How the heck are they complaining about biden’s take on immigration when he increased the border control budget so much despite Republican protests against border control?
What happened is the opposite of what this article is talking about.
“Biden’s weak policies and incoherent responses during the debate may give us another four years of Trump”
No, the election May give us another 4 years of trump.
It’s an election.
Biden has very strong immigration policies, this article doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
I would point out that CNN has become increasingly right leaning this past decade, but I recognize your username as one of the unfortunate few right-wing types that has inexplicably decided to dip your toes into the Fediverse.
Biden regularly ignores the express will of his constituents with regards to Israel, drug decriminalization, judicial overreach, tax reform, and immigration. His DOJ just forced a foreign national to plead guilty under US espionage laws. That’s all authoritarian as hell.
Also, the article specifically mentions policing and criminalization with regards to immigration and your response is that he TRIED to increase funding to ICE but the right wouldn’t let him. But that’s the whole point - more cops is not the answer. Abolish ICE. Giving them more money is the same solution Trump wants to implement. You realize we’re still putting kids in cages, right?
I looked to see if I was welcome here and this is what I found… The Fediverse is a decentralized, federated social network where individuals can connect with others who share similar interests and values. It’s a space where people from all walks of life can come together, share their thoughts, and engage in respectful discussions.
No discrimination or exclusivity
The Fediverse is built on the principles of inclusivity and diversity. There is no central authority controlling the network, and each server (or instance) is run independently by its administrators. This means that each server can set its own rules and guidelines, but there is no overarching policy that discriminates against individuals based on their political beliefs, including Republicans.
Diverse perspectives and communities
The Fediverse is home to a wide range of communities and servers, each with its own unique character and focus. You can find servers dedicated to specific topics, hobbies, or interests, as well as servers that cater to specific political ideologies or beliefs. This diversity allows individuals to connect with like-minded people and engage in discussions that resonate with them.
I looked to see if I was welcome in the fediverse and this is what I found… The Fediverse is a decentralized, federated social network where individuals can connect with others who share similar interests and values. It’s a space where people from all walks of life can come together, share their thoughts, and engage in respectful discussions.
No discrimination or exclusivity
The Fediverse is built on the principles of inclusivity and diversity. There is no central authority controlling the network, and each server (or instance) is run independently by its administrators. This means that each server can set its own rules and guidelines, but there is no overarching policy that discriminates against individuals based on their political beliefs, including Republicans.
Diverse perspectives and communities
The Fediverse is home to a wide range of communities and servers, each with its own unique character and focus. You can find servers dedicated to specific topics, hobbies, or interests, as well as servers that cater to specific political ideologies or beliefs. This diversity allows individuals to connect with like-minded people and engage in discussions that resonate with them.
Strong immigration policies? It took him 3.5 years to do anything about the border after undoing everything Trump had in place. And Republicans were the first ones that came up with a border plan that would actually work called HR2. Dems shut it down.
Remember when the Democrats offered the Republicans every single thing they wanted on immigration and they voted against it because Trump wanted them to?
Oops. Guess they could have gotten their border plan that you claim would have worked and decided to not do it because it wasn’t politically expedient.
Wrong. They didn’t offer Republicans everything they wanted. That’s just completely false. HR2 was a much better bill at getting the border under control, or even just reinstating the executive actions Trump had in place before Biden took office.
Republicans: we don’t know, separate children from their families, let some of the kids die, cause generational trauma while withholding funding and processing.
Biden: let’s clean up the Republican mess again, institute fair and rational expedited immigration processing with limited capacity per day that keeps families together.
Trump did immigration “first” If you pretend he had a sound immigration policy, which he didn’t, he preferred detention and ignoring the problem, and you also ignore every president before him and then also you laud irresponsible choices that harm people and cost more money.
Trump kept a lot of them out of the country, and you’re pretty naive if you think kids aren’t getting separated from families or getting killed now. Human a sex trafficking are at an all time high right now. And detention at least kept them from killing and raping our citizens.
This is exactly what we should expect all of Biden’s top allies to say, publically, unless he decides to back out, in which case all these same people will publically say the next lady is the best bet now.
“I think he’s the only Democrat who can beat Donald Trump,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., a Biden campaign co-chair, said during an interview on ABC News’ “This Week.” “And let me tell you, we had the single best day of grassroots fundraising after the debate.”
And that’s not even getting into how those are pro-Biden donations so much as “please for fucks sake someone stop trump” donations that literally any Dem candidate would be receiving.
It’s what happens when you insist on running back to back campaigns on just not being the other guy…
Like, cool bro, we know the other guy sucks, but why are you here?
