Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[former player]

I think I'd be more worried about someone passing a Russian propagandist off as mainstream US news than I would a light hearted commentary bringing the Russian propagandist to wider notice.  The two things don't seem equivalent to me.

[nereo]

I also think it's a little silly to compare MSNBC and FoxNews in general.

Perhaps for someone who watches one or the other or both this is true. But as someone who has no idea who any of these people are, I lop them all into the same bucket. From reading here it sounds like these are some sort of political puppets. People seem to like to watch their favored puppet so they get reinforcement that their beliefs are right, and watch their unfavored puppet so they can get reinforcement that other's beliefs are wrong.

I mean, if you admit you have no idea who any of these people are, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight, does it? Tossing everything into the same bucket out of a position of ignorance doesn't make much logical sense, and it's pretty hard to be convinced by your argument as a result.

Yup.  I also wouldn’t call either a ‘political puppet’. Puppets are those that are told what to say and how to say it by the political leader in charge. Regardless of your opinions on either, it doesn’t seem like this applies. Both appear driven by ratings above all else. If anything Trump seemed to be repeatedly influenced by Carlson/Hannity.  I haven’t seen Biden reference Maddow before but it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s kept aware of what she says on her show. 

[pecunia]

I also think it's a little silly to compare MSNBC and FoxNews in general.

Perhaps for someone who watches one or the other or both this is true. But as someone who has no idea who any of these people are, I lop them all into the same bucket. From reading here it sounds like these are some sort of political puppets. People seem to like to watch their favored puppet so they get reinforcement that their beliefs are right, and watch their unfavored puppet so they can get reinforcement that other's beliefs are wrong.

I'll bet they have the same sponsors.  If they are ultimately paid by the same people,.......

[JoePublic3.14]

I also think it's a little silly to compare MSNBC and FoxNews in general.

Perhaps for someone who watches one or the other or both this is true. But as someone who has no idea who any of these people are, I lop them all into the same bucket. From reading here it sounds like these are some sort of political puppets. People seem to like to watch their favored puppet so they get reinforcement that their beliefs are right, and watch their unfavored puppet so they can get reinforcement that other's beliefs are wrong.

I mean, if you admit you have no idea who any of these people are, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight, does it? Tossing everything into the same bucket out of a position of ignorance doesn't make much logical sense, and it's pretty hard to be convinced by your argument as a result.

A dismissive attitude like this is something I feel is holding back some groups trying to get changes done. I wasn’t trying to make an argument, I was pointing out a point of view. Dismissing my point of view is at your peril (if you want me to try and understand your side and perhaps ease your way. Not the case here of course directly, but just a general observation.)

[Kris]

I also think it's a little silly to compare MSNBC and FoxNews in general.

Perhaps for someone who watches one or the other or both this is true. But as someone who has no idea who any of these people are, I lop them all into the same bucket. From reading here it sounds like these are some sort of political puppets. People seem to like to watch their favored puppet so they get reinforcement that their beliefs are right, and watch their unfavored puppet so they can get reinforcement that other's beliefs are wrong.

I mean, if you admit you have no idea who any of these people are, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight, does it? Tossing everything into the same bucket out of a position of ignorance doesn't make much logical sense, and it's pretty hard to be convinced by your argument as a result.

A dismissive attitude like this is something I feel is holding back some groups trying to get changes done. I wasn’t trying to make an argument, I was pointing out a point of view. Dismissing my point of view is at your peril (if you want me to try and understand your side and perhaps ease your way. Not the case here of course directly, but just a general observation.)

My “peril”?

Lmao

No, I was just pointing out that your opinion is unsupported by basically anything. By your own admission.

[Michael in ABQ]

I also think it's a little silly to compare MSNBC and FoxNews in general.

Perhaps for someone who watches one or the other or both this is true. But as someone who has no idea who any of these people are, I lop them all into the same bucket. From reading here it sounds like these are some sort of political puppets. People seem to like to watch their favored puppet so they get reinforcement that their beliefs are right, and watch their unfavored puppet so they can get reinforcement that other's beliefs are wrong.

No you missed the point. If someone is on your side they're right and if they're on the other side they're wrong.

Tribalism makes everything so much simpler.


If someone truly thinks MSNBC is fundamentally any different than Fox News (partisan entertainment framed as "news") you should take a look at your own biases and assumptions. 

[pecunia]

I also think it's a little silly to compare MSNBC and FoxNews in general.

Perhaps for someone who watches one or the other or both this is true. But as someone who has no idea who any of these people are, I lop them all into the same bucket. From reading here it sounds like these are some sort of political puppets. People seem to like to watch their favored puppet so they get reinforcement that their beliefs are right, and watch their unfavored puppet so they can get reinforcement that other's beliefs are wrong.

No you missed the point. If someone is on your side they're right and if they're on the other side they're wrong.

Tribalism makes everything so much simpler.


