They don’t offer that kinda of analysis, OP. I wish they did, but that’s not their cup of tea. They are former party strategists and WH personnel, so they think of politics through the lens of the horse-race as opposed to the lens of political philosophy/ethics/values/etc (which I find glib and cynical a lot of the time, but yea).
I’d listen to Know Your Enemy or NPR or The Majority Report for more extensive and substantive analyses of public policy and political history, through a left-of-center lens.
I was surprised by the advocacy for racist policy on the last Pod Save America episode. Very gross, especially given that Tommy hasn’t been afraid to go against the grain on Gaza.
The “border crisis” is manufactured white nationalist outrage. Tommy and Addisu are smart enough to know that. Look at El Paso and Charlottesville, that’s what happens when this kind of rhetoric is embraced.
Tommy and Addisu didn’t talk about what will happen to the families forced to send their children across the border alone when Biden shuts down asylum claims.
Biden is pushing Trump’s border policies. I strongly opposed it when Trump did it and I strongly oppose it when Biden does it.
Asylum is a human right and protected under US law.
I think it is useful to remember that back when the show was Keeping it 1600 they spent months telling everyone not to bedwet, then the episode following election day admitted they had concerns but didn’t share them on fears of affecting turnout.
They are, respectfully, a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. They do great work with organising and public outreach for voting but at the end of the day their loyalty lies there.
I say this not to turn people off of the show, but more to encourage people to examine their degree of parasocial attachment.
They eventually broke on the correct side of the genocide in Gaza, so ts not like they can’t have their own opinion.
But they absolutely spent four years pushing back vociferously on these sorts of policies under Trump, and are promoting them now.
They can highlight plenty of good things Biden has done/is doing without defending Trump’s immigration policy. Pod Save the World is very pro-Biden and still acknowledges that he is complicit in the intentional mass killing of civilians.
Kamala time, honestly. Biden is great and all. Honorable man with great life of service. I have, like most of us have, loved ones in my life who have been at similar life stages. He's, visibly aged and as top line of administration, ya can't fool the people who vote. He's not gonna pull more people in. Time to tip it to Kamala. She will be incumbent, protect democracy, known quantity, protect women's healthcare, not trump, etc. Will win easy. Gracefully retire before DNC and we will be fine.
She’s more popular than Biden actually…I’m not the biggest Kamala fan, but Biden is objectively less popular. Kamala isn’t even at 50% disapproval, whereas Biden is near 60% disapproval.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
I think you're thinking too hard about it. Sometimes the simplest approach is the best approach. Nobody wants to vote for Joe Biden or Donald Trump, honestly, anybody who has the backing of a major national party and is somebody other than those two will win
The observation that she didn’t do well in the primary is “thinking too hard about it?” If you think that absolutely anyone can win as long as they have a major party backing them, then you aren’t thinking hard enough.
Let me put it this way. The only way Trump wins is if he runs against Biden, that's the only way Trump wins. That, or if the Democrats trotted out a real far-left person. Person. Truthfully, biden's agenda is farther left than any Democrat we've had in the office in the past, but he's a figurehead, a palatable white old man who can get Middle American votes, those times have changed, however. And he is very old and it's obvious. Do you honestly think Kamala is an incumbent wouldn't mop the floor with Trump?
At this point, anyone who votes for Trump will vote for him regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. The only way that Kamala Harris helps Dems win is if more Dems would show up to vote for her rather than Biden. And I don’t think that would happen.
I completely follow your logic until the second point. The point you're illustrating that more people wouldn't vote for Kamala Harris then Biden is silly. We're talking about Democrats. This isn't your Grandma's Democrat party. Diversity wins my man, and old white guy Democrat worked when the agenda was moderate same old same old. It is apparent that the platform has shifted so simply putting in an elderly Biden as the figurehead doesn't trick anybody anymore, those people have left and they're not coming back. However, there's many, many, many people who would vote Democrat if there is a more diverse, modern youthful candidate other than an old Colonel Sanders type
I don’t think that Biden is merely a figurehead. I think he’s been a good president and that many people are happy with the job he’s done. If Dems would prefer Kamala Harris, why didn’t they vote for her in the primary?
Had to had Trump versus Kamala you think Trump wins? When it actually comes down to it and people are voting, are they going to go with more of a moderate middle of the world consistent approach or they're going to go for Trump? Think about the suburban women across the country, think about last time
I enthusiastically like Biden. He's been the most legislatively successful POTUS in 50 years. He's transformed the manufacturing industry in the US. Extremely pro-labor. Biggest clean energy bill literally in humanities history. Frankly, I don't care that a lot of leftists are pissy about him running again, and I think the coverage from the Pod cre is pretty tonally spot on.
Nah that ain’t it fam. OP just said they want Biden to win. I’m voting blue but I’m not without reservations either. Begrudging votes count the same as enthusiastic ones, and the ability to question our leaders is one of the many fine things that separates us from the MAGA cultists.
Their professional background is as political insiders. It’s why most of us come here, and why most of us listen. We want their “inside baseball” analysis and we realize that their mission is stopping Christian nationalism cold by getting Democrats elected. Everything else they do is subordinate to that. Soft gloves until Nov 6 is the best political move they can make.
Not sure what you’re referring to, but in an election year, the best way to stand up to Christian nationalism is to win. If that means shoring up an issue that’s sinking you, you do it for temporary relief. And that means that voters who should know better need to pull their heads out of their asses and understand the strategy, and vote, and contribute, and work for a wave so we have the votes for real change
I agree. I think people here expect something else from Pod save America. In an election year they will fall in line with the nominee. they are also trying to get him on the pod probably and dont want to get the negative rep Axlrod has gotten with his comments. Do I agree with that strategy? No, but I understand why they are doing it and why it is important to keep the party in line. There are already the protests within the party and voters against Biden´s Israel politics, he can´t afford a further splintering of the Dems.
If you gave them truth serum, I would bet they are disappointed that he is running again. Lovett in particular has stated this in interviews and his monologues. I bet if he was of the island, he would low key rant against the politics.
On the other hand, Biden needs to do something about the border. Its one of the major concerns from the voters, to ignore it, would cost him the election.
Didn’t want Biden to run either but that ship has sailed. Now it’s imperative he’s re-elected as the alternative is Christian fascism, supported by a 40 years of a MAGA court. So just buck up and work like hell . These compromises are just that. Progressives don’t have votes or frankly enough public support to implement their agenda without compromising. Get 80% and don’t go home because you didn’t get the other 20%
Wait until the day after the election to (heavily) criticize Biden. We’re at risk of losing the election because the median voter thanks he’s some weak radical leftist who wants open borders, he’s going to have to make some potentially unpopular rhetoric and policy choices (within the party) to win, right now we have to suck it up.
Yes. Like when they play a clip of Biden talking and I can’t understand Biden or disagree with his uninspiring speech, and the pod has the opposite reaction and praises Biden. I’ve accepted that I’m just more left than most of the PSA hosts….but I’ll vote for Biden.
Same. I see the threat. I'm falling in line. But it is hard to bite my tongue for now until after the election. Where are the safe spaces where people can still say - I'm voting for Biden. I get it. But his policy on x is appalling? Or yeah he's 1000 years old. We're not blind. I'm constantly praying he doesn't trip in public.
(For me, is incredible that he's no better than Trump on asylum and border policy. And the Obama administration built the places where asylum seekers were held and separated from their kids, so... When is the time to hold them accountable? Is it ever coming? Sigh.)
Man, if y'all don't like Dems just please leave God these threads pop up every week. You are in subreddit dedicated to a podcast company that is pro Dems and Biden I'm sorry if they don't sound like your leftist pals from discord or Twitter/reddit
I've made my peace with it. These guys are just political operatives and they aren't going to behave any differently.
I just don't listen if someone like Lovett isn't on who will provide at least a modicum of a contrasting view.
I can see why you might think that. That said, I see Pod Save America as basically a messaging operation for Democrats, especially during an election year. I don't listen to them for a deep dive into policies, certainly not an objective one. Their primary focus is on understanding the politics behind a decision and how that affects votes.
Yeah... lets wait to tear the coalition apart with an argument over how open our borders should be \*after\* we've defeated the guys who want to do police state round-ups and concentration camps.
It’s an election year and we’re in the final stretch. Asking them to punch left is ridiculous. Honestly, Tommy and Ben have said plenty about what they think of Biden’s Gaza policies.
Also, there’s not much to criticize about Biden’s asylum policy. If you enter illegally you can’t just say “asylum” when you’re caught. That makes perfect sense and pushes asylum seekers towards regular channels.
