US Presidential Election 2020

eire4 wrote: »

And there it is you just could no hold out on the insults. Because I dare to have a different viewpoint I am a "child". A classic example of the hubris of the corporate Democrat to lash out against anybody who calls them out for only taking care of the rich and powerful economically.

How dare I point out that under corporate Democrats economic polices over the past few decades the vast majority of Americans have continued to see income inequality increase and structurally opportunity for Americans to succeed economically has not get better either.

I have never for one minute suggested that corporate Democrats are not a lesser evil then Republicans so no idea why your bringing up Romney or McCain. I am simply pointing out the economic policies of corporate Democrats have made things worse as well for the vast majority of Americans for decades.

Never said that the corporate Democrats do not throw out some crumbs either to the masses. They most definitely do. But if does not stop me pointing out that overall economically most Americans are worse off economically under corporate Democrats polices. Republicans a greater evil in that regard no question but the corporate Democrats have played their part in leaving the US in the pathetic state it is today.

I didn't call you a child, I said the perspective you have is childlike. Calling benefits that are incredibly important to people 'crumbs' just because they aren't high on your priority list is more of the same.

Looking at the bit in bold, Americans are only worse off compared to your godlike pure candidate, who takes the power of a king and ignores the US system checks and balances. Presidents can't just do what they want and create the utopia you think they can

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Obama had a double majority when he took office, and utterly squandered it.

the President also absolutely has the authority to end the war on drugs, and end of the war on terror.

Show me how exactly, using facts, figures, basis and verifiable information Obama could have ended the war on drugs within 2 years, and how he could have ended the war on terror with all implications of withdrawing troops, how that would affect their allies and all unintended consequences.

I'll wait.

Foxtrol wrote: »

I didn't call you a child, I said the perspective you have is childlike. Calling benefits that are incredibly important to people 'crumbs' just because they aren't high on your priority list is more of the same.

Looking at the bit in bold, Americans are only worse off compared to your godlike pure candidate, who takes the power of a king and ignores the US system checks and balances. Presidents can't just do what they want and create the utopia you think they can

Ahh right you are I apologize you only called me "childlike" fair enough I stand corrected because my viewpoints or "perspective" as you say are completely detached from my person and are completely separate.

Americans are worse off economically the vast majority of them at any rate over the past few decades that is a fact. In 1980 the top 1% took 8% now hat number is close to 20%.

I have no idea what your talking about in your last paragraph. All I can say there is to reiterate that there is no question that corporate Democrats are a lesser evil then Republicans. No question at all I have never for a minute said otherwise. They are nonetheless still a party devoted to taking care of the rich and not the vast majority of Americans economically. It seems your ok with that and of course that is your right. I am just going to keep pointing out who the corporate Democrats take care of overall because I am not ok with that and instead believe in pushing for economic policies that will benefit the vast majority not just the wealthy.
I would also say that FDR managed to do a pretty bang up job of making the economic lives of the vast Majority of Americans better. That is where the Democratic party should be going direction wise.

everlast75 wrote: »

Mitch McConnell, day 1 of 44's presidency

"Yeah, we're gonna fight him on everything and make him a one term president"

Obama and the Dems had control. McConnell couldn't have done anything if the Dems had wielded their power. You know, the way McConnell and the Republicans do.

everlast75 wrote: »

Show me how exactly, using facts, figures, basis and verifiable information Obama could have ended the war on drugs within 2 years, and how he could have ended the war on terror with all implications of withdrawing troops, how that would affect their allies and all unintended consequences.

I'll wait.

Well, again as a starter, the Democrats had complete control of government. For 2 years. To start with, he could have directed Federal agencies to no longer prosecute personal drug offenses. Shifted resources to engage it as a health issue, not a criminal one.

As leader of the party, he could have pushed legalisation/ decriminalisation across the board. He could have pushed for a policy of expunging criminal records for those jailed for non-violent drug offenses. The states are doing now where marijuana is legal.

Hardly some insurmountable challenge to tackle.

As to the Forever War, he could have simply left Afghanistan. That's more or less it. This idea that the US owes them anything at this point is ridiculous. Likewise with Iraq. The US withdrew initially because of a failure to agree on a new Status of Forces agreement. They should have stayed gone. Obama also could have no supported overthrowing Gaddafi, which plunged the region into fresh wave of violence and chaos. He should've stayed out of Syria completely, after Congress refusing to back action there. Instead they gave half assed support, that has only served to prolong a conflict for years and created an unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe.

