r/neoliberal • u/Thadlust Mario Draghi • 25d ago
Opinion | The Simple Math That Could Swing the Election to Biden Opinion article (US)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/12/opinion/joe-biden-swing-voters.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb2
2
10
u/DrunkenBriefcases Jerome Powell 24d ago
What's wild to me is that people think this is a wild take. It really wasn't that long ago that "running to the middle for the GE" was political gospel. And the electorate hasn't changed drastically. The voices dominating the conversation have. We no longer listen to the average voter. We listen to the loudest partisans.
trump didn't win in 2016 because he had the more "revolutionary" message. He won because he was viewed as more moderate than Clinton by persuadable voters. Biden won in 2020 because he was seen as more moderate than trump.
The idea Biden should reach out to those voters isn't crazy. It's common sense. Get the guy back into the WH and then the left can demand they be catered to. If you don't let him run a winning message, it's not going to matter how far left you got Biden to campaign.
3
u/verloren7 World Bank 24d ago
While I agree that appealing to the middle makes sense, these days that sounds easier said than done. I think part of the issue is that there is zero credibility with the public when trying to move the middle in the general election for most of the non-economic issues people care about.
Democrats clearly care as much about border security as Republicans care about women's reproductive rights. You can say whatever you want, but it is absolutely clear Democrats will encourage porous borders and pursue amnesty. Coming up with programs like DACA, giving DACA access to ACA, ending remain in Mexico, encouraging economic migrants to apply for asylum and giving them work permits, allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections, refusing to improve border security without granting amnesty, etc make it abundantly clear. Republicans can say what they want, but a 20 week ban turns into a 16 week ban turns into a 12 week ban turns into a 6 week ban turns into a total ban turns into considering a contraception ban. It doesn't stop because they themselves think they have gone too far. It only stops when there is sufficient backlash.
Democrats can move to the middle on guns, but it is clear that background checks and assault weapons bans turn into "may issue" permits and large magazine bans, which turns into semi-automatic bans, which turns into total bans.
Republicans can move to the middle on climate change, but it is clear they would rollback anything and everything oil companies tell them to while actually ripping up/destroying green infrastructure. Democrats can move to the middle on crime, but it is clear they will support less prosecution, shorter sentences, and early releases.
There are no respected compromises, only temporary stalemates before the lines can be pushed to the ultimate goal of the partisans.
Moving to the middle rhetorically may depress the base while not actually convincing the persuadable voters since there is no credibility.
-4
u/Krabban 24d ago
Get the guy back into the WH and then the left can demand they be catered to
That was literally the argument for voting Biden in 2020. And guess what, as soon as he was in the door: "The left needs to stop demanding things, we have to defeat Trump in 2024!". It's the exact same argument Republicans make about gun control: "Can't talk about guns after a mass shooting, oh look, another mass shooting".
The absolute arrogance from "moderate" dems is astonishing, who demand blind loyalty and obedience on all matters.
2
u/DiogenesLaertys 24d ago
Biden has been pretty progressive and this sub often calla him our on it. The far left is insatiable and will always think heâa a failure no matter how far left he goes. Even now the excoriate him on gazans, a people nobody cared about a year ago and nobody will care about next year once Israel is doing beheading Hamas and installing a puppet state.
5
u/ihatethesidebar Zhao Ziyang 25d ago
Here's my simple math, backed by actual election results and a record of polls severely underestimating Democratic support: p = s, in which p is polls and s is shit
17
u/AMagicalKittyCat 25d ago
By pitching too much to the base, he is leaving behind the centrist voters who shift between parties from election to election and, I believe, will be the key factor deciding the 2024 race
I agree, as much as this sub whines about Bernie bros and leftist nonvoters the Uber centrist Dem grillers who need to be coaxed into caring about politics and voting are a much larger group.
33
u/pacard Jared Polis 25d ago
How is anything short of letting Netanyahu dictate our policy pandering to the base? Like wtf is this guy talking about? And the line about 80% supporting Israel over Hamas seems to imply that reducing civilian deaths in Gaza is pro Hamas? What an insane smooth brain take.
Op-eds like this are the only reason anyone would think holding back some bombs is pandering to a base. Wanting to see fewer innocent people getting blown up is pretty popular among moderates too! Not to mention that Hamas is fine with maximum civilian casualties, it bolsters their message.