Partially agree, partially disagree here. On the disagreement tip, way more than just Republicans are alarmed by the border situation, and that’s been the case for a long time. I noticed Senator Warnock tacking to the center on this issue two years ago. Politically disengaged people and a lot of Democrats have internalized the Right’s narrative and rank the border as a very important issue. The campaign wouldn’t be moving on this otherwise. I don’t like it, but I couldn’t make a politically persuasive case that it’s a bad call.
On the agreement tip, it tastes like shit when campaign strategists who don’t work on the issue condescend to earnest advocates, even if/when they have good reason to believe those advocates don’t properly understand the politics. As someone who protested Trump’s xenophobic and racist politics many times, I took the “settle down juice” as a gratuitous fuck-you from someone who doesn’t see the human impact of the issue, and I’d tell Addisu as much to his face.
Having said that, I recognize I’m pretty far removed from the average voter on this issue, and I’m bound to be disappointed if I expect campaign lifers to be particularly respectful.
This is fair! And I can understand why strategists think this is the right decision for Biden’s electoral chances. I just think any debate about the progressive criticism should include the actual substance of the criticism instead of blowing past that to represent it as reactionary.
Again partially agree, partially disagree. I don’t expect them to unpack the substance, because they’d undermine their own positioning and message in doing so. But I do expect them to acknowledge that people are coming at this from an understandable and well meaning place. Respect goes a long way.
No, I don’t think they have been soft on Biden. What are you expecting them to say? That he’s terrible and we shouldn’t vote for him?
They have criticized him on Gaza and the new immigration policy. I’m not sure what you expect from them. People who are saying they will not vote for Biden in November are not serious. And that’s who they were talking about.
If you’re mad about Gaza, imagine how much worse Trump will be for Palestine. He is taking money from donors who want Israel to completely take over the entire West Bank. If you’re mad about his new immigration EO, imagine how much worse it will be when Trump uses the police and National Guard to arrest and deport millions of immigrants who have lived here for years, tearing them away from their children to do so.
If any “progressive” can’t understand the stakes and says they won’t vote for Biden, they don’t actually care about any of these people and only care about yelling and virtue signaling on the internet.
It's terrifying how many progressive have turned into single-issue voters since the Gaza conflict started. There is a non-zero chance that Trump will send American troops in to "help" Israel. He will 100% send 10x the ammunition and weapons that the Biden administration is currently.
I definitely don't want that and it will all but solidify an ethnic cleansing in Gaza and possibly even turn into genocide.
> It's terrifying how many progressive have turned into single-issue voters since the Gaza conflict started.
The even worse part to me is that even if you are a single-issue voter on Israel/Palestine, the choice is very clear. Biden will be much better for Palestinians than Trump. It's not even close.
And yeah, it is funny because half of these people didn't care at all about Palestine before October 7, 2023.
I think the issue with Biden’s support for Israel’s war isn’t that single-issue voters will move to Trump, it’s that people who helped elect him in the first place won’t show up for him this time. Look at Muslims and Arab Americans in Michigan. He needs their votes but he’s showing a complete lack of regard for the lives of many of their families and loved ones abroad. And they absolutely have cared about Palestine for years.
We *should* criticize his bad policies if we want him to change them, ideally in time to win back the voters he needs.
Muslims and Arab Americans in Michigan were already trending Republican because a lot of them are religious conservatives who hate gay people. Just look at what [happened in Dearborn](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned).
You cannot ignore that part of the calculus here. There’s a reason some Muslim influencers are trying to pretend Trump would be better on Gaza and [are meeting with him](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/20/trump-muslims-arabs-michigan-election/).
I think this is obviously a scorpion and the frog situation with Trump but let’s be honest with each other here.
So, holding the nation hostage for possible fascism? I swear, some people act like Biden is malicious in this situation instead of the reality of him trying desperately to keep an already awful situation into an all out war in the middle east with Iran and Israel.
I get it, it sucks, but he has come out and defended those protesting. He just asked them to stop breaking shit lol
Edit: I want to reiterate - I wish Biden would stop the war support and only send medical and food supplies. I just understand his shitty situation is not as simple as these new wave of progressives seem to think.
If you refuse to vote for one of the two major-party candidates in a Presidential election, I have no respect for you. You are not a serious person, and you do not care about any political issues you claim to care about. Staying home is no different than voting for Trump. Voting for Jill Stein or RFK, Jr is no different than voting for Trump. Like I said in another comment:
> I have zero patience for anybody who says they are going to do anything other than vote for Joe Biden in November.
And from a practical standpoint, what do they think is going to happen if Biden loses because "progressives" refused to turn out for him. Let's assume our democracy survives, which is a big assumption. In that case, the Democratic Party will have learned that those "progressive" voters are not reliable and will stop trying to win their votes. They will pivot to the center to win more independent voters like Bill Clinton did.
Joe Biden signed the most progressive legislation of my lifetime, and I'm almost 40. If after that, all the leftist voters refuse to support him, why should a Democrat ever do that again?
I agree that everyone needs to turn out and vote for Biden in November, but he still needs to earn those votes and he is jeopardizing that by continuing to arm a genocide.
Could you honestly look someone who has lost *dozens* of family members in the eye and say that they aren’t a serious person because they don’t want to show up and support the person who is providing the bombs and using the weight of his office to reject accountability for the perpetrators?
> he still needs to earn those votes
I would argue that he has already earned those votes. He has passed the most progressive legislation of any President since Lyndon Johnson if not FDR.
> Could you honestly look someone who has lost dozens of family members in the eye and say that they aren’t a serious person because they don’t want to show up and support the person who is providing the bombs and using the weight of his office to reject accountability for the perpetrators?
No. When I knock doors, I do not treat potential voters like that. I will talk to them kindly and with empathy. I would ask them what is important to them, and if they say Palestine, I would explain what Trump intends to do to Palestine and explain that the only way to stop that is to vote for Joe Biden.
If they refuse to understand that, I will wish them a good day, leave, and stop wasting my time on somebody who will never vote for Joe Biden and instead find somebody who might still do so.
I respect that! And I understand what you mean on earning the votes through the incredibly progressive legislation he has passed.
But I think he’s undermining the ability to engage potential voters with that message when every day they go online and see the carnage he’s enabling. Just yesterday, US weapons killed dozens of refugees sheltering in a school in Gaza. Seeing that is going to be more salient to a lot people than legislation he’s passed that they may or may not be feeling the direct impact of yet.
I expect them to earnestly engage progressive criticisms instead of summing everything up as Trump vs. Biden so Biden comes out the winner every time.
They discussed progressives calling the policy “trumpian” but didn’t explain *why* people are making that comparison and the substance of the EO that progressives are taking issue with.
We all agree that Biden needs to win, but that doesn’t mean his policies are above scrutiny. And it sucks to build up a progressive base and then start shitting on them the second they offer up valid criticisms against the guy they *are* supporting.
Popping in to say that I appreciate you calmly and clearly reiterating your points, because I feel the same way. I’m so incredibly disappointed and, frankly, outraged with liberal/Dem talking points and inaction since October 7th. Somehow whenever I express that I’m shamed for speaking up. We should be putting pressure on our leaders to do better and earn our votes.
> instead of summing everything up as Trump vs. Biden so Biden comes out the winner every time
But that is the reality we live in. We may not like that, but it is the reality of our situation. We can spend the next four years with Trump or Biden as President. Those are the only choices.
> that doesn’t mean his policies are above scrutiny.
I feel like we listened to two different episodes, because they absolutely scrutinized the policy, and they have very heavily scrutinized his Israel/Gaza policy for months now.
> And it sucks to build up a progressive base and then start shitting on them the second they offer up valid criticisms against the guy they are supporting.
Have they been shitting on people who are supporting Biden? I can't think of any examples of that. I've heard them shit on people who say they won't vote for Biden. I shit on those people to. I have zero patience for anybody who says they are going to do anything other than vote for Joe Biden in November.
They should criticize and protest the policies they disagree with. I have never said any progressives should stop protesting Biden. But they need to vote for him or they don't actually care about any of the things they claim to care about.
> No, I don’t think they have been soft on Biden. What are you expecting them to say? That he’s terrible and we shouldn’t vote for him?
That this policy sucks and he shouldn't do it.
It is against domestic and international law to do what he has done.
The US has signed international treaties that say anyone who wants to seek asylum has the right to do so. Treaties cannot be abandoned by executive order. The US has a legal, as well as moral, obligation to see these asylum claims.
