Biden Warns of Oligarchy in Farewell Address
It "literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead."

Presidential farewell addresses are an American tradition dating back to George Washington’s, in which he famously warned against “entangling alliances.” A century and a half later, Dwight Eisenhower warned against the internal threat posed by “the military-industrial complex.” Last night, Joe Biden warned against the growing power of the extremely wealthy.
After a brief announcement of the Gaza ceasefire, he lamented the state of the Republic he’s presided over the past four years. He evoked the Statue of Liberty as its symbol:
Long ago, in New York Harbor, an ironworker installed beam after beam, day after day. He was joined by steel workers, stonemasons, engineers. They built not just a single structure, but a beacon of freedom. The very idea of America was so big, we felt the entire world needed to see the Statue of Liberty, a gift from France after our Civil War. Like the very idea of America, it was built not by one person but by many people, from every background, and from around the world.
Like America, the Statue of Liberty is not standing still. Her foot literally steps forward atop a broken chain of human bondage. She’s on the march. And she literally moves. She was built to sway back and forth to withstand the fury of stormy weather, to stand the test of time because storms are always coming. She sways a few inches, but she never falls into the current below. An engineering marvel.
The Statue of Liberty is also an enduring symbol of the soul of our nation, a soul shaped by forces that bring us together and by forces that pull us apart. And yet, through good times and tough times, we have withstood it all. A nation of pioneers and explorers, of dreamers and doers, of ancestors native to this land, of ancestors who came by force. A nation of immigrants who came to build a better life. A nation holding the torch of the most powerful idea ever in the history of the world: that all of us, all of us are created equal. That all of us deserve to be treated with dignity, justice and fairness. That democracy must defend, and be defined, and be imposed, moved in every way possible: Our rights, our freedoms, our dreams. But we know the idea of America, our institution, our people, our values that uphold it, are constantly being tested.
Ongoing debates about power and the exercise of power. About whether we lead by the example of our power or the power of our example. Whether we show the courage to stand up to the abuse of power, or we yield to it. After 50 years at the center of all of this, I know that believing in the idea of America means respecting the institutions that govern a free society — the presidency, the Congress, the courts, a free and independent press. Institutions that are rooted — not just reflect the timeless words, but they — they echo the words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Rooted in the timeless words of the Constitution: “We the People.” Our system of separation of powers, checks and balances — it may not be perfect, but it’s maintained our democracy for nearly 250 years, longer than any other nation in history that’s ever tried such a bold experiment.
And took credit for carrying the torch:
In the past four years, our democracy has held strong. And every day, I’ve kept my commitment to be president for all Americans, through one of the toughest periods in our nation’s history. I’ve had a great partner in Vice President Kamala Harris. It’s been the honor of my life to see the resilience of essential workers getting us through a once-in-a-century pandemic, the heroism of service members and first responders keeping us safe, the determination of advocates standing up for our rights and our freedoms.
After a brief discursion into why the economy is better than the people think, he warns of darker days ahead:
I’m so proud of how much we’ve accomplished together for the American people, and I wish the incoming administration success. Because I want America to succeed.
That’s why I’ve upheld my duty to ensure a peaceful and orderly transition of power to ensure we lead by the power of our example. I have no doubt that America is in a position to continue to succeed.
That’s why my farewell address tonight, I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is a dangerous — and that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultrawealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before.
More than a century ago, the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts. They didn’t punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy play by the rules everybody else had. Workers want rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class, the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen. We’ve got to do that again.
After again telling us that the economy is great and the middle class has been uplifted by his presidency, he continues:
You know, in his farewell address, President Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He warned us that about, and I quote, “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Six days — six decades later, I’m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well.
Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit. We must hold the social platforms accountable to protect our children, our families and our very democracy from the abuse of power. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology of our time, perhaps of all time.
Nothing offers more profound possibilities and risks for our economy, and our security, our society. For humanity. Artificial intelligence even has the potential to help us answer my call to end cancer as we know it. But unless safeguards are in place, A.I. could spawn new threats to our rights, our way of life, to our privacy, how we work, and how we protect our nation. We must make sure A.I. is safe and trustworthy and good for all humankind.
In the age of A.I., it’s more important than ever that the people must govern. And as the Land of Liberty, America — not China — must lead the world in the development of A.I.
You know, in the years ahead, it’s going to be up to the president, the presidency, the Congress, the courts, the free press, and the American people to confront these powerful forces. We must reform the tax code. Not by giving the biggest tax cuts to billionaires, but by making them begin to pay their fair share.
We need to get dark money — that’s that hidden funding behind too many campaign contributions — we need to get it out of our politics. We need to enact an 18-year time limit, term limit, time and term, for the strongest ethics — and the strongest ethics reforms for our Supreme Court. We need to ban members of Congress from trading stock while they are in the Congress. We need to amend the Constitution to make clear that no president, no president is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office. The president’s power is not limit — it is not absolute. And it shouldn’t be.
And in a democracy, there is another danger — that the concentration of power and wealth. It erodes a sense of unity and common purpose. It causes distrust and division. Participating in our democracy becomes exhausting and even disillusioning, and people don’t feel like they have a fair shot. We have to stay engaged in the process.