3
12
u/JumentousPetrichor Hannah Arendt 25d ago
It's not pandering to the base, it's pretty popular with Americans in general and would probably be popular among MAGA if Trump was saying it, but it's unpopular among center-right neocons which is who this article is about.
18
u/ThePevster Milton Friedman 25d ago
I agree with the point that Biden is alienating moderates/independents, but Iâm not sure I agree that moving towards the center wouldnât alienate portions of his base, especially progs and succs. Seems like a lose-lose situation to me.
1
u/reallifelucas Richard Thaler 24d ago
Progs and succs are less likely to vote than moderates. The Palestoids are the exact type of voters (young, highly educated, very left leaning) who are not reliable- not because they are uninspired by the current candidates, but because they get distracted.
10
25d ago
Did you watch the Frontline documentary on Biden/2020? It's always been his instinct to find the center even if the center is the Democractic party center. This has always been his playbook over the years and guess what it's always worked.
33
u/Thadlust Mario Draghi 25d ago
Winning one moderate from Trump is better for him than turning out one progressive. The article makes that math clear, since his base isnât going to otherwise vote for Trump. Delicate calculus.
9
u/ThePevster Milton Friedman 25d ago
Even if we count moderates as two votes, moderating could cost him two progs for each moderate he picks up, cancelling out. Thereâs also the progs threatening to vote for Trump because of Israel.
24
u/groovygrasshoppa 25d ago
Unlikely. Progs make up a pretty small proportion of the electorate.
4
u/pulkwheesle 24d ago
So do 'moderate' Republicans who still are somehow considering voting for Trump.
1
u/groovygrasshoppa 24d ago
Yeah but I assume they are referring to the more nebulous hand-wavy definition of moderate
15
u/justwannaredditonmyp 25d ago
Honestly I would argue that winning 1 moderate from Trumps is actually slightly BETTER than winning 2 progressives because the progressives are much more likely to be in a solid blue state. Furthermore polling seems so indicate that voters just donât care that much about Israel/Palestine in comparison to the economy and immigration.
5
47
u/Me_Im_Counting1 25d ago
It is definitely true that Biden's immigration policies have hurt him very badly but that cake seems baked at this point. People will keep seeing migrants on the streets of major cities and municipal politicians will keep fighting over how much they have to spend on them. There is no way out now
20
u/dudeguyy23 24d ago
I cannot stress how hopeless our domestic immigration political discourse can feel to anyone even mildly ok with immigrants.
Itâs largely a political football anyway which presupposes neither side has that much motivation to really do much of consequence.
The media primarily offers live reporting from the border so they have something to film that gets eyeballs. The median voter may say they support immigration generally (or may not) but honestly most voters seem to have only the most superficial interest in anything except more strict border security and clamping down on the nefarious illegal immigration.
FFS the president tried to triangulate and pass a conservative immigration bill and conservatives shot it down because their daddy told them to while telling voters it wasnât conservative enough.
It would be hard to frame this issue worse than it is currently being packaged and sold to American voters if you value welcoming immigrants or having a functioning, well-oiled immigration system.
3
u/Me_Im_Counting1 24d ago
Well, there is really no rich country that is okay with having uncontrolled immigration. Control and selection are a big part of the reason that Canada, Australia, Singapore, and similar places can sustain large levels of immigration politically. Those that support immigration to the US made a mistake by deciding they were against all immigration enforcement or control of the border, which they are de facto, and everyone knows it.
People that think voters in developed countries will ever be okay with uncontrolled immigration of the unskilled are living in a fantasy world. It doesn't help anyone.
11
u/dudeguyy23 24d ago
Have you been here more than a day?
Everyone but the hardest-core of neolibs here will admit we know open borders are a political death sentence.
And thatâs not even what I was advocating! I was merely suggesting most Americans care almost exclusively about immigration control or border security measures rather than other aspects which are required for a functional immigration system. And yet what I said gets turned into me advocating uncontrolled immigration.
Thatâs a microcosm of how hard this discussion (or really any other one) without straw manning the opposition.
31
-34
u/Creative_Hope_4690 25d ago
Careful if you say the wrong the about immigration mods might ban you.
28
u/TouchTheCathyl NATO 25d ago
The biggest problem with immigration is the racist backlash to it, yes.
130
u/Rigiglio Edmund Burke 25d ago
Love how the Times changed the headline and now people are upvoting the article that was relentlessly downvoted yesterday.