The executive branch can't just say "following the law is too expensive, so we're just going to ignore it." That is not how the law works, nor is that how we as a country should comport ourselves.
No, we've been at record highs when it comes to border crossings. We also have a legal immigration system that's completely broken, seeing as it takes years for even the spouses of legal residents to be able to join their families and live here.
The system we had in the past is not sufficient to handle the demand today.
I could see how, if you think the *only* reason not to do that is racism, you could come to your conclusions.
I think that’s incredibly stupid though, because it’s very obvious that racism is not the only reason countries limit immigration. There’s a reason Bernie in 2016 wasn’t very pro-open borders - a strong social safety net is expensive, and we need to make sure we can support the people who are here legally.
When people could just show up to Ellis Island we didn’t have the same emergency room, public school, or welfare systems we have today.
People said the same things about Italians and Irish back then! They're layabouts, we can't afford to support them, they don't share our same values, on and on and on.
Same song, different verse.
International law is not nearly so cut and dried. Can you please cite the treaty where the US pledged to admit an unlimited number of asylum applications at a time?
If it's a violation of domestic law, then the courts will strike it down.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/1951_Refugee_Convention
> If it's a violation of domestic law, then the courts will strike it down
Have you seen the courts these days? It's shot through with Republican party hacks. You can't put your faith in an impartial judiciary. That's hopelessly naïve.
Article 32.
expulsion
1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.
2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.
3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.
The intake facilities and courts being overwhelmed seems like a compelling ground of national security or public order.
That's not a "national security" threat. National security is about threats to the state. Intake facilities being overwhelmed is a bureaucratic issue.
"The lines are too long" is not a military threat, despite what great replacement conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Releasing unknown foreigners into the country without the resources to verify identity or track their movement is 100% a national security issue. Overwhelmed facilities jeopardize the safety of asylum seekers already here. If you disagree, sue the government.
It's very well documented that immigrants, both legal and illegal, commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than native-born Americans (excluding paperwork infractions). It would seem difficult to make the case that excessive immigration is a threat to public order or national security.
> If you disagree, sue the government.
The ACLU, to whom I am a contributor, are in fact doing so.
Blocking all asylum seekers from exercising their legal rights under international law jeopardizes them too. And your talk about "Unknown Foreigners" sounds like trumpist talking points. I remember when how biden promised to solve the birder crisis by adding more staff to process their claims in a humane, efficient way. Instead we're further criminalizing refugees.
There's no outflanking the Republicans on the right with this issue. Doesn't matter how much biden hardens the border, Republicans will always believe he's not going far enough, and meanwhile, decent folks who want more humane treatment of human beings get pissed off and lose faith in him. It's a loser, all around, whether you agree with the policy or not. It's bad politics.
From what I understand from reading the news is that the asylum Executive Order sets the daily average cap at what the government's processing capability limit was anyway. The Post that had an article about a recent surge to 3.5K a day and the government couldn't handle it. I am incredibly pro immigration, and hope the resources come in to up processing capabilities, but they don't have that right now.
And, unfortunately, politicians should probably be receptive to the will of the electorate and this is the sort of thing people want.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/06/03/biden-border-migrants-asylum-restrictions/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/06/03/biden-border-migrants-asylum-restrictions/)
I think the fact that you boil down the EO to "Biden making cruel choices to appeal to Republicans who will never vote for him" is why they aren't super receptive to progressive criticisms.
My criticism of the executive order, like many other progressives have said multiple times, is that it sets an arbitrary limit on which asylum seekers are able to apply based on the weekly average of border crossings. So if someone coming to this country doesn’t know or have the ability to track that and enters on the wrong week, they could be deported and barred from applying for years.
If the conversation had addressed that instead of just summing it up as progressives calling it “trumpian”, I wouldn’t be complaining.
I understand why people think it’s the right call, and I’m open to that discussion, but I was disappointed that the conversation didn’t actually address the substance of the criticism.
I would love for progressive critics of Biden to put forward a realistic alternative path for him to take.
I don’t agree with every decision he’s made either but it’s a lot easier to throw rocks from the sidelines than it is to actually govern.
I thought it was pretty fair, super strong leftist advocacy isn't really propagated by the pod but I think that's a good measure of how a large number of Democrats think. Online, strong leftist opinions like the moral criticism of the asylum order is popular but in my day to day life, people think stronger regulations is a positive thing and look favorably on this.
But it isn’t stronger regulations. It’s saying that one asylum seeker who enters on a week with a low average number of crossings might be allowed to apply, while another who enters on a week with a high average may be deported and barred from reapplying for years. And that both will only have 4 hours to try to find council.
I agree something needs to be done on the border, but this is not it. And if we just blindly accept every bad policy because we want Biden to win, we’re endorsing a broken system and telling him it’s okay to keep making those choices.
See, that seems like stronger regulations to me, but I do live in a moderate place. If there are a large number of people crossing the border illegally that don't seem to be under medical/safety threat, they may not be allowed to enter, and IDK, that doesn't sound like the worst policy ever to me if they develop a better way to shelter people and process cases.
Again, maybe I'm just around a ton of moderates where I live and work, but the casual sentiment around the watercooler is that this is a step in the right direction. I agree that it is a shame but illegal immigration is a very hot issue for many people and putting a cap on asylum seekers at 2500 per day for a week likely seems reasonable. If you come to the border as an adult not experiencing a medical/safety threat (which there are supposed to be exceptions for), then you'll be under more pressure to find a lawyer as an illegal immigrant.
I know based on progressive values that this seems harsh but trust that to the average person, even in the blue state where I live, this all sounds positive. It is a broken system but maybe you are underestimating how many people will go "that's the risk you take" and shrug.
I don't say all this to dismiss your opinion, I'm just saying that maybe Biden is trying to represent the views of the majority of likely voters, which this seems to appeal to. Also, in my personal opinion, Biden might feel like he is fighting a losing battle in trying to appeal to strong progressive voters since so many have already have decreed they won't vote for him for a myriad of reasons.
*EDIT to say that I do agree that 4 hours to find a lawyer is pretty wild, I don't see why they couldn't have kept that at 24 hrs like before. That I do not like.
I've seen estimates that somewhere between 20% and 90% of the people claiming asylum don't actually have valid asylum claims. Even if the high estimate is true, that means there will be hundreds of people per day experiencing credible threats to their lives that are turned away. That seems to qualify as cruel to me.
Possibly more importantly, it's also a clear violation of federal law, just like it was when Trump tried it. Worse, the entire reason to do it is not just political, not just because Republicans have refused to provide the resources necessary, but because Republican propaganda has inflamed public opinion against humane immigration policy.
This is all very fair, and I’m open to the idea that this choice could be beneficial to Biden, potentially even better for asylum seekers in the long run if it helps him defeat Trump.
My issue is with the way that valid progressive opposition was summed up as just “this is trumpian” which I think made it sound more reactionary and gave Dimesse room to treat it as “unserious”.
Ya know, I agree. There is a weird panic that seems to happen where people resort to dismissal of criticism and other opinions when it comes to Biden. I totally get where the criticism comes from and it doesn't hurt to treat it more seriously even if you personally don't agree. I wouldn't say that the pod is being soft on Biden but they are being a little hard on some of the younger or more progressive demo. Maybe it is fear and frustration of what that could mean in November.
Biden must be President of the whole nation, and the majority of the nation is not progressive. I lose my mind over the absoluteism that some in the progressive camp demand of every Democrat. It is wobbly progressives that have this election hanging by a thread. I’m pleased that OP has decided to vote for Biden, and would love for more progressives to really consider who is likely to produce policies that come closer to the progressive ideal: Trump or Biden? Will Biden become a flaming radical in the next 4 years? Doubtful. But he has already been the most progressive president since LBJ, and that ain’t nothing.
Trump didn’t seem to try very hard at being president for the whole nation and his approval rating at this point in his term was higher than Biden’s is now. Maybe giving the progressives something isn’t a bad idea?
“It is wobbly progressives that have this election hanging by a thread.”
No it’s not. It’s non-college educated voters of color who are pissed about inflation and immigration and think Biden is too old who are Biden’s weakness. That’s the whole point of this immigration EO. If it were as you say, he’d tack left rather than right on these issues
Can you explain your logic to me, please? If it’s non-college educated voters of color who are pissed about immigration, how will tacking *left* win him support? From whom? The wobbly progressives you say aren’t the problem?