We could have someone we actually want instead, who is also not trump and have the same level of voter support.
From a cold emtionaless perspective, there is just literally no advantage to Joe Biden being the nominee.
And this election is more important than Joe Biden’s feelings. We shouldn’t just let him have this one, it’s not the last fucking cookie, it’s deciding who has the best shot of stopping a fascist takeover of the country.
Not to mention him dropping out would be acknowledging their personal failure and likely eliminate some of their jobs. Anita Dunn is one of the people directly responsible for this, but if she can gaslight us all she can continue her revolving door “consulting” (a job status selected so she wouldn’t have to release financial information).
How many Democratic voters do you think are going to line up for a party-chosen candidate? What if they did “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” I think a lot of voters would be real unhappy with that.
Even if the party chose to let their delegates choose a candidate at the convention (less than two months away), it could easily turn into an absolute shitshow and also split the party vote.
Biden is who we’ve got and we can accept that or fuck up our chances for any semblance of democracy even more.
So if Biden died right now, the party would die with him?
Why is the candidate so important anyways? Isn’t the program much more important? As a European, I don’t understand what’s going on in US politics. Nobody seems to care for the politics and everyone just wants the drama.
It seems a lot of people believe there is a magical bag full of candidates that can potentially win general elections, but the Dems for some reason decided not to open it…
Yes, out of hundreds of millions of people, he is the only person who can do the job. In 2028, we’ll have to close the country since nobody else is capable.
In 2028 after 4 more years of Biden, what then? You really think people will want 4 more years of Democrat broken promises after 8? Trump wins this year either way. Democrats are blowing it
Georgia’s largest newspaper or the New York Times aren’t right leaning at all
In fucking fantasy-land maybe.
New York Times literally sat on a story about illegal wiretapping on US citizens by the NSA for over a year at the behest of the Bush administration.
I would think someone with the username NoSuchAgency might be familiar with that…
The main people who the NYT are aimed at are literally rich New Yorkers with an extra house in the Hamptons. You can look at their Leisure section and it becomes ridiculously clear they’re catering to an elite set and not regular people.
Sorry, but the rich elite generally are way more conservative than your average person, even if they claim liberalism.
EDIT: Let’s not forget how absolutely HYPED the NYT was for THE WAR ON TERROR.
is the new york times a liberal or conservative paper
The New York Times is often perceived as a liberal or progressive newspaper, but its political stance is more complex and nuanced. Here’s a breakdown:
<span style="color:#323232;">Historical context: The Times was founded as a conservative newspaper in 1851, and it maintained a conservative editorial stance until the early 20th century. However, during the 1960s and 1970s, the paper began to shift towards a more liberal perspective, reflecting the changing values and attitudes of the time.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Editorial board: The New York Times’s editorial board has historically been liberal, but not uniformly so. While it has supported progressive causes, such as women’s suffrage, civil rights, and environmental protection, it has also endorsed conservative candidates and policies on occasion.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Columnists and opinion writers: The Times features a range of opinion writers and columnists, including liberal voices like Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Charles Blow, as well as conservative voices like Bret Stephens and David Brooks. This diversity of opinion reflects the paper’s commitment to presenting a range of perspectives.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Coverage and reporting: The Times is known for its in-depth reporting and investigative journalism, which often focuses on issues like government corruption, corporate malfeasance, and social justice. While this coverage can be seen as liberal-leaning, it is also driven by a commitment to fact-based reporting and a desire to hold those in power accountable.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Subscriber demographics: According to Vox, The New York Times’s subscribers skew “older, richer, whiter, and more liberal” than the general population of the United States. This may contribute to the perception that the paper is liberal, but it’s essential to note that the paper’s editorial stance is not solely determined by its subscriber demographics.
</span>
In conclusion, while The New York Times has a liberal bent, it is not a uniformly liberal or conservative paper. Its editorial stance is shaped by a complex interplay of historical context, editorial board perspectives, and the diverse range of voices and opinions presented in its pages. ----Brave Search
This is the NYT literally apologizing for their massive fuckups in the lead up to the War in Iraq where they basically just accepted the Party Line of what was going on. Democrats fell in line as to not be viewed as “soft on terror.”
They took Republican administration officials at their word and didn’t do anymore digging.