If someone truly thinks MSNBC is fundamentally any different than Fox News (partisan entertainment framed as "news") you should take a look at your own biases and assumptions.

You are soooo right.  They are both there to make money for their investors.  They will tell their watchers what they want to hear in the same manner as a rich man's Toadie will tell him what he wants to hear.  You have it figured out.

[Shane]

MSNBC observed how much money Fox was making with their highly-partisan 'news' programs and decided to copy them. Matt Taibbi's excellent book Hate Inc describes how our 'news' media have changed from the days when they were required by law to at least make an attempt to present both sides of issues to what we have today.

[nereo]

MSNBC observed how much money Fox was making with their highly-partisan 'news' programs and decided to copy them. Matt Taibbi's excellent book Hate Inc describes how our 'news' media have changed from the days when they were required by law to at least make an attempt to present both sides of issues to what we have today.

When were news organizations “required by law to … present both sides of issues”?  Which laws required this, and when were they repealed?

[bacchi]

MSNBC observed how much money Fox was making with their highly-partisan 'news' programs and decided to copy them. Matt Taibbi's excellent book Hate Inc describes how our 'news' media have changed from the days when they were required by law to at least make an attempt to present both sides of issues to what we have today.

When were news organizations “required by law to … present both sides of issues”?  Which laws required this, and when were they repealed?

Reagan's FCC appointees and the Fairness Doctrine

It's unclear if the regulation would have applied to cable news since the regulation clearly mentioned "broadcasters."

[pecunia]

MSNBC observed how much money Fox was making with their highly-partisan 'news' programs and decided to copy them. Matt Taibbi's excellent book Hate Inc describes how our 'news' media have changed from the days when they were required by law to at least make an attempt to present both sides of issues to what we have today.

When were news organizations “required by law to … present both sides of issues”?  Which laws required this, and when were they repealed?

Reagan's FCC appointees and the Fairness Doctrine

It's unclear if the regulation would have applied to cable news since the regulation clearly mentioned "broadcasters."

"Ronald Reagan's FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine which, since 1949, required media to present both sides' opinions in the rare event they weren't just reporting straight news," the post explained. 

Maybe, there was less fake news in the days of black and white TV.  I'm not too sure you could believe the moonshot thing today.

[nereo]

MSNBC observed how much money Fox was making with their highly-partisan 'news' programs and decided to copy them. Matt Taibbi's excellent book Hate Inc describes how our 'news' media have changed from the days when they were required by law to at least make an attempt to present both sides of issues to what we have today.

When were news organizations “required by law to … present both sides of issues”?  Which laws required this, and when were they repealed?

Reagan's FCC appointees and the Fairness Doctrine

It's unclear if the regulation would have applied to cable news since the regulation clearly mentioned "broadcasters."

Thanks.

[Shane]

This WaPo article from February, 2021 gives a little background on the Fairness Doctrine:

The long-departed Fairness Doctrine has returned — at least in the minds of many who love or hate it. Arguably the most famous — and most maligned and misunderstood — media policy ever enacted in the United States, its long, strange history is generally not well known. Yet it holds important implications for growing concerns about disinformation, ownership and control of our news and information systems, the rights of audiences and the future of our democracy.

What would later be called the Fairness Doctrine originated in 1949 at the tail end of a media reform movement whose initial goal — going back to the 1930s — was to carve out a noncommercial sector on the nation’s airwaves.

Having lost that battle, New Deal policymakers and activists tried to break up and rein in media monopolies with public interest regulations to curb the worst excesses — from nonstop advertising to a lack of public affairs programming — of a profit-driven, oligopolistic broadcast system.

Although many proponents today see the Fairness Doctrine as a high-water mark of enlightened media policy — and wishfully call for its return — most postwar advocates saw it as a consolation prize in place of stronger regulations that checked broadcasters’ political power and kept tighter restrictions on editorializing. Nonetheless, the Doctrine did incentivize broadcasters to be socially responsible and offer the public a range of opinion on important issues.

The Fairness Doctrine has often been conflated with the “equal time” rule for political candidates. But its purpose was more expansive — and more progressive — than simply requiring two sides to a debate. It mandated that broadcasters cover issues of public importance in ways that presented opposing perspectives, operating under a view of free speech that privileged an audience’s rights to diverse voices and views over broadcasters’ narrower First Amendment protections.

Such content regulations were based largely on the “scarcity rationale.” The limited availability of radio and television spectrum justified government-enforced public interest rules on those who received exclusive licenses to the public airwaves. More than simply addressing technical interference issues, this arrangement assumed that the tremendous political power wielded over our core media infrastructures by large commercial firms threatened democratic society by potentially skewing the nation’s discourse. Then as now, a handful of corporations dominated the entire media system.