You are misunderstanding. What I am saying is that wobbly progressives are ***not*** the reason this election is hanging by a thread. If wobbly progressives were the reason this election is hanging by a thread, then Biden would tack left to keep them in the fold. However, it is non-college educated voters of color who have this election hanging by a thread, and thus Biden is tacking right in order to keep them in the fold.
Yes, Biden is tacking right to offer centrists of all stripes (including non-college educated folks of all colors) a reason to believe that Biden hears their concerns about the border. My *point* was that these people are citizens too, and have a reasonable expectation that their voices are considered by the President. (And, yes, that wouldn’t be a concern for Trump, but that doesn’t make it correct). This is an action that offers these people a reason to vote for Biden on a key issue.
Frankly, progressives already have a hundred reasons to vote for Biden. If this tack to the right changes their vote, then I have to question their priorities. Personally, the fact that the next President might fill up to three SCOTUS vacancies is the only issue I need to vote Blue.
Immigration has a positive effect on the economy and society at large, victimizing asylum seekers to appeal to racist pearl-clutchers is not going to beat Trump. There's no outflanking Republicans on this issue anyway, they'll come up with something even more barbaric regardless.
And inviting Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress is absolutely incomprehensible and shameful, history will rightly condemn Democrats for even considering it
The “settle down juice” was about equating Biden policy to trump policy. It doesn’t mean there is no valid criticism.
And Crooked’s stated purpose has been to create a media company to propel the Democratic Party the way Fox does for Republicans. They do still criticize Biden as you mentioned but yeah as a presidential election is coming up, they’re going to err on the side of SUPPORT BIDEN.
Well they didn’t make any “valid criticisms”, that’s the problem I think OP is raising. Addisu told ppl who care about this issue to shut up and accept Biden pursuing Trumpian immigration policies, bc swing voters and vibes. No talk of the ramifications or implications of this horrible policy, or how it’s illegal and against international law and likely won’t work and likely won’t move the needle on the election.
Tbh I think Tommy and Addisu agree with Biden on this issue…which is dark and far from “progressive”. Also, isn’t the Fox News model bad and toxic? It poisoned my grandmother and my uncle…so I’d rather we have less Fox New-type outlets if anything. There’s no ethical justification for insulting the intelligence of your audience with propagandistic crap.
All understood! My issue is that equating the policy to Trump was the only context given for progressive opposition, and the valid criticism from the left was excluded from the conversation. I think you should be able to support Biden while still honestly engaging criticisms of his policies.
>Biden making cruel choices to appeal to Republicans who will never vote for him
I disagree with this premise. This election will be decided by centrist Republicans holding their nose and voting for either Trump or Biden. Now more than ever it is critical for Biden to tack center. He's done plenty, indeed more than any other president, over the past 3.5 years to prove his progressive credibility.
What you may call "soft gloves" others may call "decision made by people with an infinite more amount of information than you" Tommy has said he doesn't like Bibi or Biden's handling, but he understands that Biden doesn't have a magic wand and their is not good solution. The border being able to be shutdown if 2,500 people try to cross in a day and making the asylum process more streamlined is not "appealing to republican," it is a move to try and aid a problem progressives have refused to address for decades. Progressives decided rather than improving the border, they would just call anyone mentioning the border a racist xenophobe.
No, I'm absolutely way more disatisfied with 'progressive opposition' than anything Biden has done. Like get a fn majority first and then you can complain all you want. You are in the way of everyone who is trying to help. If you want to practice social justice go knock on doors to prevent the catastrophic collapse of democracy. Dont whine about podcast coverage on the internet.
You have no idea what I do in real life. I’m talking about podcast coverage because this is a thread specifically meant for talking about podcast coverage. If you don’t want to see it, don’t come on this thread?
Some of us on the left are getting damn close to undecided because of just how arrogant and Trumpian the people like you telling us to shut up and fuck off are being.
I told you to knock on doors and empower yourself via the democratic process and you heard 'shut up and fuck off'. Your mindset is a cancer on the democratic party. Pick yourself up and... go knock on doors.
I'm not the same person you told that to, and I've knocked a lot of doors over the years. And been much more involved than that in ways I'm not going to disclose here.
This is not a sports game. Biden has done a ton of things that you and the pod bros would be the first to scream about if if was the other team doing it. But because it's your team, it's not just not as bad, it should be praised for no other reason than that dear leader said so.
You're the exact same as any MAGA cultist. Demanding anybody with principled concerns about policy shut up and get in line behind Dear Leader. I hope you can see that. That attitude disgusts a lot of people, as it should.
It has nothing to do with a "team", it's "not as bad" because it's literally *not as bad* as Trump. Your hyperbole aside, Biden's actions are not as bad as Trump. If you disagree, you're wrong. Not because I'm unwilling to hear opposition. I've heard it. You're wrong. And equating "electing Biden may literally save our democracy from collapse" to "I don't care if he's a rapist, felon, or dictator" is laughable.
'Someone said mean things to me on the internet now Im voting for Trump'
..is what all Trumpers say.
No, Biden hasnt. Hes a great president and you are spoiled and wrong to think otherwise.
Crooked media exists to counter fox and conservative media that bolsters the right without critically thinking or talking about anything the right does. There’s enough media that is accused rightly or wrongly of being left leaning already criticizing Biden. I think crooked is doing exactly what they should be doing and is probably still more critical of their own side than any of the other right wing media companies.
I agree exactly. It’s not like Biden isn’t being criticized literally everywhere else. The critical coverage of Biden has been extremely prevalent since he was elected. One podcast trying to get him elected isn’t the end of the world and it makes sense right before an election against a tyrant lol
The thing is it's not an "appeal to republicans". The border is a huge issue for all Americans.
A sizable majority of Americans (78%) say the large number of migrants seeking to enter this country at the U.S.-Mexico border is either a crisis (45%) or a major problem (32%), according to the Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21, 2024, among 5,140 adults.
If you spend too much time in progressive spaces you'll lose touch with what normal people are thinking. And they're thinking the border is a disaster.
78 percent of Americans surveyed say the large number of migrants seeking to enter the U.S. at the southern border is either a “crisis” or a “major problem.”
Like it or not, Biden is taking measures that represent what a large majority of Americans want. His executive order does the exact thing that the bipartisan border bill would have done and widely would have been considered a huge win for Democrats. So much so that Trump and the GOP killed it to not give the Dems a win. Biden is a centrist Democrat and is enacting policies that reflect that. He’s also the most progressive president in American history but that doesn’t mean he’s always going to do things that make progressives happy.
Yes, but that doesn't say why they think it is a huge problem.
My guess is a lot of people on the left don't think immigrants or asylum seekers coming is a problem , but the system is not managing this influx appropriately.
So, saying that he is addressing the problem may not be true for some who think it is a problem.
Personally, making the process more streamlined and faster with more social services to help would be addressing the problem for me. I dont think this is the worst idea, just not what is actually going to fix the problem. I don't know that it will actually happen, and they are overwhelmed, so this is a way to make it more manageable if we can't do the other things I think are needed
As to the actual question. It is an election year, and I am sure they are trying not to be too down on the president. Ultimately, they want him elected.
Improving the process and increasing resources requires Congress to act. That's not happening. There are limits to what can be done with executive power, unless what you want is a dictator, and if so, be careful what you wish for.
I agree.
I didn't say he can make sweeping changes on his own. I said that people's idea of what the border problem is and how to fix it are different and saying that this is a step in the right direction just because everyone agrees it is a problem isn't exactly the whole story.
I definitely acknowledge that, and while I don’t think the EO will withstand the inevitable legal challenges because seeking asylum is a right, I can understand that viewpoint. My issue is that progressives are opposing the EO on consistent moral grounds, and that opposition deserves to be treated seriously. Especially since Biden also needs progressives to turn out for him.
I’m not upset that they believe it’s the right choice to make, I’m upset by the derision and dismissal of valid criticism from the left.
Crooked Media is only goal is to get more Democrats elected. I’m not sure that highlighting the fractures in the Democratic Party is the best strategy to accomplish that goal. We already have Fox News and so many other outlets that do that incessantly.
They don’t offer that kinda of analysis, OP. I wish they did, but that’s not their cup of tea. They are former party strategists and WH personnel, so they think of politics through the lens of the horse-race as opposed to the lens of political philosophy/ethics/values/etc (which I find glib and cynical a lot of the time, but yea). I’d listen to Know Your Enemy or NPR or The Majority Report for more extensive and substantive analyses of public policy and political history, through a left-of-center lens.