As with Eisenhower’s warning, the obvious question is, Why didn’t you do something about this while you’re President? But, in fairness, Biden did make some efforts on many of these related issues and was unable to get cooperation from Congress and the courts.
The reforms he wants for the Supreme Court and Presidential immunity would require amending the Constitution, a near-impossible task. But that fixing the system is unlikely to happen doesn’t mean it isn’t broken.
He ends the speech on a hopeful note:
A fair shot is what makes America America. Everyone is entitled to a fair shot, not a guarantee, just a fair shot, an even playing field. Going as far as your hard work and talent can take you.
We can never lose that essential truth to remain who we are. I’ve always believed, and I told other world leaders, America will be defined by one word: possibilities. Only in America do we believe anything is possible. Like a kid with a stutter from modest beginnings in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and Claymont, Delaware, sitting behind this desk in the Oval Office as president of the United States.
That is the magic of America. It’s all around us. Upstairs in the residence of the White House, I’ve walked by a painting of a Statue of Liberty I don’t how many times. In the painting there are several workers climbing on the outstretched arm of the statue that holds the torch. It reminds me every day I pass it of the story and soul of our nation, and the power of the American people.
There is a story of a veteran — a veteran, a son of an immigrant, whose job was to climb that torch and polish the amber panes so rays of light could reach out as far as possible. He was known as the keeper of the flame. He once said of the Statue of Liberty, “Speaks a silent, universal language, one of hope that anyone who seeks and speaks freedom can understand.”
Yes, we sway back and forth to withstand the fury of the storm, to stand the test of time, a constant struggle, constant struggle. A short distance between peril and possibility. But what I believe is the America of our dreams is always closer than we think. And it’s up to us to make our dreams come true.
After thanking his family and team, he ends:
My eternal thanks to you, the American people. After 50 years of public service, I give you my word, I still believe in the idea for which this nation stands — a nation where the strength of our institutions and the character of our people matter and must endure. Now it’s your turn to stand guard. May you all be the keeper of the flame. May you keep the faith. I love America. You love it, too.
God bless you all, and may God protect our troops. Thank you for this great honor.
The NYT has a full transcription. YouTube has a video of the full speech:
The Robber Barons screwed people the old fashioned way – price gouging and fixing, monopolizing areas of business, and controlling the money markets – but they didn’t have the pervasive media control that the Tech Bros have now, nor did they have the free pass to buy politicians that the Citizens United decision gifted the uber wealthy, nor a compliant and patently corrupt Supreme Court. Biden is right to caution us, even if his warning is the equivalent of putting a thumb tack in the path of a MAGA tank.
Are all oligarchs as weird as our American version? Or is the saying that “money makes people funny, too much money drives them insane” universal?
Joe Biden is a real public servant. Also, he is a religious man without hypocrisy. He has tried mightily to find common ground and seek consensus, because that’s what democracies must do.
He stands stories taller as a good man than W or Reagan. Trump is in his sub basement.
The new Truman. The new Cassandra.
God bless Joe Biden.
This should be our message. Everything else is secondary or tertiary: it’s the oligarchy, stupid. Elon and Thiel and Ramaswamy and Trump himself, have given us the opening. Oligarchy and corruption, again and again.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s because one of America’s two majors parties has already succumbed to the oligarchs and embraced the “avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling [their] abuse of power.” And it’s not Biden’s being “unable to get cooperation from Congress and the courts.” Biden and his adminstration has gotten nothing but open hostility on these related issues from Day 1.
This strikes me as similar to saying “Why don’t LA firefighters just put out the Palisades Fire?” while not mentioning Santa Ana winds, forest growth/dryness cycles, or the Eaton Fire?
Don’t disagree with this speech. I also think that Biden and his administration should put a baseline in place on which to measure Trump:
Economic growth rate
Employment rate
Budget numbers
Poverty rate
Hunger rate
Health measurement
And so forth. The baseline should be straight forward, simple, and these metrics presented quarterly for the next four years. Something to blast through the inevitable propaganda that we are sure to suffer under.
@Charley in Cleveland:
Spot on.
@Scott:
To be sure, Democrat messaging has been inadequate (as well as constrained in terms of relative funding).
But we are hard up against the obduracy of a large segment of voters who have been conditioned by their popular culture, to accept distortion of facts, hyperbole, and stimulating outrage from an early age.
@Rob1: Democrats idea of messaging is on the order of “Let a 1000 Voices Sing”. No matter what you may think about Karl Rove, he was right. Choose 3-4 messages, preferably negative, and beat that drum early and often. Democrats need to take political Adderall.
Facts are stubborn things. They can lie all they like, and most MAGAts will swallow those lies til the day they die, but not all, not always, not forever. We need to stop feeling impotent. We have half the population behind us, and we have the truth.
Hackney calls for censorship. Should have added fire in a crowded theater.
The Biden Era Wheezes Its Way to a Fittingly Deluded End
@Michael Reynolds:
@travis4nh
@Scott: Adderall probably wouldn’t help Dems here but lobotomies might, because simplistic messaging only works on simplistic simpletons. Democratic voters are Democratic voters because we understand reality is complex and nuanced. We do not wish be condescended to, like the tantruming children of the fringe left and far right.
Dems as currently configured will never win over easily-manipulated losers who believe their lives suck because of trans woke mob Hillary’s emails DEI Biden’s age migrants CRT — not because of the greedy billionare oligarchs they vote in to further exploit their stupidity and bigotry.
