Joe Biden: "I tried to Prostitute myself" to rich donors. Promised "nothing would change" if elected.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Biden assured big donors that "nothing would fundamentally change" if elected.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... e-the-rich

Joe Biden: I Tried to 'Prostitute Myself' to Big Donors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oysFCNPg0DA

Biden campaign would have been a disaster without the coronavirus crisis.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Here.

[_EAllusion]

Th e first quote refers to not upending US capitalism to reassure rich donors he's not out to eat the rich. This is the position of every Democratic candidate, though - even Bernie Sanders - and doesn't mean what you falsely attribute to it. That's not promising nothing will change. Excising out the word "fundamentally" substantially alters what's being communicated. To put it in perspective, because of shifts within the Democratic party, Biden has the most progressive Democratic policy platform of any Democratic candidate ever. Saying nothing fundamentally would change is a way of trying to say that a new era of New Deal politics won't alter the bedrock of the American economic system where people can strike it rich. This does differ in "eat the rich" rhetoric from some politicians, but the substance differs less than you think.

The second one is even more dishonest than the first. He's telling a joke about how, when he was very young, he tried to get money from rich donors, but failed, so he had to collect from the little guy. It's meant to be a self-deprecating bit to position himself as the common man's candidate in contrast to those "prostitutes". I roll my eyes at the posture he's adopting, but you're really warping what's going on in the comment.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Th e first quote refers to not upending US capitalism to reassure rich donors he's not out to eat the rich.

That is ridiculous, no sane person wants to upend capitalism or eat the rich. Why would Biden tell rich donors something so obvious? Are the rich worried that Biden is going to eat them?

https://seculartalk.net/2019/06/20/bide ... e-nothing/

Saying nothing fundamentally would change is a way of trying to say that a new era of New Deal politics won't alter the bedrock of the American economic system where people can strike it rich.

Or perhaps it means that Biden won't take the tax system back to the 1950s and 60s.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... althy.html

[_moksha]

This whole premise is ridiculous. You are trying to make Biden seem like a Republican dream come true.

[_EAllusion]

That is ridiculous, no sane person wants to upend capitalism or eat the rich. Why would Biden tell rich donors something so obvious? Are the rich worried that Biden is going to eat them?

https://seculartalk.net/2019/06/20/bide ... e-nothing/

Once you understand that "eat the rich" is a metaphor for regulating them out of or near out of existence, then yes, rich people have anxieties about that. Duh, you might think, no Democrat is going to upend capitalism itself. These aren't hardcore Marxists here. Sure. But not everyone is 100% on that page.

Or perhaps it means that Biden won't take the tax system back to the 1950s and 60s.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... althy.html

There aren't close to the votes for any Democrat to do that. Biden does favor increasing income taxes on the wealthy and, more significantly, taxing capital gains and income at parity. In an ideal Biden world, the rich would end up much more taxed than they are now. He's comfortably to the right of a Warren wealth tax, but there's also a huge gap between him and a Donald Trump or any Republican when it comes to views on progressive taxation.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Once you understand that "eat the rich" is a metaphor for regulating them out of or near out of existence, then yes, rich people have anxieties about that. Duh, you might think, no Democrat is going to upend capitalism itself. These aren't hardcore Marxists here. Sure. But not everyone is 100% on that page.

I thought rich donors were educated. According to an article of the WP,

If you want to be generous, you could argue that when he assured the well-heeled donors that “No one’s standard of living will change,” he was telling them that they have so much money that no matter how much we raised their taxes they’d barely notice it. After all, if you have a billion dollars in assets and Elizabeth Warren’s 2 percent wealth tax took effect, your taxes would go up by $20 million, which would leave you with $980 million in assets. You wouldn’t have to cut back on dinners out or start buying the generic toilet paper.

But Biden’s actual ideas about policy change are far more modest, and so are the arguments he wants to make to the public. He believes that you can govern well without attacking the wealthy or big corporations, in both substance and rhetoric. We can all get along if we assume everyone is operating out of good will.

But are they? The problems we’re facing right now didn’t happen by accident. Biden says he’s a great friend to labor unions, but does he think that the Republicans and their corporate partners can be persuaded to abandon their war on collective bargaining with enough backslapping and reassurances that “nothing would fundamentally change”? Or do you have to fight and defeat them because fundamental change is exactly what’s necessary and they’ll never agree to it? If you’re maintaining good relations with the billionaire class, might that be evidence that you’ve already committed to not changing the status quo?

Now let’s look at the even more startling thing Biden said at the fundraiser.

First, Biden recounted being at a caucus with the late Mississippi Sen. James O. Eastland. Imitating his southern drawl, Biden said: “He never called me ‘boy,’ he always called me ‘son’.”

There’s a reason Eastland didn’t call Biden “boy.” That’s what racists like Eastland called black men, and Biden is white. In fact, Eastland was friendly toward Biden in no small part because at the time Biden was an opponent of busing.

Biden then brought up deceased Georgia Sen. Herman Talmadge and called him “one of the meanest guys I ever knew.” Biden added:

Well guess what? At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today, you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.

One reason all this is so objectionable is that much of Biden’s career was built on him being the kind of Democrat who could speak to and for white people who felt dispossessed by societal change, particularly around issues of race. That’s also a key building block (though it goes unstated) of the suggestion that he’s “electable” in ways other Democrats might not be.

Which means that when he’s running to be the presidential nominee of the party that represents pretty much all nonwhite Americans, Biden needs to be especially thoughtful about how he talks about his friendships with people like Eastland.

It takes more than calling a segregationist “mean” to assure us that Biden really gets that these men he worked with didn’t just have political differences with him and weren’t just personally unpleasant, but had devoted their lives to a project of monstrous evil, the subjugation of millions of Americans because of their race.

But let’s try again to be generous to Biden. The point he was trying to make is that if he could work with a racist like Eastland to “get things done,” surely he can convince Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to do the same.

But there’s a problem with this logic, which is that Eastland and other segregationists were perfectly happy to pass legislation on any number of issues that didn’t impede their agenda of white supremacy.

Today’s Republican Party is not. If there’s a Democrat in the White House in 2021 they will employ the same strategy they did under Barack Obama of obstructing everything that president wants to do, as Biden ought to remember.

When the other party is committed to that view — as today’s Republican Party is — the president’s good will and friendliness will change nothing. Yet Biden continues to believe that his friendships with Republicans are so profound and his powers of persuasion so overwhelming that he can transform the Republican Party, altering the course it has been on for decades.

I’m sure Biden will protest that people are misunderstanding what he said at that fundraiser, so let’s be clear that this isn’t about a “gaffe.” Biden has a very particular view of how governing works and what’s possible at this moment in history. He thinks his ability to get along with anyone — Republicans, billionaires, segregationists — will make his presidency successful.

There is no reason, based on everything we’ve seen over the past couple of decades, to think he’s right. And we also have to ask what moral compromises he’s willing to make along the way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... oblematic/

[_honorentheos]

Can we please change the auto correct to leave Sen. as is rather than change it to Sic et Non?

See? S e n. is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation of Senator. And since we aren't obsessively focused on Dr. Peterson as a board, perhaps we can allow a little grammatical liberty to flourish here? You know, in honor of Independence Day or something.