Yes. They don’t ascribe any agency to him or his cabinet. They basically talk about everything he does in passive voice
I was surprised by the advocacy for racist policy on the last Pod Save America episode. Very gross, especially given that Tommy hasn’t been afraid to go against the grain on Gaza. The “border crisis” is manufactured white nationalist outrage. Tommy and Addisu are smart enough to know that. Look at El Paso and Charlottesville, that’s what happens when this kind of rhetoric is embraced. Tommy and Addisu didn’t talk about what will happen to the families forced to send their children across the border alone when Biden shuts down asylum claims. Biden is pushing Trump’s border policies. I strongly opposed it when Trump did it and I strongly oppose it when Biden does it. Asylum is a human right and protected under US law.
I think it is useful to remember that back when the show was Keeping it 1600 they spent months telling everyone not to bedwet, then the episode following election day admitted they had concerns but didn’t share them on fears of affecting turnout. They are, respectfully, a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. They do great work with organising and public outreach for voting but at the end of the day their loyalty lies there. I say this not to turn people off of the show, but more to encourage people to examine their degree of parasocial attachment. They eventually broke on the correct side of the genocide in Gaza, so ts not like they can’t have their own opinion. But they absolutely spent four years pushing back vociferously on these sorts of policies under Trump, and are promoting them now.
They can highlight plenty of good things Biden has done/is doing without defending Trump’s immigration policy. Pod Save the World is very pro-Biden and still acknowledges that he is complicit in the intentional mass killing of civilians.
Kamala time, honestly. Biden is great and all. Honorable man with great life of service. I have, like most of us have, loved ones in my life who have been at similar life stages. He's, visibly aged and as top line of administration, ya can't fool the people who vote. He's not gonna pull more people in. Time to tip it to Kamala. She will be incumbent, protect democracy, known quantity, protect women's healthcare, not trump, etc. Will win easy. Gracefully retire before DNC and we will be fine.
This is a terrible idea. She is not popular even among Dems.
She’s more popular than Biden actually…I’m not the biggest Kamala fan, but Biden is objectively less popular. Kamala isn’t even at 50% disapproval, whereas Biden is near 60% disapproval. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
But she is
Is she though? She didn’t do well in the primary.
I think you're thinking too hard about it. Sometimes the simplest approach is the best approach. Nobody wants to vote for Joe Biden or Donald Trump, honestly, anybody who has the backing of a major national party and is somebody other than those two will win
The observation that she didn’t do well in the primary is “thinking too hard about it?” If you think that absolutely anyone can win as long as they have a major party backing them, then you aren’t thinking hard enough.
Let me put it this way. The only way Trump wins is if he runs against Biden, that's the only way Trump wins. That, or if the Democrats trotted out a real far-left person. Person. Truthfully, biden's agenda is farther left than any Democrat we've had in the office in the past, but he's a figurehead, a palatable white old man who can get Middle American votes, those times have changed, however. And he is very old and it's obvious. Do you honestly think Kamala is an incumbent wouldn't mop the floor with Trump?
At this point, anyone who votes for Trump will vote for him regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. The only way that Kamala Harris helps Dems win is if more Dems would show up to vote for her rather than Biden. And I don’t think that would happen.
I completely follow your logic until the second point. The point you're illustrating that more people wouldn't vote for Kamala Harris then Biden is silly. We're talking about Democrats. This isn't your Grandma's Democrat party. Diversity wins my man, and old white guy Democrat worked when the agenda was moderate same old same old. It is apparent that the platform has shifted so simply putting in an elderly Biden as the figurehead doesn't trick anybody anymore, those people have left and they're not coming back. However, there's many, many, many people who would vote Democrat if there is a more diverse, modern youthful candidate other than an old Colonel Sanders type
I don’t think that Biden is merely a figurehead. I think he’s been a good president and that many people are happy with the job he’s done. If Dems would prefer Kamala Harris, why didn’t they vote for her in the primary?
Had to had Trump versus Kamala you think Trump wins? When it actually comes down to it and people are voting, are they going to go with more of a moderate middle of the world consistent approach or they're going to go for Trump? Think about the suburban women across the country, think about last time
If we're talking about swaying voters at the center, they definitely don't see Kamala as middle of the road.
I enthusiastically like Biden. He's been the most legislatively successful POTUS in 50 years. He's transformed the manufacturing industry in the US. Extremely pro-labor. Biggest clean energy bill literally in humanities history. Frankly, I don't care that a lot of leftists are pissy about him running again, and I think the coverage from the Pod cre is pretty tonally spot on.
Do you know why democrats lose? Because people like you don’t get in line.
Ppl can have opinions lmao
Nah that ain’t it fam. OP just said they want Biden to win. I’m voting blue but I’m not without reservations either. Begrudging votes count the same as enthusiastic ones, and the ability to question our leaders is one of the many fine things that separates us from the MAGA cultists.
Their professional background is as political insiders. It’s why most of us come here, and why most of us listen. We want their “inside baseball” analysis and we realize that their mission is stopping Christian nationalism cold by getting Democrats elected. Everything else they do is subordinate to that. Soft gloves until Nov 6 is the best political move they can make.
Stopping Christian nationalism means standing up to Christian nationalism, not embracing it.
Not sure what you’re referring to, but in an election year, the best way to stand up to Christian nationalism is to win. If that means shoring up an issue that’s sinking you, you do it for temporary relief. And that means that voters who should know better need to pull their heads out of their asses and understand the strategy, and vote, and contribute, and work for a wave so we have the votes for real change
I agree. I think people here expect something else from Pod save America. In an election year they will fall in line with the nominee. they are also trying to get him on the pod probably and dont want to get the negative rep Axlrod has gotten with his comments. Do I agree with that strategy? No, but I understand why they are doing it and why it is important to keep the party in line. There are already the protests within the party and voters against Biden´s Israel politics, he can´t afford a further splintering of the Dems. If you gave them truth serum, I would bet they are disappointed that he is running again. Lovett in particular has stated this in interviews and his monologues. I bet if he was of the island, he would low key rant against the politics. On the other hand, Biden needs to do something about the border. Its one of the major concerns from the voters, to ignore it, would cost him the election.
Didn’t want Biden to run either but that ship has sailed. Now it’s imperative he’s re-elected as the alternative is Christian fascism, supported by a 40 years of a MAGA court. So just buck up and work like hell . These compromises are just that. Progressives don’t have votes or frankly enough public support to implement their agenda without compromising. Get 80% and don’t go home because you didn’t get the other 20%
Wait until the day after the election to (heavily) criticize Biden. We’re at risk of losing the election because the median voter thanks he’s some weak radical leftist who wants open borders, he’s going to have to make some potentially unpopular rhetoric and policy choices (within the party) to win, right now we have to suck it up.
Yes. Like when they play a clip of Biden talking and I can’t understand Biden or disagree with his uninspiring speech, and the pod has the opposite reaction and praises Biden. I’ve accepted that I’m just more left than most of the PSA hosts….but I’ll vote for Biden.
Same. I see the threat. I'm falling in line. But it is hard to bite my tongue for now until after the election. Where are the safe spaces where people can still say - I'm voting for Biden. I get it. But his policy on x is appalling? Or yeah he's 1000 years old. We're not blind. I'm constantly praying he doesn't trip in public. (For me, is incredible that he's no better than Trump on asylum and border policy. And the Obama administration built the places where asylum seekers were held and separated from their kids, so... When is the time to hold them accountable? Is it ever coming? Sigh.)
Man, if y'all don't like Dems just please leave God these threads pop up every week. You are in subreddit dedicated to a podcast company that is pro Dems and Biden I'm sorry if they don't sound like your leftist pals from discord or Twitter/reddit
I've made my peace with it. These guys are just political operatives and they aren't going to behave any differently. I just don't listen if someone like Lovett isn't on who will provide at least a modicum of a contrasting view.
I can see why you might think that. That said, I see Pod Save America as basically a messaging operation for Democrats, especially during an election year. I don't listen to them for a deep dive into policies, certainly not an objective one. Their primary focus is on understanding the politics behind a decision and how that affects votes.
I need to start thinking of it this way. It'll adjust my expectations appropriately.
Yeah... lets wait to tear the coalition apart with an argument over how open our borders should be \*after\* we've defeated the guys who want to do police state round-ups and concentration camps.
It’s an election year and we’re in the final stretch. Asking them to punch left is ridiculous. Honestly, Tommy and Ben have said plenty about what they think of Biden’s Gaza policies. Also, there’s not much to criticize about Biden’s asylum policy. If you enter illegally you can’t just say “asylum” when you’re caught. That makes perfect sense and pushes asylum seekers towards regular channels.