The Dem message should be, “I hope you get everything you voted for.” Then Dems should seek to protect and improve quality of life in blue states and cities, starting by cutting the red tape of NIMBYism. If Republicans cut taxes on the rich, Dem governors and mayors can strategically raise property taxes to do what the feds won’t: invest locally in healthcare, housing, education, and infrastructure.
9 of the 10 poorest states and ~95 of the 100 poorest counties are Republican. Republican presidents inevitably leave office with economic contraction and calamity, because rightwing ideology just doesn’t work.
So let Republican jurisdictions wallow in the mediocrity they so love, as we sort ourselves via domestic and international migration. Either America’s angry bros will realize that hating black women is not going to lower the cost of eggs or cure their depression — or they will continue to suffer, fail, and be angry.
Let the dead bury their own dead. It’s time for blue America to turn inward a wee bit, stop wasting so much time begging the deplorables not to commit suicide. When they get tired of failure, they’ll vote for the next Democrat, as usual.
@DK:
It also works on people who don’t spend their waking hours swimming in political deep wells. You need to claim and control the zeitgeist.
@Scott: We need Americans to touch the stove. When we vote for a fascist, pathological lying, rapist, Epstein-bestie con artist, we deserve to be conned.
And if, for the first time ever, Trump doesn’t leave behind him a trail of little people defrauded, destroyed, and bankrupted — if instead he improves his voters’ lives — all the better.
@DK: And how are you going to convince Americans who turned the stove on? That is the issue of messaging.
Reality check: Most of the billionaire class supports the Democrats. Whether this is legitimate or they do it out of fear is open to speculation, of course. Trump and Musk are traitors to this class and are literally risking imprisonment and assassination by opposing the Left.
Everyone cross “racist” and “sexist” and “fascist” and “Christian nationalist” off your signs.
Biden’s presidency will be dominated by the fact that the party spent three years yelling at people for thinking Biden was too old or senile, and then they replaced him in a matter of weeks after it became clear he was too old and senile. And instead of, say, cutting loose everyone who was doing the yelling, they’re all still in charge and getting ready with their next set of talking points, which is not at all an example of an oligarchy.
@Paul L.:
It’s much easier to convince yourself you’ve won a debate when you can lie shamelessly, refuse to engage, refuse to address criticism, and then, like Trump, threaten the people you disagree with.
@joe:
Lie.
@Paul L.: “Those of us who have facts, data, history, and science on our side WELCOME the rough-and-tumble of challenges and debate.”
Is that why Republican states keep passing laws forbidding teachers to teach that slavery existed and was bad?
That why Ron DeSantis outlawed the use of the phrase “climate change”?
@Fortune:
Why can’t you people ever be proud of what you are?
@Michael Reynolds: “Lie.”
What Paul L says are lies. What Joe is saying here is so far from any sense of reality, I have to believe it’s some kind of psychotic delusion.
@joe:
Call! Citation, please, to back up the claim.
Because at least one study looking at reported political contributions doesn’t seem to back up that claim: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nsUJbTHDK4nnHqDLVkK9sk26ShoFWpi2bWLkK8W5LHE/edit?gid=1535161183#gid=1535161183
It’s from a progressive organization, but the specific data is based on publicly available information.
@Paul L.:
This is a little rich coming from an avowed climate change denier who just a few days ago suggested there is no way to measure global temperature rise reliably.
For the record rough-and-tumble debate inherently requires evaulating the other side’s postions and being willing to give ground… even, gasp… admitting you were wrong about something.
Gish-gallops are not rough and tumble debate.
But, let’s face it, being self-aware has never been your strong suit.
@Michael Reynolds:
When someone (say Fortune) speaks/writes like a racist, sexist, or fascist, but feels that (in their hearts) they are none of those things, it isn’t lack of pride in what they believe or denial of who they are when they take umbrage as they are called out. The call-outs themselves are misinformation or disinformation, despite reflection back of their own words or supporting evidence. See how that works? It’s a pretty neat trick for protecting fragile egos.
@Scott F.: Ever read Kafka?
@Matt Bernius:
Peak Oil and Population Bomb.
By 2000, we were going to run out of oil and have mass starvation that could only be prevented by extreme measures.
It will not take long until all we have left is the aesthetics of a democracy, without any of the substance. We will have concepts of a plan, and the bright future always 2 weeks to a year away from becoming reality. And I am pessimistic it can be rebuilt in my lifetime. Fascism never lasts, but the damage done is deep.
Limited terms for SCOTUS would likely require an amendment, although there’s been some speculation about finessing the issue by placing a justice on emeritus status. It would fall to the then existing Court to accept orreject such an argument. Biden himself said prez immunity would require an amendment, but immunity was created without amending the Constitution. Reversing it would require only a non-partisan Court. Unmentioned, but campaign finance restrictions were lifted by SCOTUS and could be reinstated by an honest SCOTUS. Accepting a binding ethics code would require only a Court genuinely, unlike Roberts, concerned about it’s integrity.
Of course, getting to an honest Court from where we’re at seems as unlikely as an amendment. Karl Popper talks of an “open society”, which is essentially a society willing and able to adapt and improve through open means. We may be further from that ideal than at any time in the past except circa 1860.