…but sure hyping up a war pushed by a Republican administration based on lies made up by that same administration is soooooooo liberal.
is the new york times a liberal or conservative paper
The New York Times is often perceived as a liberal or progressive newspaper, but its political stance is more complex and nuanced. Here’s a breakdown:
<span style="color:#323232;">Historical context: The Times was founded as a conservative newspaper in 1851, and it maintained a conservative editorial stance until the early 20th century. However, during the 1960s and 1970s, the paper began to shift towards a more liberal perspective, reflecting the changing values and attitudes of the time.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Editorial board: The New York Times’s editorial board has historically been liberal, but not uniformly so. While it has supported progressive causes, such as women’s suffrage, civil rights, and environmental protection, it has also endorsed conservative candidates and policies on occasion.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Columnists and opinion writers: The Times features a range of opinion writers and columnists, including liberal voices like Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Charles Blow, as well as conservative voices like Bret Stephens and David Brooks. This diversity of opinion reflects the paper’s commitment to presenting a range of perspectives.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Coverage and reporting: The Times is known for its in-depth reporting and investigative journalism, which often focuses on issues like government corruption, corporate malfeasance, and social justice. While this coverage can be seen as liberal-leaning, it is also driven by a commitment to fact-based reporting and a desire to hold those in power accountable.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Subscriber demographics: According to Vox, The New York Times’s subscribers skew “older, richer, whiter, and more liberal” than the general population of the United States. This may contribute to the perception that the paper is liberal, but it’s essential to note that the paper’s editorial stance is not solely determined by its subscriber demographics.
</span>
In conclusion, while The New York Times has a liberal bent, it is not a uniformly liberal or conservative paper. Its editorial stance is shaped by a complex interplay of historical context, editorial board perspectives, and the diverse range of voices and opinions presented in its pages. ----Brave Search
Man, maybe you’re getting downvoted hard because you’re busy using an AI to do your fucking thinking for you instead of digging up relevant information yourself to prove it.
Nice attempt at sidestepping how often they capitulate to Republican administrations.
I guess the NYT definitely didn’t hype us up for war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nope, never.
The NYT never breathlessly repeated the accusations of Weapons of Mass Destruction without questioning their sources as to the validity of those claims, yup.
Find something that’s less than 20 years old. That’s such a dumb argument anyway. 99% of the news agencies in America at that time wanted to go to war. Everyone wanted revenge for what had happened.
No, it’s because you structure your points into dog shit. Narrative aside…. Your argument is terribly weak and everyone is far too busy to donate their free time as a pittance to you getting a clue.
Signed - someone with a normal level of perception
The Dems really messed up imo by not screwing the others out of primaries and debates with Biden. They totally rigged it for Biden and now they don’t have much choice but to keep trying to push forward, but they knew what they were getting into. They’ve known Biden wasn’t well for a long time
Exactly, the moment to replace him was from the get-go. Now we’re logistically in too deep without splitting the entire party and essentially just handing the win to Trump. (Thanks so much DNC, it’s totally clear you know better than the voters in your own party. /s)
I blame ineffectual Democrats who are more concerned with their power inside their own party for the rise of fascism as much as the fascists themselves, because their fucking buffoonery and chicanery literally enable the fascist Republican crime spree.
I mean fuck, look how long they carted out Dianne Feinstein pretending she was still a functional human being instead of just running anyone the fuck else.
How often does either party primary an incumbent president? Wikipedia only lists five notable one. And also has this little factoid that shows it usually backfires for the party.
Since the advent of the modern primary election system in 1972, an incumbent president has never been defeated by a primary challenger, though every president who faced a strong primary challenge went on to be defeated in the general election.
Excellent point, I wasn’t aware of that one. Not that we should always treat the past as indicative of the future, but rather, it’s clear that choosing such a path is playing with fire. For a litany of reasons.
Sadly, with Trump, we can’t afford to play with fire, period.
They are fine with Trump pulling the country further to the right and lowering the bar for 2028. Whatever they have to do to keep from moving left with all the poors.
Garbage article. Trump passed a crime bill President Donald Trump signed the First Step Act into law in 2018, a bipartisan bill aimed at reforming the criminal justice system. The act was a significant step towards addressing the issues of mass incarceration, sentencing reform, and reentry programs.