A media reform coalition — including grass-roots activists, labor unions and New Deal policymakers — was especially concerned about the combination of highly concentrated corporate power within an extremely commercialized media system. Beginning in the mid-1940s, they witnessed what seemed like a gradual purge of left-leaning radio hosts from the airwaves — oftentimes caused by corporate sponsors withdrawing their support — and they feared the social consequences of giving commercially-driven broadcasters free rein. Although they initially criticized the Fairness Doctrine as an insufficiently strong regulation, many eventually came to see it as an important equalizer.

While the Fairness Doctrine’s overall effectiveness and enforceability are debatable, it encouraged sensitivity toward programming biases and empowered local communities to hold broadcasters accountable. Activists used the Fairness Doctrine to help combat racist broadcasting, most notably in the WLBT-TV case when a pro-segregationist broadcaster in Jackson, Miss., was ultimately driven off the air in the late 1960s. The Fairness Doctrine also enabled activists to contest advertising for tobacco and other harmful products. From the 1960s into the ’80s, consumer advocates like Ralph Nader saw it as an essential means for publicizing causes in the nation’s media.

Over the decades, many conservatives also came to value the Fairness Doctrine. Phyllis Schlafly was a major proponent and used the doctrine to gain media coverage for her Anti-Equal Rights Amendment campaign. Conservative activists like Reed Irvine saw it as a tool for including conservative voices within a media landscape that they perceived as predominantly liberal. Even right-wing groups such as Accuracy in Media and the NRA supported it well into the 1980s.

Certainly not all conservatives championed the Doctrine, seeing it instead as a weapon to be used against them. In one exceptional case in 1973, the Federal Communications Commission declined to renew the radio license of outspoken conservative Christian broadcaster Carl McIntire because of Fairness Doctrine violations. Political elites also tried to exploit the Doctrine to punish adversaries and advance their political agendas, as exemplified by the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations.

But the Doctrine also protected the public rights of audiences to diverse information. In 1969, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Fairness Doctrine’s constitutional basis in its Red Lion decision, determining that “t is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.” Privileging public access to a rich marketplace of ideas over broadcasters’ rights was significant — rarely have positive freedoms been so clearly articulated in U.S. legal and policy discourse.

By the 1980s, however, the tide had begun to turn against the Fairness Doctrine as fealty to market fundamentalism and conservative ideology were ascendant. Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia weakened it in a 1986 DC Circuit Court decision. In 1987, the FCC officially repealed the Fairness Doctrine — though it wasn’t fully removed from the books until 2011. Congress tried to codify the Fairness Doctrine into law, supported even by many conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms. But President Ronald Reagan vetoed their efforts.

Ending the Fairness Doctrine was one key factor leading to an explosion of right-wing radio programming in the 1990s — though sometimes an overstated one. After Rush Limbaugh, whose rise to stardom catalyzed the expansion of right-wing talk radio, campaigned against reinstating the Doctrine — calling it an attempt to “Hush Rush” — conservatives began deploying it as rhetorical code for regulatory overreach, branding any public interest initiative as “a new Fairness Doctrine.” Throughout the 2000s, market libertarians invoked it against the most benign and unrelated media policies, including the Internet safeguard known as net neutrality, calling it “a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet” — a ludicrous claim that Donald Trump also made on Twitter.

Over time, even many liberals began distancing themselves from the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives had so successfully stigmatized the Doctrine that it had become, at best, a distraction. Furthermore, many activists preferred more structural changes — like ensuring diversity of media ownership and control — instead of content-based regulations.

Today the Fairness Doctrine is even less plausible as a ready-made solution for solving modern media problems. For starters, it pertained only to broadcast media, so extending it to cable outlets would require an entirely new regulatory framework. And it’s unfathomable to strictly apply it to social media platforms for numerous legal and practical reasons.

But summarily dismissing the Fairness Doctrine is also mistaken. It not only implicitly validates the libertarian contention that government has no legitimate role in regulating media markets to prevent social harms, it also obscures the broader historical context that shows how the Doctrine was a reasonable, if flawed, attempt to ensure media diversity. Early campaigners sought to prevent broadcasting from becoming saturated by reactionary voices that drove profits but hurt democracy. Their aim was to preempt biased and homogenized programming that typically occurs when corporate monopolies dominate highly commercialized media systems.

Arguments over the Fairness Doctrine often serve as proxy debates for larger issues, including the legitimacy of government’s affirmative duty to protect positive freedoms. But regulations that promote diversity aren’t tantamount to censorship. Other democratic nations — such as Britain with its impartiality rules — have long relied on similar content regulations without sliding into totalitarianism. All democracies must try to counteract forms of “market censorship” that afflict profit-driven systems, favoring some voices while filtering out others.

Today, like the 1940s, we must confront dangerous concentrations of unaccountable media power and attendant disinformation about public health, elections, insurrections and other life and death issues. Although imposing dubious regulatory corrections onto run-amok commercial systems are of limited utility, new public interest obligations for our digital age could be part of the solution. Ultimately, however, publicly owned and democratized alternatives to profit-driven outlets are a more systemic — and more permanent — fix.