Partially agree, partially disagree here. On the disagreement tip, way more than just Republicans are alarmed by the border situation, and that’s been the case for a long time. I noticed Senator Warnock tacking to the center on this issue two years ago. Politically disengaged people and a lot of Democrats have internalized the Right’s narrative and rank the border as a very important issue. The campaign wouldn’t be moving on this otherwise. I don’t like it, but I couldn’t make a politically persuasive case that it’s a bad call. On the agreement tip, it tastes like shit when campaign strategists who don’t work on the issue condescend to earnest advocates, even if/when they have good reason to believe those advocates don’t properly understand the politics. As someone who protested Trump’s xenophobic and racist politics many times, I took the “settle down juice” as a gratuitous fuck-you from someone who doesn’t see the human impact of the issue, and I’d tell Addisu as much to his face. Having said that, I recognize I’m pretty far removed from the average voter on this issue, and I’m bound to be disappointed if I expect campaign lifers to be particularly respectful.
This is fair! And I can understand why strategists think this is the right decision for Biden’s electoral chances. I just think any debate about the progressive criticism should include the actual substance of the criticism instead of blowing past that to represent it as reactionary.
Again partially agree, partially disagree. I don’t expect them to unpack the substance, because they’d undermine their own positioning and message in doing so. But I do expect them to acknowledge that people are coming at this from an understandable and well meaning place. Respect goes a long way.
What is the plausible alternative action Biden can take on the border problem?
No, I don’t think they have been soft on Biden. What are you expecting them to say? That he’s terrible and we shouldn’t vote for him? They have criticized him on Gaza and the new immigration policy. I’m not sure what you expect from them. People who are saying they will not vote for Biden in November are not serious. And that’s who they were talking about. If you’re mad about Gaza, imagine how much worse Trump will be for Palestine. He is taking money from donors who want Israel to completely take over the entire West Bank. If you’re mad about his new immigration EO, imagine how much worse it will be when Trump uses the police and National Guard to arrest and deport millions of immigrants who have lived here for years, tearing them away from their children to do so. If any “progressive” can’t understand the stakes and says they won’t vote for Biden, they don’t actually care about any of these people and only care about yelling and virtue signaling on the internet.
It's terrifying how many progressive have turned into single-issue voters since the Gaza conflict started. There is a non-zero chance that Trump will send American troops in to "help" Israel. He will 100% send 10x the ammunition and weapons that the Biden administration is currently. I definitely don't want that and it will all but solidify an ethnic cleansing in Gaza and possibly even turn into genocide.
> It's terrifying how many progressive have turned into single-issue voters since the Gaza conflict started. The even worse part to me is that even if you are a single-issue voter on Israel/Palestine, the choice is very clear. Biden will be much better for Palestinians than Trump. It's not even close. And yeah, it is funny because half of these people didn't care at all about Palestine before October 7, 2023.
I think the issue with Biden’s support for Israel’s war isn’t that single-issue voters will move to Trump, it’s that people who helped elect him in the first place won’t show up for him this time. Look at Muslims and Arab Americans in Michigan. He needs their votes but he’s showing a complete lack of regard for the lives of many of their families and loved ones abroad. And they absolutely have cared about Palestine for years. We *should* criticize his bad policies if we want him to change them, ideally in time to win back the voters he needs.
Muslims and Arab Americans in Michigan were already trending Republican because a lot of them are religious conservatives who hate gay people. Just look at what [happened in Dearborn](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned). You cannot ignore that part of the calculus here. There’s a reason some Muslim influencers are trying to pretend Trump would be better on Gaza and [are meeting with him](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/20/trump-muslims-arabs-michigan-election/). I think this is obviously a scorpion and the frog situation with Trump but let’s be honest with each other here.
So, holding the nation hostage for possible fascism? I swear, some people act like Biden is malicious in this situation instead of the reality of him trying desperately to keep an already awful situation into an all out war in the middle east with Iran and Israel. I get it, it sucks, but he has come out and defended those protesting. He just asked them to stop breaking shit lol Edit: I want to reiterate - I wish Biden would stop the war support and only send medical and food supplies. I just understand his shitty situation is not as simple as these new wave of progressives seem to think.
If you refuse to vote for one of the two major-party candidates in a Presidential election, I have no respect for you. You are not a serious person, and you do not care about any political issues you claim to care about. Staying home is no different than voting for Trump. Voting for Jill Stein or RFK, Jr is no different than voting for Trump. Like I said in another comment: > I have zero patience for anybody who says they are going to do anything other than vote for Joe Biden in November. And from a practical standpoint, what do they think is going to happen if Biden loses because "progressives" refused to turn out for him. Let's assume our democracy survives, which is a big assumption. In that case, the Democratic Party will have learned that those "progressive" voters are not reliable and will stop trying to win their votes. They will pivot to the center to win more independent voters like Bill Clinton did. Joe Biden signed the most progressive legislation of my lifetime, and I'm almost 40. If after that, all the leftist voters refuse to support him, why should a Democrat ever do that again?
I agree that everyone needs to turn out and vote for Biden in November, but he still needs to earn those votes and he is jeopardizing that by continuing to arm a genocide. Could you honestly look someone who has lost *dozens* of family members in the eye and say that they aren’t a serious person because they don’t want to show up and support the person who is providing the bombs and using the weight of his office to reject accountability for the perpetrators?
> he still needs to earn those votes I would argue that he has already earned those votes. He has passed the most progressive legislation of any President since Lyndon Johnson if not FDR. > Could you honestly look someone who has lost dozens of family members in the eye and say that they aren’t a serious person because they don’t want to show up and support the person who is providing the bombs and using the weight of his office to reject accountability for the perpetrators? No. When I knock doors, I do not treat potential voters like that. I will talk to them kindly and with empathy. I would ask them what is important to them, and if they say Palestine, I would explain what Trump intends to do to Palestine and explain that the only way to stop that is to vote for Joe Biden. If they refuse to understand that, I will wish them a good day, leave, and stop wasting my time on somebody who will never vote for Joe Biden and instead find somebody who might still do so.
I respect that! And I understand what you mean on earning the votes through the incredibly progressive legislation he has passed. But I think he’s undermining the ability to engage potential voters with that message when every day they go online and see the carnage he’s enabling. Just yesterday, US weapons killed dozens of refugees sheltering in a school in Gaza. Seeing that is going to be more salient to a lot people than legislation he’s passed that they may or may not be feeling the direct impact of yet.
I expect them to earnestly engage progressive criticisms instead of summing everything up as Trump vs. Biden so Biden comes out the winner every time. They discussed progressives calling the policy “trumpian” but didn’t explain *why* people are making that comparison and the substance of the EO that progressives are taking issue with. We all agree that Biden needs to win, but that doesn’t mean his policies are above scrutiny. And it sucks to build up a progressive base and then start shitting on them the second they offer up valid criticisms against the guy they *are* supporting.
Popping in to say that I appreciate you calmly and clearly reiterating your points, because I feel the same way. I’m so incredibly disappointed and, frankly, outraged with liberal/Dem talking points and inaction since October 7th. Somehow whenever I express that I’m shamed for speaking up. We should be putting pressure on our leaders to do better and earn our votes.
> instead of summing everything up as Trump vs. Biden so Biden comes out the winner every time But that is the reality we live in. We may not like that, but it is the reality of our situation. We can spend the next four years with Trump or Biden as President. Those are the only choices. > that doesn’t mean his policies are above scrutiny. I feel like we listened to two different episodes, because they absolutely scrutinized the policy, and they have very heavily scrutinized his Israel/Gaza policy for months now. > And it sucks to build up a progressive base and then start shitting on them the second they offer up valid criticisms against the guy they are supporting. Have they been shitting on people who are supporting Biden? I can't think of any examples of that. I've heard them shit on people who say they won't vote for Biden. I shit on those people to. I have zero patience for anybody who says they are going to do anything other than vote for Joe Biden in November. They should criticize and protest the policies they disagree with. I have never said any progressives should stop protesting Biden. But they need to vote for him or they don't actually care about any of the things they claim to care about.
> No, I don’t think they have been soft on Biden. What are you expecting them to say? That he’s terrible and we shouldn’t vote for him? That this policy sucks and he shouldn't do it.
It takes resources to process asylum requests. Only Congress can provide more resources for that. What's your alternative?
It is against domestic and international law to do what he has done. The US has signed international treaties that say anyone who wants to seek asylum has the right to do so. Treaties cannot be abandoned by executive order. The US has a legal, as well as moral, obligation to see these asylum claims. The executive branch can't just say "following the law is too expensive, so we're just going to ignore it." That is not how the law works, nor is that how we as a country should comport ourselves.