Key Provisions:
<span style="color:#323232;">Eliminated the “three strikes” life sentencing provision for some offenses
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Expanded judges’ discretion in sentencing for non-violent crimes
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Made the sentencing guidelines of the Obama-era Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactive
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Required the Attorney General to develop a risk and needs assessment system to assess the recidivism risk and criminogenic needs of federal prisoners
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Provided funding for rehabilitative programs to help inmates successfully reenter society
</span>
Impact:
<span style="color:#323232;">The First Step Act has helped to reduce the number of people in federal prison
</span><span style="color:#323232;">The act has also expanded access to rehabilitative programs, which has led to a decrease in recidivism rates
</span><span style="color:#323232;">The law has provided a second chance for many individuals who were previously incarcerated, allowing them to reintegrate into society and find employment
</span>
It also has teenage girls date raping their dad. Instructions on how to give an abortion, the punishment of a pregnancy being lost through intentional means, which is far less than the punishment for murder, at least five genders, a man being punished by God for FAILING to nut in his brothers wife, which is LAW, God doing horrible shit to Job just to have a laugh, and Jesus going hard against a fruit tree even though the time of figs was not.
I can forgive Jesus since he also saw a bunch of moneylenders and just braided a whip right then and there to fuck them up. Another little tale Christians deliberately do not read.
I like how they come up with bizarre excuses to believe the clear opposite of what Jesus taught. '‘No no the gate of the city wall was called the ‘eye of the needle’ camels DID fit!’
Idk if this post is against the rules (and if it is I will gladly remove it) but I’ve seen a lot of discussion on the debate but not the video itself. As I watched most of it live, I think that it’s important that people can watch and form their own opinions on the whole thing and not just snippets, memes, or other peoples’ views.
If Biden gets re-elected, and behind the scenes it’s really Kamala Harris and/or Jill Biden in charge… I’m OK with that. Trump will accelerate all the bad things. From climate change to hollowing out the working class to kissing Putin’s ass and worse.
In the last year I have switched to all cast iron, carbon steel, and stainless steel for all my pots and pans.
No Teflon or “non-stick” coated garbage for me. Properly seasoned and cared for cast iron, carbon, or stainless steel will all be nearly as good as a “non-stick” pan and doesn’t have the risk factor.
Recently, non-stick pans have been released that supposedly are safer, but I don’t really feel like trusting billion dollar corpos to not lie for the 20th time about that, not when there are fantastic alternatives.
Non-stick cookware isn’t a significant source of PFAS exposure because while technically a PFAS, PTFE is a stable polymer. This is important because you might have replaced your cookware and feel safe while not realizing that the sofa and the rug in your home are spewing PFAS in the air every time you brush against them. I threw out a nice sofa because of this. Furniture and carpets are the main source for residential PFAS exposure. Unless your water is super contaminated of course.
While true, I’m discussing the significance of exposure. That is what amount you can get into your body from different sources and the appropriate attention they should receive. PFAS in PTFE are residues from shit manufacturing. Even when they’re present, the amounts aren’t large. Stain-resistant furniture and carpets on the other hand are literally laced with PFAS to achieve this. So are most water resistant jackets. Household upholstery sprays like Scotchgard had PFOS as their active ingredient. Not sure what PFAS they use today. I know of multiple people who read a few titles about PFAS, replaced their cookware and kept laying naked on their PFAS-laden couches until I alerted them to it.
They may be owned by Cox Enterprises but “While the newspaper is owned by a private company, its news decisions are made by the journalists in the AJC’s newsroom.” www.ajc.com/…/DT6HW7HAYVFG7N2N6TIIHHTTVE/
And you know that’s true because they told you it’s true and why would they say otherwise unless their parent company had some sort of political agenda? But looking at those donations, can we truly say they have a political agenda? They seem like they’re solid centrists to me what with all those donations to Republicans and their groups.
They donated to one Democrat. The other thing that is listed as blue is an organization that wants more queer politicians of any political stripe in the United States. But I suppose anything that promotes queer people as human and needing representation is just part of the “woke mind virus,” so you’ve convinced me. Cox is 100% communist.
Synema is not a Democrat, and it says so right there on the linked page. She switched to Independent after righteously screwing the party along with Manchin. For what it’s worth, Manchin changed to Independent as well.
Ss the atlanta journal-constitution a liberal newspaper
According to the search results, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is considered to be slightly Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that lightly skew liberal. Additionally, it is rated as High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.
Only if by “liberal” you mean what it means everywhere else in the U.S.
And you might as well link to Media Bias Fact Check if you’re going to paste from it. Which would be the company that’s become very pro-Israel as of late. Not exactly a position for “liberals” in America, as your sort likes to call everyone to the left of Trump.
Here’s the NYT apologizing for their massive fuckups in the leadup to the War in Iraq because they were too busy NOT questioning anything the Bush administration had to say and were busy covering up stories for them. WHOOPSIE DOODLES.
What’s this? The architect of the 1994 crime bill who helped the Dems get elected on a platform further right than the GOP on policing and prisons is pro-police? Huh. TIL.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.