If nothing else, recent events should cause us to reexamine our assumptions about the relationships between the First Amendment, content regulation, corporate power and any hope for a democratic future. Revisiting historical debates about the Fairness Doctrine can help us think through these wicked problems.

[pecunia]

This WaPo article from February, 2021 gives a little background on the Fairness Doctrine:

- SNIP -

Today, like the 1940s, we must confront dangerous concentrations of unaccountable media power and attendant disinformation about public health, elections, insurrections and other life and death issues. Although imposing dubious regulatory corrections onto run-amok commercial systems are of limited utility, new public interest obligations for our digital age could be part of the solution. Ultimately, however, publicly owned and democratized alternatives to profit-driven outlets are a more systemic — and more permanent — fix.

If nothing else, recent events should cause us to reexamine our assumptions about the relationships between the First Amendment, content regulation, corporate power and any hope for a democratic future. Revisiting historical debates about the Fairness Doctrine can help us think through these wicked problems.

-SNIP -

Good article - This certainly does verify why folks have been so exposed to all the right wing propaganda all these years.  Lots of money out there to tell one side of many stories.  Not so much to tell the other side of things.  The sad thing is that it's been around so long that people don't even know they are being brainwashed.  When I was a kid, they used to talk about people being brainwashed in North Korea and how we had a free press and stuff.  Well,..........maybe not so much today.  Isn't that at least worth thinking about a bit?

[FIPurpose]

Article on CNN today: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/13/politics/cnn-poll-biden-trump-2024/index.html

Both Trump and Biden only have about 50% support from their respective bases on a 2024 run. Compare that to Obama's support for renomination (80%) and Trump's (77%)

2024 may end up being another 2016 repeat of 2 disliked characters.

Anyone want to take odds on whether Biden or Trump will be the nominee?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Article on CNN today: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/13/politics/cnn-poll-biden-trump-2024/index.html

Both Trump and Biden only have about 50% support from their respective bases on a 2024 run. Compare that to Obama's support for renomination (80%) and Trump's (77%)

2024 may end up being another 2016 repeat of 2 disliked characters.

Anyone want to take odds on whether Biden or Trump will be the nominee?

I can't say that neither will be on there, but I feel pretty strongly that the ticket will not include both....at least I sincerely hope not.

[sui generis]

Article on CNN today: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/13/politics/cnn-poll-biden-trump-2024/index.html

Both Trump and Biden only have about 50% support from their respective bases on a 2024 run. Compare that to Obama's support for renomination (80%) and Trump's (77%)

2024 may end up being another 2016 repeat of 2 disliked characters.

Anyone want to take odds on whether Biden or Trump will be the nominee?

I can't say that neither will be on there, but I feel pretty strongly that the ticket will not include both....at least I sincerely hope not.

Actually, I think it would be really awesome if the ticket included both of them....as improbable as it is.  It would really unite America around the *other* ticket and we definitely could use some uniting around something right now.

[Kris]

Article on CNN today: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/13/politics/cnn-poll-biden-trump-2024/index.html

Both Trump and Biden only have about 50% support from their respective bases on a 2024 run. Compare that to Obama's support for renomination (80%) and Trump's (77%)

2024 may end up being another 2016 repeat of 2 disliked characters.

Anyone want to take odds on whether Biden or Trump will be the nominee?

I can't say that neither will be on there, but I feel pretty strongly that the ticket will not include both....at least I sincerely hope not.

On the Dem side, I’m pretty bummed either way. Because either it’s Biden, or the DNC will push Kamala super-hard, and I’m just not feeling her as prez.

On the Republican side, it will be either Trump, or someone who learned all the lessons from Trump but is smarter. So their nominee will be an amoral/immoral, grotesque authoritarian who panders to the worst in conservatives.

Not looking forward to 2024.

[pecunia]

- SNIP -

On the Dem side, I’m pretty bummed either way. Because either it’s Biden, or the DNC will push Kamala super-hard, and I’m just not feeling her as prez.

On the Republican side, it will be either Trump, or someone who learned all the lessons from Trump but is smarter. So their nominee will be an amoral/immoral, grotesque authoritarian who panders to the worst in conservatives.

Not looking forward to 2024.

Biden was born on Nov 20, 1942.  If he ran, he would be 82.  I don't think he will be running.

[nereo]

- SNIP -

On the Dem side, I’m pretty bummed either way. Because either it’s Biden, or the DNC will push Kamala super-hard, and I’m just not feeling her as prez.

On the Republican side, it will be either Trump, or someone who learned all the lessons from Trump but is smarter. So their nominee will be an amoral/immoral, grotesque authoritarian who panders to the worst in conservatives.

Not looking forward to 2024.

Biden was born on Nov 20, 1942.  If he ran, he would be 82.  I don't think he will be running.