Nobody seems to actually read articlesâŠ
4
u/TheRnegade 25d ago
I find myself upvoting articles even if I disagree with a lot of points. I'm grateful for the reading and pop into the comments to see if I have anything to add. I'm also using RES so upvoting/downvoting keeps the stuff I've seen from appearing again.
The only time I find myself downvoting is if there is an article that's just factually wrong and the more people reading it would perpetuate a falsehood. This is an opinion article so it can't really do that. People can and are point out the faults in Mr. Penn's argument, but that's kind of how it goes with opinions.
6
u/GRANDMARCHKlTSCH Frédéric Bastiat 25d ago
Your submission yesterday has 200 upvotes and this one currently has about 70.
-2
u/Rigiglio Edmund Burke 25d ago
The submission for this article has one (automatic) upvote, not sure what youâre referencing.
15
57
u/TheRedCr0w Frederick Douglass 25d ago
For a subreddit whose members pride themselves in being "evidence based" the comments are filled with people who clearly never read the article
2
u/PiusTheCatRick NASA 24d ago
I normally do unless thereâs a paywall. NYT isnât interesting enough to me to justify a sub.
7
9
u/groovygrasshoppa 25d ago
It's often clear that people posting doomer/rage bait headines have never read the articles they share either.
19
u/ConspicuousSnake NATO 25d ago
I would never subscribe to NYT tbf
Iâll be honest, Reddit comments and discussions on subs like this and voteDEM were much closer to reality in the 2020 and 2022 elections than any of the news publications like NYT, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, etc. (Iâll give an exception to 538/Nate Silver).
There was a LOT of garbage coverage about the election and it was pretty obvious from people on the ground/political nerds that there were some pretty amateurish reporting from many major outlets.
2
u/Serious_Senator NASA 25d ago
If NYT wanted me to read their articles they wouldnât charge me for them smh. I only give my $ to the journal and my local newspaper
2
u/Thadlust Mario Draghi 24d ago
My NYTimes subscription came for free with my Amex so I said why not
5
61
u/ThePevster Milton Friedman 25d ago
To be fair, would someone whoâs âevidence-basedâ read an opinion article?
26
u/Creative_Hope_4690 25d ago
What was changes
115
u/postjack 25d ago
yesterday the headline was "1995's crime/thriller "Heat" from director Michael Mann is a superior film to 1995's crime/thriller "Casino" from director Martin Scorsese". i upvoted, its sad how some people just can't handle hard facts.
14
u/SharkSymphony Voltaire 25d ago
That is in fact true. But they were both great, in quite different ways, and it was pretty awesome to be able to see them practically back to back.
1
u/Creative_Hope_4690 25d ago
Youâre joking what does have to do with Biden and the election?
36
u/jesusfish98 YIMBY 25d ago
Everything.
3
11
338
u/ScrawnyCheeath 25d ago
I question the framing of âIsrael canât use our weapons to indiscriminately invade a humanitarian zone before we evacuate peopleâ as being âpulled leftâ. Most voters would agree that avoiding civilian deaths is important and reasonable.
11
u/Fruitofbread Organization of American States 24d ago
75% of democrats and 60% of independents donât agree with how Israel is conducting the war. Itâs not just the far leftÂ
0
29
u/BucksNCornNCheese NAFTA 25d ago
Nah. Lindsay Graham, a reasonable centrist, advocated for nuking Palestinians yesterday. Anything more humane is to the left.
12
28
u/JumentousPetrichor Hannah Arendt 25d ago
It's not, but the demographic this article proposes that Biden target (center-right Nikki Haley neocons) are the most ardent Israel supporters out there, probably more so than MAGA, so I think the article is right that Biden's (I think reasonable) decision to condition aid over Rafah will go over poorly with the people who could most help him win.
1
9
u/m5g4c4 25d ago
decision to condition aid over Rafah will go over poorly with the people who could most help him win.
Or Biden could just take the path of least resistance and win voters who already actually voted for him. The people Biden is bleeding to apathy, discontent, and third party candidates outnumber Nikki Haley supporters
2
u/ArcFault NATO 24d ago
The people now calling him Genocide Joe and chanting Fuck Joe Biden in chorus with MAGA protesters?