@Paul L.:
Gish gallop as predicted.
Unless, you think that the Non sequitur fallacy fallacy you just engaged in is honest debate. Again, that tells us more about your understand of things than anything else.
No offense sweetie, but “some scientists were wrong about something years ago” doesn’t negate current science.
But keep telling yourself that you have “have facts, data, history, and science on our side.”
BTW, I do appreciate citing “Glenn Beck”–it’s an amazing case of game recognizing game.
@Dutchgirl:
Great phrasing… feels very Hannah Arendt.
@Matt Bernius:
Same scientists are now using climate change/Covid as the excuse that the government must have more control over people.
Green on the outside. Red on the inside.
@Matt Bernius: Paul L. gave you one item (or two, depending on how you think about it) directly related to climate change, and you’re calling it a Gish gallop? You decided to use that line beforehand, didn’t you.
Yesterday Scott Lemieux at LGM had the best explanation I’ve seen of Oligarch Bezos’ behavior. He quotes an NPR summary of recent history at the Post and concludes,
WAPO is losing something like 75 million a year from revenues of something less than a billion, perhaps a lot less. Amazon has 620 billion revenue and a market cap of 2.33 trillion. Even Blue Origin which managed to actually do anything only yesterday dwarfs WAPO. On Bezos’ balance sheet WAPO is roundoff.
Today NYT has a story The Washington Post’s New Mission: Reach ‘All of America’. It quotes WAPO’s Chief Strategy Officer, Suzi Watford’s plan which she’s apparently tried out on some employees (at least one of whom apparently leaked it). Her new motto is, “Riveting Storytelling for All of America”. Shorn of BS it’s a plan to become a print version of FOX, telling people what they want to hear. I saw someone offer a good distinction between good and bad journalism – do they tell you what happened, or do they tell you how to feel about what happened? Not entirely clean, but that did kinda distinguish old WAPO from FOX. They need a new motto, the old motto, “Democracy dies in darkness” is apparently now the business plan. You won’t see this in WAPO. They have a new policy of not reporting on WAPO.
The best outcome for Bezos would be selling the Post while putting it behind him as quietly as he can. That may mean selling it to an even worse oligarch.
Watford, Lewis, et al presumably have bonus clauses depending on subscriptions or revenue. Their best outcome is FOX in print. However Rupert already has WSJ and NY Post in the FOX in print niche.
The nation’s best outcome is probably that WAPO is sold to a billionaire in the reality based world or a foundation. IIRC the Guardian and Chicago Sun Times are non-profit owned.
@Fortune:
Please unpack to me how the “links” he gave–I assume you are including the Population Bomb (a book from 1968) and Glenn Beck commenting on a second book from 1977–relate to current day climate science?
Further, I think it’s worth noting that neither of those books were written by climate scientists. And at least one of the books, The Population Bomb, didn’t deal with climate science and was instead about overpopulation (the hallmark of a Gish Gallop is changing the subject and then expecting low information folks not to recognize the slight of hand).
So please explain to me how they are to be taken as serious refutations of current climate science–which Paul has consistently said is wrong.
I have been around the block with Paul on this so many times that I know what his response will be because he cannot aruge on facts because he fundamentally rejects facts.
His only response is a Gish Gallop. That isn’t an opinion, it’s a simple statement of fact based on a LOT of observation and interaction with Paul.
BTW, note that he switched his argument again with his next post–he’s moved on from the entire issue of science and instead reframes it as scientists wanting to control his behaviors.
Leaving aside taking him literally as these are not the “Same” scientists, he’s clearly still committing multiple rhetorical and logical fallacies with this argument.
Unless you agree with him that modern climate scientists cannot be right today about climate science because 3 scientists–biologists Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne Howland Ehrlich were wrong over 50 years ago and another aero/astro and theoretical plasma physicist DR. John P. Holdren was wrong almost 50 years ago.
But hey, if that’s the position you want to defend–go for it. But that doesn’t really fit with the claim that:
“Those of us who have facts, data, history, and science on our side WELCOME the rough-and-tumble of challenges and debate.”
Which was Paul’s original statement.
I’m certain Orwell did not mean where the US is heading when he used the term Oligarchical Socialism. He meant the USSR as it was in his time, only with more means of effective control.
Just the same, what else would you call a country that has racked up an astonishing amount of sovereign debt, impoverished the middle class, and has allowed infrastructure to decay, all in order to finance tax breaks and wealth transfers to the very rich?
@Paul L.: Pointing to an argument that was already fringe when it was made is disingenuous. 🙁
ETA: I’m old enough to remember the sources he’s citing from in-period perspective. We were calling them neo-Malthusian at the time. It wasn’t a compliment.
@Modulo Myself:
Or when after it became clear white voters were to weak to do anything but swallow Republican propaganda, a la Hillary’s emails.
Black voters never agreed with y’all that Biden was too old and senile to do the job (delegate, negotiate, sign papers, and nominate judges) he did better than any younger man we could ever remember. We did not want him replaced (that happened over our objection) and polled as such. And we overwhelmingly supported his replacement — who we warned would be shivved by men of all backgrounds — at a ~90+% clip for black women, ~80% for black men, alongside ~90% of Jewish women, ~85% of LGBT, ~70+% of Jewish men, and the majority of educated whites who preferred Harris.