He says he will "barring unforeseen obstacles".  We shall see. 

He certainly wouldn't be the oldest head of state, nor anywhere close to the oldest elected federal official. Plenty of octogenarians and even septuagenarians in leadership roles, past and present, domestic and foreign.

[sixwings]

yeah i dont think biden is running again, he is just saying that he is so he doesn't get lame-ducked for the next 2 years. Maybe the DNC will push Kamala, but they did with HRC in 2008 too. 2 years is a lot of time for new candidates to emerge, although the dem bench seems really weak...

[tooqk4u22]

yeah i dont think biden is running again, he is just saying that he is so he doesn't get lame-ducked for the next 2 years. Maybe the DNC will push Kamala, but they did with HRC in 2008 too. 2 years is a lot of time for new candidates to emerge, although the dem bench seems really weak...

Benches are week on both sides of the aisle....I hope the big orange guy becomes incapacitated/incarcerated between now and then.

[PDXTabs]

On Tuesday, the White House said it could scrap federal gasoline taxes in a bid to bring immediate relief to drivers.
...
“That we’re even talking about this shows that there’s weak political support for decarbonisation policies,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy. “If you’re willing to kill an 18.4 cent a gallon [tax] with minimal real impact on consumption . . . how in the world are you going to be willing to force consumers into electric vehicles or more fuel-efficient cars?” - FT: Biden’s petrol problem: president eyes gas tax cut as pump prices soar

[nereo]

On Tuesday, the White House said it could scrap federal gasoline taxes in a bid to bring immediate relief to drivers.
...
“That we’re even talking about this shows that there’s weak political support for decarbonisation policies,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy. “If you’re willing to kill an 18.4 cent a gallon [tax] with minimal real impact on consumption . . . how in the world are you going to be willing to force consumers into electric vehicles or more fuel-efficient cars?” - FT: Biden’s petrol problem: president eyes gas tax cut as pump prices soar

The use of the US petro-reserve and the federal gasoline tax as crowd-pleasers during times of high prices really irks me. Biden's now tried to leverage both (though he's far from the first).  IMO we need a much higher gasoline tax as it hasn't been increased in almost 30 years and would be an effective way of pushing us towards the lower-carbon society most of us agree we ultimately want. If 18.5¢/gallon is the difference between solvency or not you're on pretty terrible footing regardless.

[GuitarStv]

On Tuesday, the White House said it could scrap federal gasoline taxes in a bid to bring immediate relief to drivers.
...
“That we’re even talking about this shows that there’s weak political support for decarbonisation policies,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy. “If you’re willing to kill an 18.4 cent a gallon [tax] with minimal real impact on consumption . . . how in the world are you going to be willing to force consumers into electric vehicles or more fuel-efficient cars?” - FT: Biden’s petrol problem: president eyes gas tax cut as pump prices soar

The use of the US petro-reserve and the federal gasoline tax as crowd-pleasers during times of high prices really irks me. Biden's now tried to leverage both (though he's far from the first).  IMO we need a much higher gasoline tax as it hasn't been increased in almost 30 years and would be an effective way of pushing us towards the lower-carbon society most of us agree we ultimately want. If 18.5¢/gallon is the difference between solvency or not you're on pretty terrible footing regardless.

Advocating for higher tax on gas seems to be a near certain way to ensure that you're voted out of office in the US and Canada.

[nereo]

On Tuesday, the White House said it could scrap federal gasoline taxes in a bid to bring immediate relief to drivers.
...
“That we’re even talking about this shows that there’s weak political support for decarbonisation policies,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy. “If you’re willing to kill an 18.4 cent a gallon [tax] with minimal real impact on consumption . . . how in the world are you going to be willing to force consumers into electric vehicles or more fuel-efficient cars?” - FT: Biden’s petrol problem: president eyes gas tax cut as pump prices soar

The use of the US petro-reserve and the federal gasoline tax as crowd-pleasers during times of high prices really irks me. Biden's now tried to leverage both (though he's far from the first).  IMO we need a much higher gasoline tax as it hasn't been increased in almost 30 years and would be an effective way of pushing us towards the lower-carbon society most of us agree we ultimately want. If 18.5¢/gallon is the difference between solvency or not you're on pretty terrible footing regardless.

Advocating for higher tax on gas seems to be a near certain way to ensure that you're voted out of office in the US and Canada.

Yup.  Which is sadly why it hasn't changed in 30 years despite nearly every economist and transportation authority saying it would be a net benefit to raise the gasoline tax.

