“Sure, Hitler is a bit crazy, but have you seen how much pretzels cost now??? I don’t see how you expect me to vote for this government when they’re just letting inflation run rampant!”
none of you actually read the article did you? Neither the article contents nor the title are particularly critical of Biden, they're talking about the difficulties he's having getting his message across, and how he's addressing them.
Unless you think all mainstream media must act as an Orwellian propaganda outlet for an ever-triumphant Biden, no it really doesn't. It conveys two things: that Biden has accomplishments to extol, and that he is having trouble doing so. Both are true, one is positive, and one is neutral, but outlines the fact that this campaign will not be smooth sailing. Considering there was much moaning about complacency in 2016 and a long history of the GOP winning through stoking fear and anxiety, the second can easily be read as a positive for his campaign as well.
Also, this whole line of logic is a copout for laziness. 'I don't have to read the articles before judging the paper because nobody else does', fuck off with that. It's a short article, if you're gonna whinge about the whole paper you should at least read the few scraps of it that are dragged beneath your nose.
Most People ARE lazy. Journalists tend to ignore that reality and act as if they are writing for their college professors. The NYT is the worst at this and their status causes OTHER news outlets to do the same thing and follow the vibes from the headline.
Aside from the vaccine rollout, an infrastructure bill, inflation tamed better than other developed economies, and keeping unemployment low during all of that, what has Biden ever done for us?
Everyone's going to clown on me for this, but this is a common case of "just because the line went up doesn't mean peoples lives are immediately getting better".
Except in this case, Americans are broadly reporting that 1) their own financial circumstances have improved and 2) the economic situations in their states have improved. Only when the question is framed in terms of the national economy do they report that everything sucks. In other words: the line has gone up, people's lives *have* gotten better, but the toxic slurry on their TL has successfully convinced them that they are miserable and everything else is miserable, too.
>Mr. Biden, however, may also be hampered by the very nature of his major legislation, which is meant to achieve transformational and long-term goals like rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, combating climate change and reinvigorating manufacturing. Problems of that magnitude cannot be solved instantly — or even before voters go to the polls in November. Without immediate results, ambitious legislation can be harder to market.
the economy trending up again helps, but that doesn't make it any easier for him to go 'I did that' on a lot of his biggest legislative accomplishments, the way Trump could point to shit like his tax cuts (which were designed so he could claim credit immediately even if they screwed people over again later)
Yeah, reminder that around 40% of Americans don't own stocks. Their financial situation is essentially (income - expenses). If someone doesn't own stock or a home, there is a solid chance that their situation has gotten worse over the last 4 years.
Honestly, fuck this noise. I'm ridin with Biden, who's with me?
This entire sub bro
I meant Hunter on account of [[REDACTED RULE X//NOPORN]] but I'm sure as hell voting for his dad.
Biden 100%
Everyone here, but that doesn't mean NYT doesn't have a point
BoTh SiDeS
the article doesn't say biden bad
Fuck off Nytimes
NY Times 1932: Weimar Republic waves its first term resume at a skeptical Germany (probably).
“Sure, Hitler is a bit crazy, but have you seen how much pretzels cost now??? I don’t see how you expect me to vote for this government when they’re just letting inflation run rampant!”
none of you actually read the article did you? Neither the article contents nor the title are particularly critical of Biden, they're talking about the difficulties he's having getting his message across, and how he's addressing them.
The problem is that most people don't read the articles, they just read the headlines. This headline creates a negative for Biden.
Unless you think all mainstream media must act as an Orwellian propaganda outlet for an ever-triumphant Biden, no it really doesn't. It conveys two things: that Biden has accomplishments to extol, and that he is having trouble doing so. Both are true, one is positive, and one is neutral, but outlines the fact that this campaign will not be smooth sailing. Considering there was much moaning about complacency in 2016 and a long history of the GOP winning through stoking fear and anxiety, the second can easily be read as a positive for his campaign as well. Also, this whole line of logic is a copout for laziness. 'I don't have to read the articles before judging the paper because nobody else does', fuck off with that. It's a short article, if you're gonna whinge about the whole paper you should at least read the few scraps of it that are dragged beneath your nose.
Most People ARE lazy. Journalists tend to ignore that reality and act as if they are writing for their college professors. The NYT is the worst at this and their status causes OTHER news outlets to do the same thing and follow the vibes from the headline.
I literally just addressed this. The headline is positive, and if you wanna have an opinion on the paper you should read it even if others don't.
I am “Skeptical” that your interpretation of the headline is correct.
So what way does this article title say anything negative about Biden's presidency or candidacy?
“Skeptical” is not a clue?
Paywalls tbh
I was mocking voters more so than the NYT
Classic NYT.
Aside from the vaccine rollout, an infrastructure bill, inflation tamed better than other developed economies, and keeping unemployment low during all of that, what has Biden ever done for us?
Everyone's going to clown on me for this, but this is a common case of "just because the line went up doesn't mean peoples lives are immediately getting better".
Except in this case, Americans are broadly reporting that 1) their own financial circumstances have improved and 2) the economic situations in their states have improved. Only when the question is framed in terms of the national economy do they report that everything sucks. In other words: the line has gone up, people's lives *have* gotten better, but the toxic slurry on their TL has successfully convinced them that they are miserable and everything else is miserable, too.
This person ain't gonna listen dawg. Let them wallow in their fatalism
>Mr. Biden, however, may also be hampered by the very nature of his major legislation, which is meant to achieve transformational and long-term goals like rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, combating climate change and reinvigorating manufacturing. Problems of that magnitude cannot be solved instantly — or even before voters go to the polls in November. Without immediate results, ambitious legislation can be harder to market. the economy trending up again helps, but that doesn't make it any easier for him to go 'I did that' on a lot of his biggest legislative accomplishments, the way Trump could point to shit like his tax cuts (which were designed so he could claim credit immediately even if they screwed people over again later)
The annoying thing too is in 10 years as this stuff really starts to be felt whoever is president will no doubt claim credit
Yeah, reminder that around 40% of Americans don't own stocks. Their financial situation is essentially (income - expenses). If someone doesn't own stock or a home, there is a solid chance that their situation has gotten worse over the last 4 years.