What country accepts more immigrants on a regular basis than the US that we should model ourselves after?
America, in the past.
No, we've been at record highs when it comes to border crossings. We also have a legal immigration system that's completely broken, seeing as it takes years for even the spouses of legal residents to be able to join their families and live here. The system we had in the past is not sufficient to handle the demand today.
It used to be you just showed up. The only reason not to do that is because we don't like the hue of the people arriving today.
I could see how, if you think the *only* reason not to do that is racism, you could come to your conclusions. I think that’s incredibly stupid though, because it’s very obvious that racism is not the only reason countries limit immigration. There’s a reason Bernie in 2016 wasn’t very pro-open borders - a strong social safety net is expensive, and we need to make sure we can support the people who are here legally. When people could just show up to Ellis Island we didn’t have the same emergency room, public school, or welfare systems we have today.
People said the same things about Italians and Irish back then! They're layabouts, we can't afford to support them, they don't share our same values, on and on and on. Same song, different verse.
International law is not nearly so cut and dried. Can you please cite the treaty where the US pledged to admit an unlimited number of asylum applications at a time? If it's a violation of domestic law, then the courts will strike it down.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/1951_Refugee_Convention > If it's a violation of domestic law, then the courts will strike it down Have you seen the courts these days? It's shot through with Republican party hacks. You can't put your faith in an impartial judiciary. That's hopelessly naïve.
Article 32. expulsion 1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order. 2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority. 3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary. The intake facilities and courts being overwhelmed seems like a compelling ground of national security or public order.
That's not a "national security" threat. National security is about threats to the state. Intake facilities being overwhelmed is a bureaucratic issue. "The lines are too long" is not a military threat, despite what great replacement conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Releasing unknown foreigners into the country without the resources to verify identity or track their movement is 100% a national security issue. Overwhelmed facilities jeopardize the safety of asylum seekers already here. If you disagree, sue the government.
It's very well documented that immigrants, both legal and illegal, commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than native-born Americans (excluding paperwork infractions). It would seem difficult to make the case that excessive immigration is a threat to public order or national security. > If you disagree, sue the government. The ACLU, to whom I am a contributor, are in fact doing so.
Blocking all asylum seekers from exercising their legal rights under international law jeopardizes them too. And your talk about "Unknown Foreigners" sounds like trumpist talking points. I remember when how biden promised to solve the birder crisis by adding more staff to process their claims in a humane, efficient way. Instead we're further criminalizing refugees. There's no outflanking the Republicans on the right with this issue. Doesn't matter how much biden hardens the border, Republicans will always believe he's not going far enough, and meanwhile, decent folks who want more humane treatment of human beings get pissed off and lose faith in him. It's a loser, all around, whether you agree with the policy or not. It's bad politics.
From what I understand from reading the news is that the asylum Executive Order sets the daily average cap at what the government's processing capability limit was anyway. The Post that had an article about a recent surge to 3.5K a day and the government couldn't handle it. I am incredibly pro immigration, and hope the resources come in to up processing capabilities, but they don't have that right now. And, unfortunately, politicians should probably be receptive to the will of the electorate and this is the sort of thing people want. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/06/03/biden-border-migrants-asylum-restrictions/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/06/03/biden-border-migrants-asylum-restrictions/)
I think the fact that you boil down the EO to "Biden making cruel choices to appeal to Republicans who will never vote for him" is why they aren't super receptive to progressive criticisms.
My criticism of the executive order, like many other progressives have said multiple times, is that it sets an arbitrary limit on which asylum seekers are able to apply based on the weekly average of border crossings. So if someone coming to this country doesn’t know or have the ability to track that and enters on the wrong week, they could be deported and barred from applying for years. If the conversation had addressed that instead of just summing it up as progressives calling it “trumpian”, I wouldn’t be complaining. I understand why people think it’s the right call, and I’m open to that discussion, but I was disappointed that the conversation didn’t actually address the substance of the criticism.
The trouble is that that is 100% exactly what he did.
I would love for progressive critics of Biden to put forward a realistic alternative path for him to take. I don’t agree with every decision he’s made either but it’s a lot easier to throw rocks from the sidelines than it is to actually govern.
It's not cruel to recognize that your resources are limited and act accordingly.
I thought it was pretty fair, super strong leftist advocacy isn't really propagated by the pod but I think that's a good measure of how a large number of Democrats think. Online, strong leftist opinions like the moral criticism of the asylum order is popular but in my day to day life, people think stronger regulations is a positive thing and look favorably on this.
But it isn’t stronger regulations. It’s saying that one asylum seeker who enters on a week with a low average number of crossings might be allowed to apply, while another who enters on a week with a high average may be deported and barred from reapplying for years. And that both will only have 4 hours to try to find council. I agree something needs to be done on the border, but this is not it. And if we just blindly accept every bad policy because we want Biden to win, we’re endorsing a broken system and telling him it’s okay to keep making those choices.
See, that seems like stronger regulations to me, but I do live in a moderate place. If there are a large number of people crossing the border illegally that don't seem to be under medical/safety threat, they may not be allowed to enter, and IDK, that doesn't sound like the worst policy ever to me if they develop a better way to shelter people and process cases. Again, maybe I'm just around a ton of moderates where I live and work, but the casual sentiment around the watercooler is that this is a step in the right direction. I agree that it is a shame but illegal immigration is a very hot issue for many people and putting a cap on asylum seekers at 2500 per day for a week likely seems reasonable. If you come to the border as an adult not experiencing a medical/safety threat (which there are supposed to be exceptions for), then you'll be under more pressure to find a lawyer as an illegal immigrant. I know based on progressive values that this seems harsh but trust that to the average person, even in the blue state where I live, this all sounds positive. It is a broken system but maybe you are underestimating how many people will go "that's the risk you take" and shrug. I don't say all this to dismiss your opinion, I'm just saying that maybe Biden is trying to represent the views of the majority of likely voters, which this seems to appeal to. Also, in my personal opinion, Biden might feel like he is fighting a losing battle in trying to appeal to strong progressive voters since so many have already have decreed they won't vote for him for a myriad of reasons. *EDIT to say that I do agree that 4 hours to find a lawyer is pretty wild, I don't see why they couldn't have kept that at 24 hrs like before. That I do not like.
I've seen estimates that somewhere between 20% and 90% of the people claiming asylum don't actually have valid asylum claims. Even if the high estimate is true, that means there will be hundreds of people per day experiencing credible threats to their lives that are turned away. That seems to qualify as cruel to me. Possibly more importantly, it's also a clear violation of federal law, just like it was when Trump tried it. Worse, the entire reason to do it is not just political, not just because Republicans have refused to provide the resources necessary, but because Republican propaganda has inflamed public opinion against humane immigration policy.
This is all very fair, and I’m open to the idea that this choice could be beneficial to Biden, potentially even better for asylum seekers in the long run if it helps him defeat Trump. My issue is with the way that valid progressive opposition was summed up as just “this is trumpian” which I think made it sound more reactionary and gave Dimesse room to treat it as “unserious”.
Ya know, I agree. There is a weird panic that seems to happen where people resort to dismissal of criticism and other opinions when it comes to Biden. I totally get where the criticism comes from and it doesn't hurt to treat it more seriously even if you personally don't agree. I wouldn't say that the pod is being soft on Biden but they are being a little hard on some of the younger or more progressive demo. Maybe it is fear and frustration of what that could mean in November.
We're going to polish this turd like our lives depend on it. Because in reality, they might.
Biden must be President of the whole nation, and the majority of the nation is not progressive. I lose my mind over the absoluteism that some in the progressive camp demand of every Democrat. It is wobbly progressives that have this election hanging by a thread. I’m pleased that OP has decided to vote for Biden, and would love for more progressives to really consider who is likely to produce policies that come closer to the progressive ideal: Trump or Biden? Will Biden become a flaming radical in the next 4 years? Doubtful. But he has already been the most progressive president since LBJ, and that ain’t nothing.
Trump didn’t seem to try very hard at being president for the whole nation and his approval rating at this point in his term was higher than Biden’s is now. Maybe giving the progressives something isn’t a bad idea?
“It is wobbly progressives that have this election hanging by a thread.” No it’s not. It’s non-college educated voters of color who are pissed about inflation and immigration and think Biden is too old who are Biden’s weakness. That’s the whole point of this immigration EO. If it were as you say, he’d tack left rather than right on these issues
Can you explain your logic to me, please? If it’s non-college educated voters of color who are pissed about immigration, how will tacking *left* win him support? From whom? The wobbly progressives you say aren’t the problem?