[PDXTabs]

On Tuesday, the White House said it could scrap federal gasoline taxes in a bid to bring immediate relief to drivers.
...
“That we’re even talking about this shows that there’s weak political support for decarbonisation policies,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy. “If you’re willing to kill an 18.4 cent a gallon [tax] with minimal real impact on consumption . . . how in the world are you going to be willing to force consumers into electric vehicles or more fuel-efficient cars?” - FT: Biden’s petrol problem: president eyes gas tax cut as pump prices soar

The use of the US petro-reserve and the federal gasoline tax as crowd-pleasers during times of high prices really irks me. Biden's now tried to leverage both (though he's far from the first).  IMO we need a much higher gasoline tax as it hasn't been increased in almost 30 years and would be an effective way of pushing us towards the lower-carbon society most of us agree we ultimately want. If 18.5¢/gallon is the difference between solvency or not you're on pretty terrible footing regardless.

Advocating for higher tax on gas seems to be a near certain way to ensure that you're voted out of office in the US and Canada.

But Biden ran on a platform of not doing this shit. How does alienating your base work out?

I'm 95% sure that the Democrats are going to lose the midterms and the presidency, they may as well actually govern until then.

[tooqk4u22]

On Tuesday, the White House said it could scrap federal gasoline taxes in a bid to bring immediate relief to drivers.
...
“That we’re even talking about this shows that there’s weak political support for decarbonisation policies,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy. “If you’re willing to kill an 18.4 cent a gallon [tax] with minimal real impact on consumption . . . how in the world are you going to be willing to force consumers into electric vehicles or more fuel-efficient cars?” - FT: Biden’s petrol problem: president eyes gas tax cut as pump prices soar

The use of the US petro-reserve and the federal gasoline tax as crowd-pleasers during times of high prices really irks me. Biden's now tried to leverage both (though he's far from the first).  IMO we need a much higher gasoline tax as it hasn't been increased in almost 30 years and would be an effective way of pushing us towards the lower-carbon society most of us agree we ultimately want. If 18.5¢/gallon is the difference between solvency or not you're on pretty terrible footing regardless.

Advocating for higher tax on gas seems to be a near certain way to ensure that you're voted out of office in the US and Canada.

But Biden ran on a platform of not doing this shit. How does alienating your base work out?

I'm 95% sure that the Democrats are going to lose the midterms and the presidency, they may as well actually govern until then.

Gas taxes could be higher like in Europe but it has to be a gradual plan.  The problem is that there is a wide gap between the Democrat elitists who are pushing the green program driving $100k Teslas and the Democrat masses who still rely on carbon fuels for transportation and heating and are at income levels where it matters.   

I also agree that tapping reserves and contemplating a tax amnesty ($0.18 really, are you kidding me and oh yeah those are funds that go into transportation budget....ya know infrastructure, makes sense to cut that).   Not to mention begging OPEC to produce more so it looks like he is holding ground slowing US production.

Hypocrisy at its best, which should be included in the definition of Politician.   

[GuitarStv]

On Tuesday, the White House said it could scrap federal gasoline taxes in a bid to bring immediate relief to drivers.
...
“That we’re even talking about this shows that there’s weak political support for decarbonisation policies,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy. “If you’re willing to kill an 18.4 cent a gallon [tax] with minimal real impact on consumption . . . how in the world are you going to be willing to force consumers into electric vehicles or more fuel-efficient cars?” - FT: Biden’s petrol problem: president eyes gas tax cut as pump prices soar

The use of the US petro-reserve and the federal gasoline tax as crowd-pleasers during times of high prices really irks me. Biden's now tried to leverage both (though he's far from the first).  IMO we need a much higher gasoline tax as it hasn't been increased in almost 30 years and would be an effective way of pushing us towards the lower-carbon society most of us agree we ultimately want. If 18.5¢/gallon is the difference between solvency or not you're on pretty terrible footing regardless.

Advocating for higher tax on gas seems to be a near certain way to ensure that you're voted out of office in the US and Canada.

But Biden ran on a platform of not doing this shit. How does alienating your base work out?

I'm 95% sure that the Democrats are going to lose the midterms and the presidency, they may as well actually govern until then.

Gas taxes could be higher like in Europe but it has to be a gradual plan.  The problem is that there is a wide gap between the Democrat elitists who are pushing the green program driving $100k Teslas and the Democrat masses who still rely on carbon fuels for transportation and heating and are at income levels where it matters.   

I also agree that tapping reserves and contemplating a tax amnesty ($0.18 really, are you kidding me and oh yeah those are funds that go into transportation budget....ya know infrastructure, makes sense to cut that).   Not to mention begging OPEC to produce more so it looks like he is holding ground slowing US production.

Hypocrisy at its best, which should be included in the definition of Politician.

It's really, really, really hard to raise gas prices . . . even slightly.  Once a politician raises gas prices they get skewered as being anti-poor by the left (poor people can't afford these high prices to get to work!) and by the right (government overreach, freedumb to destroy the environment, tax is theft, etc.).  It's a total non-starter, even in very tiny increments.

The way that Trudeau did it (tax gas, then give a rebate for the amount of the tax collected to everyone) is the only way that seems remotely possible to implement . . . and even then there was some pretty heavy handed screaming and gnashing of teeth from conservatives in Canada about the horrors of it.