When y’all write “we” and “they” it should be understood to have the built-in disclaimer that black voters deplege from the white nonsense. Do not lump us in with certain folks’ bottomless capacity for political stupidity.
@Scott F.:
Fortune is but a standard-issue Republican/conservative in 2025: a pathological liar who’d melt into a puddle of goo were he doused with a bucket of integrity.
The good faith conservativism of John McCain and Jack Kemp — no saints they — has totally left the building.
@Dutchgirl:
Indeed. I posted above about Bezos. I fear he may represent a tipping point where more and more players decide Trump has enough power that they must acquiesce, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. My hope is that, like the Gilded Age, their excesses and failures may end in a period of self examination and reform. Worst case we’re talking Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
Just to add on to what Matt said, the book Paul refers to was not written in 2000, but rather 1977. At that point climate science was in its infancy so predictions about the future climate were based much more on speculation and assumption rather than real science. For example we didnt have a really good way to reliably measure temperatures in the upper atmosphere for quite a while. If you look at the actual predictions made most fo those who did so predicted warming because of the CO2 effect but there were actually very few articles making predictions since we didnt have the data. Over the last 50 years what we have seen is constant improvement in data collection and analysis, which means that the outcomes and predictions are changed to meet the data.
Do we have the same scientists making predictions? Peak output is probably in the 40-50 y/o stage so that means those guys would now need to be 90-100 y/o and still cranking out papers. I rarely look at the ages of people publishing so I honestly dont know but I am sure someone making that claim can provide the evidence to support it.
Steve
@Scott:
I’m not. I’m going to point and laugh while enjoying my blue state-blue county-blue city-Berlin life.
If incels who can’t get laid want to lie to themselves that woke trans DEI migrants turned the stove on while being exploited by Musk, Trump, rich podcast bros, and their buddies, oh well.
Americans can either stop believing lies or they can burn themselves to death. I myself can afford eggs and gas — and my healthcare premiums, and a one-way plane ticket out of here.
My people mostly left the Republican-controlled, exurban-rural parts of Georgia. I told the parentals this Christmas I would help them with selling our heirloom properties there. Sometimes someone will float moving back, but nah. We ain’t going back ‘cept to tend to some headstones.
@just nutha:
I’m old enough to remember when Gore got a Nobel Prize for repeating them.
@Fortune: Yeah. That didn’t impress me either. Oh well, the Nobel committee gets to decide what it wants.
@DK:
Four of the last 9 elections we’ve voted for a pathological lying, rapist, Epstein-bestie con artist, one of them running against the wife of a pathological lying, rapist, Epstein-bestie con artist.
@Fortune: Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for being the “individual who has done most to rouse the public and the governments that action had to be taken to meet the climate challenge.”
Not for repeating claims from a paper written thirty-one years before that.
But like I already pointed out: bad faith, pathological liar, no integrity. I.e., a standard-issue conservative/Republican in 2025.
Climate change is real — detailed by decades reliable, peer-reviewed study. Deniers are bootlicking sheep for the fossil fuel lobby.
That’s all one needs to know.
@just nutha: A person can be an unimpressive Nobel laureate, but not an uninfluential one.
Please please please pay attention to meeeeeee!!!!!
Just thought I’d boil down the current trolly argument to its constituent parts
@Fortune: Again with the “we.” No, “we” didn’t. Only people I’ve ever voted for are John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. I’ve never voted for or supported a party led by an Epstein-bestie pedophile who publicly sexualized his own daughter, incited a terror attack on Congress, was found liable for rape in court, and who tried to make crackhead sex trafficker Matt Gates attorney general.
And who is now threatening WW3 with Canada, Mexico, Panama, and Greenland/Denmark to distract from his plan to gut Social Security and healthcare, while shoveling trillions in welfare to billionares. That’s your lying scumbag self and your fascist party.
No need to lump “us” in with the venal political amorality of you dumb rightwing garbage cans in humanoid form.
@DK:
@DK:
@Fortune:
@DK:
@DK: I’ve seen his arguments on many forums today discussing the “Biden Legacy” which is essentially: “How will the media remember Biden?” Frankly—WGAF?
But here are some facts that I don’t want lost on this commentariat since the prevailing white liberal memory will be that Trump won because Biden didn’t announce he was not running for re-election.
1. Biden was the ONLY unity candidate for the multiple Dem factions. He was the only candidate that had the support of White Men/Women AND Black/Hispanic Men & Women.
2. He was (and IS) the only Dem politician that has ever beaten Trump.
We saw, in fact, that when a candidate OTHER than Biden ran— enough white women & black/hispanic men jumped off the bus—which allowed Trump to run an inside straight on the 7 swing states. THIS WAS ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE from anyone that knows these minority factions experientially and not just as some academic exercise in justice or righting America’s wrongs.
Was Joe old? Yes! What’s lesser known is that he had one of the youngest Adminstrations, EVER? Wonder how all those policy wins actually made it across the finish line? Youth & vigor rowing the actual boat—that’s how.
Because Dem voters are a different kind of stupid from MAGA voters—they obsessed over the figurehead and not the TEAM that was delivering win after win with the only tools POTUS has to affect change—policy and legislation. MAGA on the other hand couldn’t care less about the age of their candidate—knowing the MAGA team will deliver on the only measure of success they care about—owning the libz.