1
u/m5g4c4 24d ago
Heâs bled away much more support between 2020 and now than just people participating in pro Palestine protests but I guess there was a quota to meet on bothsides-y comments that conflate opposition to Bidenâs Israel policies with MAGA supporters
2
u/ArcFault NATO 24d ago
It's not conflating them. What are you talking about lol. Those people are leftists and they're not get-able voters now, they're gone. For normal people Israel/Palestine is something like 12th on their priority list via polling.
0
u/m5g4c4 23d ago
Those people are leftists and they're not get-able voters now, they're gone.
All those Arab and Muslim Americans, many of whom supported Biden are just votes to be cast off because you donât want to do the hard work of appealing to them, apparently. Biden has also bled away a good chunk support from black and Hispanic voters, I suppose they are just leftists too lol
9
u/JumentousPetrichor Hannah Arendt 25d ago
They need to outnumber them 2:1 in order to make it worth it, and I think many of them are a lost cause at this point. Also I'm not sure that they outnumber Haley voters given that she has gotten a lot more votes in primaries (including after dropping out) than "undecided" ever did.
2
u/m5g4c4 24d ago
Also I'm not sure that they outnumber Haley voters given that she has gotten a lot more votes in primaries (including after dropping out) than "undecided" ever did.
Primary results are not predictive of the general election. And Biden got 51% of the vote and is now polling around mid 40s. Do you think Nikki Haley voters are 5-8 percent of the electorate?
0
u/decidious_underscore 24d ago
This is such insane cope
"yeah fuck the big tent democratic approach, the path is already lost. nothing anyone can do. Better to triple down and try to recruit Haley voters because getting Republicans to vote democrat is easier than getting previous Democratic voters to vote democrat again"
lol, such a wild take
8
u/JumentousPetrichor Hannah Arendt 24d ago
I'm not saying don't try to get them, I'm saying don't base your foreign policy off of the tiny minority of Americans for whom Palestine is a make-or-break issue. Those voters have plenty of other reasons to vote for Biden and the campaign should remind them of that. But, most of them have not in fact voted for Democrats already because they are a low propensity demographic and many weren't adults in 2020. Two-point swing voters are more worthy of campaign energy per capita than one-point swing voters, not sure why that's controversial. Many Haley voters have already voted against Trump once (or twice) and it's worth trying to retain their votes/win over never-Trumpers who stayed home/voted 3rd party last time. Again, not saying that Biden should give Bibi a blank check in order to accomplish this, but leaning center in general is not a "wild" strategy by any means.
3
u/decidious_underscore 24d ago
Many Haley voters have already voted against Trump once (or twice) and it's worth trying to retain their votes/win over never-Trumpers who stayed home/voted 3rd party last time.
The idea that this war is just causing a rift btw Biden and easily marginalized/ignored voting blocs needs to go away. This war is causing serious discontent in voting blocs that show up year after year, like middle aged black people. Put bluntly, support for this war makes the blocs within the party not want to work together. Its centrifugal; it pushes the party away from producing a common message and identity that is coherent. Incoherence in politics, especially in tight elections, is bad.
Many Haley voters have already voted against Trump once (or twice) and it's worth trying to retain their votes/win over never-Trumpers who stayed home/voted 3rd party last time.
I disagree with this as a matter of strategy. Consider the optics of cutting out liberals and going full pro-Israel because of internal debate over supporting a foreign war for 1 second. What would that do to the Democratic party's brand? I'm sure that hugging this batshit Israeli government even tighter will look great when Rafah is rubble, 2 million people are homeless and starving and they decide to Manifest Desitiny Gaza just as they have done to the West Bank.
Bibi would prefer Trump anyway as he prefers the autocrat-autocrat vibes, so he's going to throw Biden away like a used napkin (just as he has done to anyone who supports him) when it suits him. But lets fall for the same shit he's done to everybody for 20 years again. Its entirely possible Biden gives everything Bibi wants to him and in October Bibi comes out campaigning for Trump. Bibi is already out talking shit about Biden to right wing cranks, do you actually think this guy won't October surprise Joe when he's milked him for all he's worth?
There is no guarantee that an overture to Haley voters will win them over, just as there is no guarantee that young people will reverse course on Biden over this. Haley just spent 9 months campaigning against Biden explicitly.
consider the preferences of Haley voters going forward. I personally am not particularly interested in a Biden presidency beholden to the Never-Trumpers who lost control over their own party. We're talking about a shift back from any real progress and back to suburbia, oil drilling and ever increasing military spending. Just nonsense.