[pecunia]

I'm really kind of hard on the Chinese.  I don't like slave labor, the Tibet thing and them bullying their neighbors.  However, I can see a government like that having better long term thinking.  I think most people in North America live paycheck to paycheck.  I mean there is the glazed over thing when you talk the climate change thing.

If the Republicans take over again, they won't even acknowledge global warming is a problem.

[PDXTabs]

If the Republicans take over again, they won't even acknowledge global warming is a problem.

Not today's republicans. YouTube: 1990 George HW Bush on Climate Change

[Travis]

The whole reason we needed a massive infrastructure spending bill is because those fuel taxes haven't kept up with cost of building and maintaining our roads and bridges. Even suggesting the fuel tax be suspended is grasping at straws.

[Shane]

I'm really kind of hard on the Chinese.  I don't like slave labor, the Tibet thing and them bullying their neighbors.  However, I can see a government like that having better long term thinking.  I think most people in North America live paycheck to paycheck.  I mean there is the glazed over thing when you talk the climate change thing.

If the Republicans take over again, they won't even acknowledge global warming is a problem.

In 2017, when we visited southern China, almost all scooters and even small delivery 'trucks', appeared to be electric. The difference between southern China and northern Vietnam was like night and day. In Hanoi, you could barely hear yourself think, over the roar of all the motor bike engines. In southern China, you had to be really careful walking around, because almost-silent electric vehicles would sneak up behind you. It was pretty obvious the Chinese government was incentivizing or, more likely, requiring that everyone go electric, whereas, in Vietnam, that wasn't yet the case.

[Shane]

It's pretty sad that a president from the only US political party that generally accepts anthropogenic climate change as fact recently released oil from the national reserves and is talking about cutting federal gas taxes, in order to get Americans to burn MORE gasoline. SMH.

[pecunia]

It's pretty sad that a president from the only US political party that generally accepts anthropogenic climate change as fact recently released oil from the national reserves and is talking about cutting federal gas taxes, in order to get Americans to burn MORE gasoline. SMH.

Yeh - well both people work for the same people and it ain't the voters.

That video from old man Bush was interesting.  I doubt very much we would see something similar today from top GOP people.  Bush was a World War 2 hero.  When the WW2 people led the country, I think there was something there that has been lost today.  Things moved forward when that generation led the country and now things are in reverse.  This is just harmless BS, but,........

[PDXTabs]

I was promised "the most severe sanctions that have ever been imposed" if Russia invaded Ukraine. As of right now Russian oil is not on that list and US oil companies are still free to operate in Russia. This is presumably because of inflation fears. I, personally, chose to contact all of my elected officials about this today.

[Travis]

I was promised "the most severe sanctions that have ever been imposed" if Russia invaded Ukraine. As of right now Russian oil is not on that list and US oil companies are still free to operate in Russia. This is presumably because of inflation fears. I, personally, chose to contact all of my elected officials about this today.

Embargoing Russian energy would sink them more than any other sanction. The problem is that global supply is very tight right now. The world needs every drop that can be pumped.

[Just Joe]

I'm willing to pay more for gas and to stay home more too if it helps put the Russians back within their borders.

[pecunia]

I'm willing to pay more for gas and to stay home more too if it helps put the Russians back within their borders.

If the world does agree to some sort of embargo (highly unlikely), new sources will be found and the price will fall.

[maisymouser]

It's pretty sad that a president from the only US political party that generally accepts anthropogenic climate change as fact recently released oil from the national reserves and is talking about cutting federal gas taxes, in order to get Americans to burn MORE gasoline. SMH.

...there's also the green party?

If we act as though there are only two parties (although effectively there are) I fear that we will never have a chance to expand to a >2 party system in practice. Just being nitpicky but I have voted green party before, it does exist...

[nereo]

It's pretty sad that a president from the only US political party that generally accepts anthropogenic climate change as fact recently released oil from the national reserves and is talking about cutting federal gas taxes, in order to get Americans to burn MORE gasoline. SMH.

...there's also the green party?

If we act as though there are only two parties (although effectively there are) I fear that we will never have a chance to expand to a >2 party system in practice. Just being nitpicky but I have voted green party before, it does exist...

True - there are dozens of parties, and many of them have held positions in the recent past, particularly in local and state legislatures. Of course the procedural manner of the US Senate in particular makes it challenging for third-party candidates to hold any level of substantial power.  That said it hasn’t always been Ds vs Rs.

[FIPurpose]

It's pretty sad that a president from the only US political party that generally accepts anthropogenic climate change as fact recently released oil from the national reserves and is talking about cutting federal gas taxes, in order to get Americans to burn MORE gasoline. SMH.

...there's also the green party?

If we act as though there are only two parties (although effectively there are) I fear that we will never have a chance to expand to a >2 party system in practice. Just being nitpicky but I have voted green party before, it does exist...