Remember—our resident typing apes and their ilk have descended far enough down the evolutionary scale that they don’t care what happens to them—as long as the LIBZ are pissed off and angry. That’s why they show up here—it gives them a twisted sort of pleasure. How broken do you have to be to constantly find ‘joy’ in pissing someone else off?
As bonkers as Scott Adam’s projects—he’s right about one thing—humans are meat-covered robots that have easily exploitable psyches once you map out where the seams in their armor is. Todays’s social media allows influence peddlers to send precision guided anger/outrage/sentimentality bombs at these seams. Only people with a keen sense of who they are can withstand these attacks. A moth cannot resist the light bulb.
At any rate—Dems did it to themselves—and now, like most people seeking to avoid accountability, they say “Who could have known…?” A valid excuse in 2016–not in 2024. And, for any white liberal (yes, you Nancy Pelosi)who thinks that Kamala Harris could have been simply shoved aside for an open “primary”—and black men/women & Hispanic men wouldn’t have done to Gretchen Witmer or Gavin Newsome what white women and Hispanic men did to Kamala—it only shows that they don’t really know the demography like they think they do.
I will say this as a warning—the reliable black voting block seems pretty done with going along to get along. Dems will have similar problem in 2028 if all the “Johnny/Jane Unbeatable” candidates don’t spend the next few years making end roads with these communities. Granted, Biden was able to capitalize on the access Obama got him—but the next candidate will have to be deliberate. I’m not holding my breath that Whitmer or Newsome will be speaking at a Black Church in South Carolina anytime soon—nor will Buttigieg be in South Florida at a Hispanic Market shaking hands. The average white Dem politician only shows up in the neighborhood during election season—that doesn’t work anymore. Yet—the sclerotic Dem consultancy cabal continues to steer their candidates to take this very course of action.
On the other hand, where I disagree with climate science is that I believe we’re already beyond the tipping point and have never believed that humans would make the sacrifice necessary to save the planet.
@DK:
Biden was done not by the debate performance, but by the panicked reaction on his side of the aisle. I think I said as much at the time. After weeks of not letting go of the panic, he had little choice left*.
I’m also like 95% certain that had his VP been named Gavin or Tim, and had Biden still dropped out, the felon wouldn’t have usurped the office a second time.
*I was reminded of a line in MIB by Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
@Fortune: What’s your point? Rush Limbaugh was easily as influential as Gore on climate science.
@steve:
A very intelligent point in a very intelligent comment.
Unfortunately, it will be lost on those who know better because they heard some random kook on Joe Rogan and watched a PragerU propaganda YouTube video — and think that qualifies as “doing research.” In between all the usual, daily oil lobby brainwashing they get from Fox News.
@just nutha: You said Peak Oil and the Population Bomb were fringe when they were introduced, implying they should still be ignored. Fringe ideas don’t get Nobel Prizes. or they didn’t stay fringe, in which case you can’t discredit them by complaining they were fringe when they were introduced.
Republicans don’t mind going non-politician, so why not someone like John Stewart in 2028?
He’ll be 65, that’s young enough.
Trump will be 81 as he gets into his legal battle for 3rd term eligibility, and JD Vance has the charisma of a discount tanning bed.
@Jim Brown 32: @Kathy:
If everything about Joe Biden were exactly the same — same economic data, same foreign policy outcomes, same retail pricing on eggs and gas, same 50-year low in crime, same illegal immigration propping up our low birthrate capitalist economy, same record stocks, same historic energy/manufacturing/gun laws — but he was a Republican…
…Republicans would have called him the greatest president since Lincoln and cheered him to victory under the slogan Decripit Old Men Do It Better.
In a couple of years Trump will surpass Biden as the oldest president in history. Unless he’s hospitalized, you won’t hear a word from Republicans, congressional Democrats, or pundits about his advanced age, obesity, or already-ongoing physical and mental deterioration.
@Matt Bernius:
Gish Gallop.
You refuted my claim that Democrats are mad and sore over losing control of Social Media and no longer being allowed to censor dissent as “disinformation” and “misinformation” by trying to discredit me as a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming denier.
Full Dishonest Bad Faith Mehdi Raza Hasan
And I fell into the trap by following along, because “WELCOME the rough-and-tumble of challenges and debate”.
@Fortune:
So you are saying that if someone repeats an incorrect data point in a larger body of work that negates the larger body of work? I mean that’s quite a flex, but I’m not sure it’s good science.
Additionally, you’re being a bit disingenuous in choosing not to note that–for better or worse–Gore’s Nobel prize was in the Peace and not any of the Science categories. That’s a neat little bit of slight of hand–especially given that the selection committee isn’t really focused on Science.
I will definitely concede that the Nobel Peace Prize committee’s track record is pretty spotty, so I agree they may not be the best people to judge scientific rigor. The Science based Nobel prize committees have a significantly better record.
Again, Nobel Peace Prize versus a prize for Science.
Here let me do the homework for you: In 2021 the Nobel Prize in Physics 2021 was awarded “for groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of complex physical systems” with one half jointly to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann “for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming” and the other half to Giorgio Parisi “for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales”
source: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2021/summary/
Looking forward to your in-depth debunking of that work based on “The Population Bomb” and Al Gore winning a Nobel Prize–it will once again be the type of debate that you’re supposed to welcome because you “have facts, data, history, and science on our side WELCOME the rough-and-tumble of challenges and debate.”