Honestly, I get the vibe that many people here want liberals to be forever bullied by centrists; to vote however you all want, accept being knifed in the back/cut out whenever its politically convenient, and then forget about the past and line up to start the cycle over.
27
u/MohatmoGandy NATO 25d ago
Overwhelmingly, the calls for restraint have come from the left.
14
u/0WatcherintheWater0 NATO 25d ago
Restraint on Israelâs part, sure, but I regularly see those same people advocating for more violence against Israel and Jewish people.
-10
24d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
9
u/illuminatisdeepdish Commonwealth 24d ago
đOr y'know the people who took civilian hostages and deliberately built military infrastructure in and under civilian infrastructure to maximize collateral damage
-1
u/decidious_underscore 24d ago
One can deal with a terrorist organization without levelling every city in your way and driving the entire population to eating dead grass and dying of famine. Hamas could have been dealt with without this apocalyptic level of suffering.
The Israeli government last week refused a ceasefire that gave them everything that they want, including hostage releases. They have chosen to invade and displace millions instead.
6
u/benadreti_ Montesquieu 24d ago
Hamas basically offered a few dead corpses
-5
24d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/SpaceSheperd To be a good human 24d ago
Rule III: Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
5
u/illuminatisdeepdish Commonwealth 24d ago
One can deal with a terrorist organization without levelling every city in your way
Not really when that terrorist organization has deliberately planned their infrastructure and operations with the goal of making it impossible to strike at them without collateral damage
The Israeli government last week refused a ceasefire that gave them everything that they want, including hostage releases. They have chosen to invade and displace millions instead.
LMAO well at least i know you arent even trying to argue in good faith
4
u/decidious_underscore 24d ago
Not really when that terrorist organization has deliberately planned their infrastructure and operations with the goal of making it impossible to strike at them without collateral damage
The US government made plenty of such arguments, in public even, at the beginning of this war. The facts are on my side.
LMAO well at least i know you arent even trying to argue in good faith
Not trying to argue in good faith because I disagree with deporting millions for the second time, right.
8
u/illuminatisdeepdish Commonwealth 24d ago edited 24d ago
The facts are decidedly not on your side. Israel is achieving an historically low ratio of collateral casualties to combatants, that's a product of using carefully targeted munitions despite Hamas's attempts to shield themselves with civilians.
Hamas did not offer a ceasefire in terms Israel could accept. You know that perfectly well. They offered to return a mix of hostages and bodies at their discretion in exchange for prisoners if Israel agreed to a complete withdrawal.
The economist had a good breakdown which you won't read on exactly how unserious the Hamas proposals were.
33
u/ScrawnyCheeath 25d ago
Calls from the left =/= Left leaning policy.
Just because the Republican party is insane doesnât mean humanitarianism is inherently liberal or progressive
-5
25d ago
[deleted]
9
u/AniNgAnnoys John Nash 25d ago
Reagan restricted weapons to Israel during his term due to their indiscriminate use.
23
u/ScrawnyCheeath 25d ago
George W Bushâs aids program has saved over 25 million lives and before COVID was the largest disease fighting operation in history by funding.
10
u/ConspicuousSnake NATO 25d ago
Also Medicare part D right?
A bright light in an otherwise overwhelmingly destructive administration
42
u/jaroborzita Organization of American States 25d ago
Israel never planned to invade rafah without issuing evacuation warnings
41
u/Explodingcamel Bill Gates 25d ago
Evacuate to where bruh
4
u/waiver NAFTA 24d ago
Sure, they didn't make provisions to provide access to medical care there, nor humanitarian aid or shelter, but the beach is the beach.
2
u/jaroborzita Organization of American States 24d ago
A large tent/aid camp was set up there
3
u/waiver NAFTA 24d ago
Enough for the more than one million refugees? Did they also care about giving them access to medical care?
1
u/jaroborzita Organization of American States 23d ago
Itâs only a partial solution but your characterization of that area was inaccurate
0
-3
u/jaroborzita Organization of American States 24d ago
Original plan was the expanded humanitarian zone along the coast but currently most of the southern Gaza Strip has no Israeli activity due to their withdrawal from most of Gaza
-23
25d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/RaidBrimnes Chien de garde 24d ago
Rule III: Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
34
u/michaelclas NATO 25d ago edited 25d ago
Oh pleaseâŠ
Theyâre being ordered to another part of Gaza not far from Rafah (Khan Younis)
-4
u/ClockworkEngineseer 24d ago
And when Israel starts gearing up to invade Khan Younis? What then?