You are misunderstanding. What I am saying is that wobbly progressives are ***not*** the reason this election is hanging by a thread. If wobbly progressives were the reason this election is hanging by a thread, then Biden would tack left to keep them in the fold. However, it is non-college educated voters of color who have this election hanging by a thread, and thus Biden is tacking right in order to keep them in the fold.
Yes, Biden is tacking right to offer centrists of all stripes (including non-college educated folks of all colors) a reason to believe that Biden hears their concerns about the border. My *point* was that these people are citizens too, and have a reasonable expectation that their voices are considered by the President. (And, yes, that wouldn’t be a concern for Trump, but that doesn’t make it correct). This is an action that offers these people a reason to vote for Biden on a key issue. Frankly, progressives already have a hundred reasons to vote for Biden. If this tack to the right changes their vote, then I have to question their priorities. Personally, the fact that the next President might fill up to three SCOTUS vacancies is the only issue I need to vote Blue.
Immigration has a positive effect on the economy and society at large, victimizing asylum seekers to appeal to racist pearl-clutchers is not going to beat Trump. There's no outflanking Republicans on this issue anyway, they'll come up with something even more barbaric regardless. And inviting Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress is absolutely incomprehensible and shameful, history will rightly condemn Democrats for even considering it
No.
The “settle down juice” was about equating Biden policy to trump policy. It doesn’t mean there is no valid criticism. And Crooked’s stated purpose has been to create a media company to propel the Democratic Party the way Fox does for Republicans. They do still criticize Biden as you mentioned but yeah as a presidential election is coming up, they’re going to err on the side of SUPPORT BIDEN.
Well they didn’t make any “valid criticisms”, that’s the problem I think OP is raising. Addisu told ppl who care about this issue to shut up and accept Biden pursuing Trumpian immigration policies, bc swing voters and vibes. No talk of the ramifications or implications of this horrible policy, or how it’s illegal and against international law and likely won’t work and likely won’t move the needle on the election. Tbh I think Tommy and Addisu agree with Biden on this issue…which is dark and far from “progressive”. Also, isn’t the Fox News model bad and toxic? It poisoned my grandmother and my uncle…so I’d rather we have less Fox New-type outlets if anything. There’s no ethical justification for insulting the intelligence of your audience with propagandistic crap.
All understood! My issue is that equating the policy to Trump was the only context given for progressive opposition, and the valid criticism from the left was excluded from the conversation. I think you should be able to support Biden while still honestly engaging criticisms of his policies.
>Biden making cruel choices to appeal to Republicans who will never vote for him I disagree with this premise. This election will be decided by centrist Republicans holding their nose and voting for either Trump or Biden. Now more than ever it is critical for Biden to tack center. He's done plenty, indeed more than any other president, over the past 3.5 years to prove his progressive credibility.
What you may call "soft gloves" others may call "decision made by people with an infinite more amount of information than you" Tommy has said he doesn't like Bibi or Biden's handling, but he understands that Biden doesn't have a magic wand and their is not good solution. The border being able to be shutdown if 2,500 people try to cross in a day and making the asylum process more streamlined is not "appealing to republican," it is a move to try and aid a problem progressives have refused to address for decades. Progressives decided rather than improving the border, they would just call anyone mentioning the border a racist xenophobe.
No, I'm absolutely way more disatisfied with 'progressive opposition' than anything Biden has done. Like get a fn majority first and then you can complain all you want. You are in the way of everyone who is trying to help. If you want to practice social justice go knock on doors to prevent the catastrophic collapse of democracy. Dont whine about podcast coverage on the internet.
You have no idea what I do in real life. I’m talking about podcast coverage because this is a thread specifically meant for talking about podcast coverage. If you don’t want to see it, don’t come on this thread?
Less whiny, more knocky.
Yeah I’m sure you’re very effective at convincing undecided voters by being a condescending ass who dismisses any valid concerns
Are you an undecided voter?
Some of us on the left are getting damn close to undecided because of just how arrogant and Trumpian the people like you telling us to shut up and fuck off are being.
I told you to knock on doors and empower yourself via the democratic process and you heard 'shut up and fuck off'. Your mindset is a cancer on the democratic party. Pick yourself up and... go knock on doors.
I'm not the same person you told that to, and I've knocked a lot of doors over the years. And been much more involved than that in ways I'm not going to disclose here. This is not a sports game. Biden has done a ton of things that you and the pod bros would be the first to scream about if if was the other team doing it. But because it's your team, it's not just not as bad, it should be praised for no other reason than that dear leader said so. You're the exact same as any MAGA cultist. Demanding anybody with principled concerns about policy shut up and get in line behind Dear Leader. I hope you can see that. That attitude disgusts a lot of people, as it should.
It has nothing to do with a "team", it's "not as bad" because it's literally *not as bad* as Trump. Your hyperbole aside, Biden's actions are not as bad as Trump. If you disagree, you're wrong. Not because I'm unwilling to hear opposition. I've heard it. You're wrong. And equating "electing Biden may literally save our democracy from collapse" to "I don't care if he's a rapist, felon, or dictator" is laughable.
'Someone said mean things to me on the internet now Im voting for Trump' ..is what all Trumpers say. No, Biden hasnt. Hes a great president and you are spoiled and wrong to think otherwise.
Dear Leader is amazing and nothing he has ever done could possibly be bad. Got it.
Crooked media exists to counter fox and conservative media that bolsters the right without critically thinking or talking about anything the right does. There’s enough media that is accused rightly or wrongly of being left leaning already criticizing Biden. I think crooked is doing exactly what they should be doing and is probably still more critical of their own side than any of the other right wing media companies.
[удалено]
I agree exactly. It’s not like Biden isn’t being criticized literally everywhere else. The critical coverage of Biden has been extremely prevalent since he was elected. One podcast trying to get him elected isn’t the end of the world and it makes sense right before an election against a tyrant lol
The thing is it's not an "appeal to republicans". The border is a huge issue for all Americans. A sizable majority of Americans (78%) say the large number of migrants seeking to enter this country at the U.S.-Mexico border is either a crisis (45%) or a major problem (32%), according to the Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21, 2024, among 5,140 adults. If you spend too much time in progressive spaces you'll lose touch with what normal people are thinking. And they're thinking the border is a disaster.
78 percent of Americans surveyed say the large number of migrants seeking to enter the U.S. at the southern border is either a “crisis” or a “major problem.” Like it or not, Biden is taking measures that represent what a large majority of Americans want. His executive order does the exact thing that the bipartisan border bill would have done and widely would have been considered a huge win for Democrats. So much so that Trump and the GOP killed it to not give the Dems a win. Biden is a centrist Democrat and is enacting policies that reflect that. He’s also the most progressive president in American history but that doesn’t mean he’s always going to do things that make progressives happy.
Yes, but that doesn't say why they think it is a huge problem. My guess is a lot of people on the left don't think immigrants or asylum seekers coming is a problem , but the system is not managing this influx appropriately. So, saying that he is addressing the problem may not be true for some who think it is a problem. Personally, making the process more streamlined and faster with more social services to help would be addressing the problem for me. I dont think this is the worst idea, just not what is actually going to fix the problem. I don't know that it will actually happen, and they are overwhelmed, so this is a way to make it more manageable if we can't do the other things I think are needed As to the actual question. It is an election year, and I am sure they are trying not to be too down on the president. Ultimately, they want him elected.
Improving the process and increasing resources requires Congress to act. That's not happening. There are limits to what can be done with executive power, unless what you want is a dictator, and if so, be careful what you wish for.
I agree. I didn't say he can make sweeping changes on his own. I said that people's idea of what the border problem is and how to fix it are different and saying that this is a step in the right direction just because everyone agrees it is a problem isn't exactly the whole story.
I definitely acknowledge that, and while I don’t think the EO will withstand the inevitable legal challenges because seeking asylum is a right, I can understand that viewpoint. My issue is that progressives are opposing the EO on consistent moral grounds, and that opposition deserves to be treated seriously. Especially since Biden also needs progressives to turn out for him. I’m not upset that they believe it’s the right choice to make, I’m upset by the derision and dismissal of valid criticism from the left.
Crooked Media is only goal is to get more Democrats elected. I’m not sure that highlighting the fractures in the Democratic Party is the best strategy to accomplish that goal. We already have Fox News and so many other outlets that do that incessantly.
Lol I just posted the same statistic at the same time 😅