BTW, I notice that you somehow ignored all the points in my rather long response to you. So I’ll take that as you agreeing we me… or at least not seeing any convenient way to “win” against my argument.
But is that keeping with the “rough-and-tumble of challenges and debate?” Asking for a friend.
@Paul L.:
Paul, as usual, reading comprehension is something you are REALLY not great at. Or, perhaps, you just don’t like being on the receiving end of your own techniques.
First, I had not idea that the point you were making was that “that Democrats are mad and sore over losing control of Social Media and no longer being allowed to censor dissent as “disinformation” and “misinformation” by trying to discredit me as a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming denier.”
As many of us have attempted to explain to you, repeatedly over the years, you often don’t make clear points in your post.
What I was doing–and something you often do with generic democrats and media personalities–is pointing out the hypocrisy in what they say versus what they do. I’m happy to pull examples of you doing this here, at OTB, within the last 7 days.
Also, just to be clear, I am stating fact–with examples from your literal own posts–that you are in fact a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming denier. And that’s a fact that you, so sweetly, restablished in this very set of comments. So please, lets not grasp any pearls over this. Fucking own the fact that there is no climate science that runs counter to your beliefs that you will except.
Seriously shout that out with your full chest and own it.
It’s your right as a crank to take that position. Just don’t at the same time claim you have the “moral high ground.” Or that “those of us who have facts, data, history, and science on our side WELCOME the rough-and-tumble of challenges and debate.”
I mean it might work on folks who appear already predisposed to your position and willing to throw out all climate science based on two decades old books (not about climate or written by climate scientists) and a Nobel Peace Prize. The rest of people who pause for a moment to think about it–not so much.
@Matt Bernius:
I explained already to “just nutha”: he can’t discount the overpopulation and pollution claims of the 1970’s as fringe implying they were never taken seriously, when the same claims were recycled 30 years later and awarded the Nobel Prize. I’m not citing the Nobel Peace Prize as proof of scientific quality, but proof the claims were taken seriously. They always have been.
I don’t know your history with Paul L., maybe he makes false claims a lot. I’m not triing to win an argument about climate change, I haven’t made any claims about it. But “Gish gallop” means something, and you used it wrong, and it looked like you were avoiding the rough-and-tumble of challenges and debate.
@Fortune: I don’t recall peak oil or the population bomb being key features of Gore’s argument in Earth in the Balance, though it’s been a long time since I thought about it.
But I will give you points for what I see as a swift goalpost move.* Or maybe we’re talking past each other; that happens a lot here.
*(Or Gish Gallop, if you’d prefer.)
@Fortune:
Again can you explain it like I’m five how responding to “you made the claim that it’s not possible to accurate measure global temperature” with “but the population bomb book” isn’t a Gish Gallop.
As we see, it completely turned us–away from science–onto the topic of the Nobel Prize and its cultural significance.
That’s exactly what a Gish Gallop is. I’ll go further to note that Paul didn’t even respond to my response and moved onto “scientists are attempting to control what I do” which, again, is part of the Gish Gallop:
I’ll admit that Paul’s style plays out over multiple comments where a single step is taken–as seen here. But this is a text based medium so there have to be some adaptations.
Of course, you additionally stepped in and suggested that Paul’s “Population Bomb” move was a legitimate response (with no regard for their accuracy or strength). In fact, you chose to ignore my unpacking of that issue.
So that could mean that you don’t understand the concept as well as you think you do.
Look, I’m well beyond the point that I think you’re capable of conceding when you are wrong or slightly off-base. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of that going around in these discussion threads. It’s the one thing I wish I had a magic wand to change.
But, as always, I’ll also admit I might be getting something wrong in my understanding either of this thread or the gish gallop as a whole. So I’d appreciate any substantive rebuttal.
@Fortune:
FWIW this is an absolutely gross and willful misinterpretation of the core of “An inconvenient truth.”
Or perhaps you can show your work as to how “An Inconvenient Truth” repeated the “overpopulation and pollution claims of the 1970s.”
Because all I’m seeing is you making exactly the same “The Population Bomb” was wrong therefore “An Inconvient Truth” must be wrong arguement… which again, isn’t based in anything other than poor logic and personal bias.
@Matt Bernius: ” which again, isn’t based in anything other than poor logic and personal bias.”
Actually, it’s based in exactly the same thing that all of Fortune’s and Paul L’s and That Other Clown’s arguments are based in — bad faith.
I do appreciate you Sisyphean struggle to get one of these trolls just once to argue honestly, but the fact is they can’t and won’t, because they don’t care about whatever they’re saying. They care that you’re paying attention to them and they really care if you’re getting annoyed or realizing how much of your time you’ve wasted on them.
And I do know you know this, and your mission compels you to continue, and for your patience I tip my hat.
@Matt Bernius:
Democrats upset that they can’t censor dissent on Social Media debunked with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming denier.
