While I'm under no illusions that Biden is my friend, in the current political climate, I can't shake the feeling that he's my friendliest enemy.
Can you shed any more light on that 1990 business?
While I have no familiarity with it, the circumstances suggest that it's possible that the added clause was added as a bit of trade-off to other members of Congress to get the crime bill over the finish line. Not that that makes it any less bitter a pill for borrowers, but if that's how it happened, that's much less "Biden hates borrowers" and much more the political game in DC.
I mean...she worked on campaigns for figures that we all recognize. For races where there's only one person in the whole country who will win...every four years.
Not everyone can win. Dan Marino never won a super bowl.
Most of us can't say we've had more recognizable work than her.
Israel-Gaza conflict aside...what makes you unhappy about voting for him?
I have to admit that I wasn't thrilled about voting for him in 2020, but I also have to admit that in the intervening years he has at the very least met my expectations in most areas, and shockingly, he's exceeded them in a few areas.
As I get older, I've learned from experience to temper my expectations in a president, and with those adjusted expectations, I am surprised to find myself feeling better about voting for Biden in 2024 than I did four years ago.
I don't disagree...but the party-line Democrats have been telling progressives exactly that since the Clinton administration.
Again, to be clear: I'm happily voting Biden this November, but the Democratic party has become very good at doing just enough to keep their core loyal while also doing nowhere near enough to keep the country out of constant existential peril, effectively cultivating that crisis as a (pardon the pun) trump card that they then use to tell progressives "what you want is less important than the current crisis! Just go along with us in this election and we pinky swear to do more for your causes!".
They know if they move left they'll be displaced by a combination of progressive candidates and centrists, so they have basically adopted the strategy of keeping the right just dangerous enough to be credible while keeping their left flank secured with a drip feed of snail's pace "progress".
Not to mention the entire premise of the post being, essentially, "I don't approve of the entertainment my sibling chooses to consume. Please make suggestions for me as to other entertainment that I can then use to regulate said adult sibling, removing their entertainment that I don't like and forcing them to consume something I find more acceptable."
Like...I think Rogan's whole thing is stupid and most I've talked to who like his stuff are similarly ridiculous...but to go from that to full out "I plan to take it away from them and force them to do something I find more acceptable" is really quite a leap.
I don't disagree, but that bigger picture sentiment isn't keeping the lights on at Joe's house.
For the record: I am completely against the notion that we should stifle technical progress to preserve jobs and the status quo, but I just also feel it's something that we owe it to ourselves as a society to manage that issue alongside the progress so nobody gets left behind.
That's how we ended up with the solidly blue rust belt turning very purple over the past 50 years, and a state of coal miners like West Virginia becoming blood red.
Sure, but I'd imagine that Joe the Bricklayer may have a slightly different reaction when you tell him the exciting news that he doesn't have to lay bricks anymore because a robot can do it.
Explains the irritability.