with dumbass impulses and got impeached. It’s like touching a hot stove after being warned. And then doing it a second time.

Fart Amplifier posted:

It would absolutely let the fascists have their way. Any cases would be rightfully tossed out of court and you'd have mass prosecutor resignations because what is being argued for is illegal.

The Sean posted:

What you linked to was an opinion piece and lists no full, complete, concrete law that supports your argument. Nothing about what you linked to, even the conclusion, supports your argument. It is incredibly clear if you actually read it. He'll, even read the conclusion that you just quoted. It doesn't support your argument with any objectivity. I would say "nice try" but it's not clear that you tried.

Exactly this.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

GoutPatrol posted:

Just for everyone to know, The Sean is now threadbanned in USCE, and wanted me to quote him and tell everyone this.

Discendo Vox posted:

I mean, they were threadbanned a week ago; it's odd that they're getting less punishment for choosing to violate the ban.

Fart Amplifier posted:

It would absolutely let the fascists have their way. Any cases would be rightfully tossed out of court and you'd have mass prosecutor resignations because what is being argued for is illegal.

ex post facho posted:

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand...ingawful.com%2F

Given railing against the abuses of Saudia Arabia was fairly important in Biden's campaigning, what's the excuse for this? Just another damning indictment of a failure of a centrist presidency.

I had low standards for the Biden presidency. Not cuddling up with Saudi Arabia was down there with expectations but this is loving disgusting. The beacon of international press freedom my loving rear end.

FlamingLiberal posted:

They want the Saudis to pump more oil

ex post facho posted:

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand...ingawful.com%2F

Given railing against the abuses of Saudia Arabia was fairly important in Biden's campaigning, what's the excuse for this?

Timeless Appeal posted:

Yeah and to be clear, the Saudis have been warming over to Putin and playing coy with their oil supplies. They've been fishing for this.

ex post facho posted:

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand...ingawful.com%2F

Given railing against the abuses of Saudia Arabia was fairly important in Biden's campaigning, what's the excuse for this? Just another damning indictment of a failure of a "centrist" presidency.

I had low standards for the Biden presidency. Not cuddling up with Saudi Arabia was down there with expectations but this is loving disgusting. The beacon of international press freedom my loving rear end.

tgacon posted:

Because if China actually manages to establish a viable alternative to the petrodollar that is the end of American hegemony, full stop.

Best Friends posted:

I fully expected us to be in an a actual economic boom by now. I did not expect global political and economic leadership to witness ongoing disruptions to the global supply chains and just say “seems fine.”