@just nutha: (re: @Fortune) I got home and was able to check some things. First, I will note that my comments may be conflating Earth in the Balance with An Inconvenient Truth. But it may also be possible that Fortune may have done the same conflation (as would the Nobel Committee in this case given that the book was published a year or so before the award ~/s/). Either way, I see Gore’s treatment of the threat that overpopulation presents not as a Malthusian “some time in the future, scarce resources will…” argument (as it’s presented in Bomb), but rather a “current threat that needs to be addressed ASAP”–thus the suggestion of a “Global Marshall Plan.” And I still don’t see “peak oil” as an issue either way. If anything, it presents as a counter argument for AGW (“we don’t need to take action; the coming petroleum shortages will rebalance the equation”).
Either way, I will hold to my dual focus argument of the tipping point being behind us combined with humans are too selfish to address the AGW issue (see The Tragedy of the Commons.)
ETA: And in any event, the timeline doesn’t work given that “peak oil” is first suggested in 1956 and The Population Bomb is from 1968–both too long fringe theories for books published in 1992 for EitB and 2006 for Truth. Peak oil does make a comeback, but not until 2014 if Wikipedia is accurate.
@Paul L.:
Elon Musk accused of censoring conservatives on X who disagree with him about immigration (NBC News)
Under Republican State Laws, US Book Bans Nearly Tripled Last School Year (Common Dreams)
MAGA opponents of Elon Musk claim he stripped them of their X badges (CNN)
At least 9 GOP-led state legislatures want to restrict or criminalize drag shows (NPR)
Elon Musk Accused Of ‘Silencing His Critics’ As X Suspends Journalists (Forbes)
Book bans are on the rise in U.S. schools, fueled by new laws in Republican-led states (L.A. Times)
‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Elon Musk Suspends Critics On ExTwitter, Asks People To Be Nicer (TechDirt)
Federal Court Strikes Down Republican Book Censorship Law (Austin Chronicle)
Twitter owner Elon Musk suspends the accounts of several high-profile journalists (NPR)
Every rightwing accusation is a confession.
At this point, it’s safe to assume that any narrative pushed Trumpers is a lie, by default. If a modern conservative is saying it, usually the opposite is true.
@Matt Bernius:
Yes, ignorant and illogical. Not intelligent at all. But his argument here is rooted in him being a rightwing sheep (v.2025), i.e., a dedicated fabulist. They are simply incapable of honesty. Where they are speaking — bad faith, falsehoods, and deliberate inaccuracy are sure to follow.
Why their party is now led by a rapist, felon and crook who intends to impoverish more Americans like failed rightwing ideology has already impoverished so many red states and counties.
@Matt Bernius:
I don’t mind putting it out there:
I am that friend.
@Paul L.:
Hey, kudos for taking us an ouroboros journey rather than a gallop.
I agree that an opinion writer in the National Review wrote that opinion piece. I’m not sure which “Democrats” the writer was talking about. I’ll admit, I get frustrated with bad faith deniers like you (I still haven’t seen any science-grounded argument from you to support your position), but given that I have the keys to censor, I have let all those ungrounded comments stand. Since I’m a registered Democrat, I therefore disprove that “all Democrats do X” theory according to your usual rules of argumentation.
I’ll also note that I can use your reasoning that “the National Review has published false/wrong information in the past therefore this writer cannot be right” line of reasoning as well. Let’s face it, from it’s pro-segregationist roots (which are just a bit older from the Population Bomb), to it’s pro-Apartheid stance, to it’s long and storied history of trafficking in climate denialism.
Except when the National Review kinda acknowledges climate change–such as in this Kevin Williamson article from 2009. Now we’ve hit a quantum truth paradox: given your apparent belief that a single wrong thought or claim means that a source cannot be trusted, what happens when said source on the one hand agrees with your climate denialism and on the other hand doesn’t? The potential paradoxes of whether or not you can cite their opinion pieces as fact boogle the mind.
That said, I’m not going to seriously raise any of these points because I am definitely starting to drift into self-indulgent gish gallop territory… and, dear sweet peachy nietzsches…
I have become the Monster I have been trying to battle.
The student is now the master.
The abyss really does stair back!
We don’t need eyes where we’re going!!!!!!
GAH……………..
@DK:
Thanks for posting something more on point about all of the censorship that’s been happening on Twitter since it’s purchase (to the degree that even early Twitter Files journos have pointed it out):
That said, Twitter is now private, and it’s well within Musk’s right to censor content (in the same way that we occasionally remove/edit/censor posts here). Pretending that isn’t happening, on the other hand, is like denying that climate change is occurring and that human activity is significantly contributing to it.
With that out of my way, I am returning to my state of existential madness from staring to long at Paul’s posts. For the record that madness has been exacerbated by having to quote the odious Matt Taibbi and breaking my general rule of “don’t amplify crappy people.” That said, he is an expert with first-hand knowledge on this particular topic, and therefore, it’s appropriate to cite that expertise.
Why on earth do we need to even be talking about climate science? Just look out the window. Unless you are young, you can remember when, for instance, Mount Shasta was covered with snow.
Or Mount Adams. You can remember when you got regular snows in the winter and hard freezes that lasted weeks. (If you live in Minnesota, you still do!).
In my life I can recall seeing snow on the ground here in the Bay Area (at sea level), and a couple of days where the temperature did not go above freezing. I can’t imagine that happening now.
Arguing about climate science seems a little silly at this point.