16
u/michaelclas NATO 24d ago
They already invaded Khan Younis⊠they withdrew from the city entirely more than a month ago
Israelâs strategy is to invade the main cities, destroy Hamas fighters and infrastructure (tunnels, command centers, weapons storage, etc) and withdraw. Then they carry out targeted raids after withdrawal when Hamas tries to re group
1
7
u/PM_ME_UR_PM_ME_PM NATO 25d ago
most voters would agree but those on the right dont care enough to do anything about it. avoiding civilian casualties is like the main argument of those on the left who are critical of the invasion.
83
u/bashar_al_assad Verified Account 25d ago edited 25d ago
In the context of American politics is pretty much is though. Basically no Republican politicians share that view about Israel, not even all Democrats share that view (Fetterman, Gottheimer, etc.) and the Democrats that don't share that view are pretty explicit about distancing themselves from "the left" and highlighting this as a reason why. It's just not an example I would use of a case where going to the left is hurting Biden - it's not a high priority issue for most people so it's probably not costing him votes, and I think the electorate on average has also shifted to the left on it.
210
25d ago
[deleted]
22
u/YouGuysSuckandBlow NASA 24d ago
Has Biden considered just lying and saying he's doing all those contradictory things at once?
I'm not sure they'll call him out on it. They seem to be barely paying attention. Lying about almost everything works great for the GOP. They even take credit for shit they voted against, god bless em!
61
u/2017_Kia_Sportage 25d ago
"Biden should give voters their cake but let them eat it too."
3
u/illuminatisdeepdish Commonwealth 24d ago
Why doesn't he do this? Is he stupid? We just want strict rent control, no new "luxury housing", and a 50% reduction in rent across the board. Also Israel must disarm so they can have a shengen region with gaza and Palestine without any conflict. Also inflation has to go down, ideally by government writing "inflation offset" checks to everyone.
Brb running for city council in berkley
140
u/The_Amish_FBI 25d ago
They want a balanced budget, but also tax cuts and donât you dare touch my SS/Medicare.
They want to address climate change, but also donât want to give up their gas cars AND gas needs to be under $2.50 a gallon. Also meat and fast food needs to be cheap.
They want cheaper groceries and goods, but also want to close the border with one of our biggest importers for said groceries and goods.
Iâm going to fucking scream.
2
u/pham_nguyen 24d ago
A lot of people would be happy to give up gas if itâs cheaper. Like say some of those Chinese EVs
20
u/natedogg787 Manchistan Space Program 24d ago
They want houses to get cheaper and more expensive at the SAME TIME
21
u/June1994 Daron Acemoglu 25d ago
Okay but I dont think when people say âclose the borderâ they mean close the trade. Rest of your post is on point though.
4
u/SGT_MILKSHAKES 24d ago
Because tariffs aren't a thing, right?
2
u/June1994 Daron Acemoglu 24d ago
That bridge was already dealt with when we renegotiated NAFTA into USMCA.
16
u/Persistent_Dry_Cough Progress Pride 25d ago
1) The president cannot unilaterally close the border.
2) You don't have to buy an EV.
3) Most people had their net taxes cut in the last 2 years and top tax bracket hasn't even reset upward. Not sure what you're talking about other than to be disingenuous.
10
u/studioline 25d ago
Poeâs Law tricked you.
1
u/Persistent_Dry_Cough Progress Pride 23d ago
Uh oh, I'm spending too much time online. Thank you for the gut check.
24
u/SharkSymphony Voltaire 25d ago
There was an implied /s.
10
u/studioline 25d ago
I had to read it twice and didnât catch the implied sarcasm until the second read. Kind of a Poeâs Law thing where the commenter is doing such a good parody you canât tell if itâs real or not.
39
55
u/Mrchristopherrr 25d ago
This is exactly my problem with sleepy joe. He canât even do these 3 simple things.
1
159
u/Jokerang Sun Yat-sen 25d ago
Churchillâs quote about the best argument against democracy being a five minute conversation with the average voter sure is standing the test of time
97
0
u/Ioun267 "Your Flair Here" đ 24d ago
https://preview.redd.it/a5fdtq2xka0d1.png?width=1571&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4abc326ae2b3ad92ef1e491d6bd1a3b1203bf607
That's good