Unless congress enacts multi-member districts or raises the number of house members to ~3000 (this is what it'd take to be at parity with the UK or Australian MPs)  then 2 parties is basically all that is possible. That's the game, and trying to force a third party into a system where third parties are systematically doomed to fail will only leave people angry and confused because they don't understand the game.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

It's pretty sad that a president from the only US political party that generally accepts anthropogenic climate change as fact recently released oil from the national reserves and is talking about cutting federal gas taxes, in order to get Americans to burn MORE gasoline. SMH.

Norway has similar cognitive dissonance.  At the end of the day, the world still runs on oil and natural gas and starving that demand doesn't magically, overnight solve any problems...  Therefore, I don't see this as some grand capitulation or straying from the ultimate goal of reducing fossil fuel dependence, and certainly don't see 'throwing Biden out' as a preferred solution...

Edit to add - apparently the stock market loves Biden's actions, so I don't see any willingness from politicians or voters to deviate any time soon...

[talltexan]

It's pretty sad that a president from the only US political party that generally accepts anthropogenic climate change as fact recently released oil from the national reserves and is talking about cutting federal gas taxes, in order to get Americans to burn MORE gasoline. SMH.

...there's also the green party?

If we act as though there are only two parties (although effectively there are) I fear that we will never have a chance to expand to a >2 party system in practice. Just being nitpicky but I have voted green party before, it does exist...

The green party has also caused a lot of damage by fielding Presidential candidates who acted as spoilers in 2000 and 2016.

[nereo]

Does anyone have a good list of the sanctions placed on Russia thus far, both by the USA and by other countries?

I’m not convinced an oil embargo is the best strategy for reasons mentioned above, but I’d like to know what had been done (and it seems like it’s rapidly developing as well)

[partgypsy]

I'm willing to pay more for gas and to stay home more too if it helps put the Russians back within their borders.

me too. But I think us non car-crazy people are in the minority.

[PDXTabs]

I'm willing to pay more for gas and to stay home more too if it helps put the Russians back within their borders.

me too. But I think us non car-crazy people are in the minority. Plus some people need to drive for their jobs. Most people can't run out to buy an electric vehicle to help. Ironically when I had to get work done on my relatively new car, I was basically told I didn't drive my car enough. If I ever get another car I will get an electric.

Some people need Russian troops out of their country to do their jobs. Some people need their outsourcing providers in Kyiv to do their jobs, which is a little hard with all the fighting. But you know, we wouldn't want anyone to in the USA to have to pay more for gas.

[nereo]

I'm willing to pay more for gas and to stay home more too if it helps put the Russians back within their borders.

me too. But I think us non car-crazy people are in the minority. Plus some people need to drive for their jobs. Most people can't run out to buy an electric vehicle to help. Ironically when I had to get work done on my relatively new car, I was basically told I didn't drive my car enough. If I ever get another car I will get an electric.

Some people need Russian troops out of their country to do their jobs. Some people need their outsourcing providers in Kyiv to do their jobs, which is a little hard with all the fighting. But you know, we wouldn't want anyone to in the USA to have to pay more for gas.

Yes, but - is an oil embargo on Russia the best method to achieve those goals?
I’m looking for arguments why that would yield more pressure than the sanctions that (near as I’ve been able to deduce) are more directly aimed at the Kremlin and oligarchs close to Putin.

[PDXTabs]

Yes, but - is an oil embargo on Russia the best method to achieve those goals?
I’m looking for arguments why that would yield more pressure than the sanctions that (near as I’ve been able to deduce) are more directly aimed at the Kremlin and oligarchs close to Putin.

My thesis statement is that a lot of oil companies have oligarch shareholders, MOEX rebounded after we didn't impose oil sanctions, and selling oil/gas is how Russia gets foreign currency to finance their war efforts.

I'd further add that some Republicans like Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy are calling for this option. Apparently there are still some non-Trump GOP members left.

[Shane]

It's pretty sad that a president from the only US political party that generally accepts anthropogenic climate change as fact recently released oil from the national reserves and is talking about cutting federal gas taxes, in order to get Americans to burn MORE gasoline. SMH.

...there's also the green party?

If we act as though there are only two parties (although effectively there are) I fear that we will never have a chance to expand to a >2 party system in practice. Just being nitpicky but I have voted green party before, it does exist...

C.G.P. Grey does a good job in this short (~6minutes) video of explaining The Problem With First Past the Post Voting. TL/DR: Unless Americans choose to fundamentally change the US political system, our country will always only have two (viable) political parties. Fringe parties like the Greens and Libertarians will come and go, but all they do is siphon off votes from one of the two main political parties (Democrats or GOP), usually the party that they are closest to in ideology, i.e., the Libertarian Party takes votes from the GOP and the Greens steal votes from the Democrats. Given our political system, in the end, there will always only be two main parties. Watch the video. It's pretty good.