Foxtrol wrote: »

They only got rid of it for judges and look where we are now. The only reason Trump's worst instincts have been kept at bay is because the filibuster is still there for nearly everything else.

I do hope if the Dems get in they show spine and at minimum remove the filibuster, rebalance the courts, and give statehood to DC and PR.



There simply wasn't the votes for any other form of ACA. You can believe that the democrats wouldn't have been slaughtered if they went for a more aggressive universal healthcare option but I think you're wrong. People complained about losing their doctors, imagine what would have happened if people also had their insurance taken away, along with additional wait time, costs etc. It is 10 years later and despite Bernie and co banging the drum for it for 6 years, universal healthcare still polls poorly when you bring in known downsides to it.

I feel you're ignoring the political reality of Obama's time and even the support for things right now.

Obama's eternal mistake was believing that the Republicans would work with him. He and the Democrats were given two years to accomplish anything, if they had the will. They didn't.

I hope that the Democrats won't repeat that mistake if they secure majorities again, but I don't have much confidence in that.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Agree with most of that. I think the bigger miscalculation was not doing things in a different order and/or multiple things at once. Electoral reform should have been relatively easy and would have stopped a lot of the mess that has happened since.

Where we disagree is that due to red state democrats, Obama never had real power to do the more extreme things you wanted.

Trump and McConnel have reset the rulebook at this point so politically there is much more cover for ramming things true than when Obama was in power. My fear is that Biden will fall into the same trap and let precious time go by while trying to work with Republicans

I would be rather more cynical than you, regarding the likelihood of Biden pursuing policy that would have a major impact on a given industry. Remember it was as much the vested interests of corporate healthcare businesses that scuppered the single payer option for the ACA, as it was Republicans.

I agree with you about legislative priority. They have to end the Republicans ability to undermine democracy. Gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, corporate money, all of it needs to be corrected.

dark crystal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1314296100115767297

I'm not sure if this is the smartest move right now, so close to the election. Even if it passed in the House, It wouldn't pass in the Senate.

What is the reasoning behind this? Is it just the erratic Tweets (not unusual) or something else more serious? I know Pence abruptly cancelled his planned trip to Indiana tomorrow to vote early and flew back to Washington today instead.

I'd love to know what's behind this move...

Poking Trump for a reaction? The more wild they can make him the better

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But the Dems have this almost in the bag, this sort of play means Haris and Biden are going to be asked questions.

Great, let's talk about Trumps ill health from now until the election, perfect.

Bang goes Trump's October surprises.

No wonder he posted a meme of a bloke screaming to make some arrests.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1314505100493287425?s=19

I hope Barr is as uncomfortable as possible with Trump's clear displeasure.

Apparently he is miffed at Pompeo too.

Everybodies fault but his.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Two reasons. Firstly, the voter support isn't there for it. ABC poll last week came out with over half of all registered voters opposing it, just under a third in favour. Politicised though the appointment of judges has become, I think the institution itself has a bit more respect in the population that they don't want it to become a rubber stamp for whichever party is in office, especially as both sides are currently using the court to deal with legislation enacted that they don't like. This likely also includes populations where the Democrats are looking to pick up Senators, as the crowd who answer 'yes' tend to be those who are Democrats anyway. If they don't pick up enough senators, the discussion is rendered pointless.

Firstly, there isn't public support for most of the GOP agenda, from guns to abortion to even moving ahead with ACB for the supreme court. Politically it is right for the Dems to say nothing now but it doesn't mean they shouldn't move forward if they are in the position to do it in January.

Secondly, if we're going to continue the "they did it first" line of politics, and if they are able to get the Senators to pack the court in the first place, the nature of the country right now is that it's highly likely that there will be a Republican Senate again with at some point a Republican president.
So, continue the judicial pattern: Democrats move to simple majority for federal judges, Republicans move to simple majority for Supreme Court judges. Republicans refuse to hear nomination of SCOTUS judge, Democrats refuse to hear nomination of SCOTUS judge. Democrats pack the court... (fill in the blank).

Secondly, your presumption/hope is that if the Dems don't escalate things the GOP will stop escalating things. There is absolutely no evidence of that being the case, members of the GOP stated that if Hillary won but they held the senate they would block any nomination to the Supreme Court. McConnell blocked Obama from nominating judges from the time the GOP got power in the Senate. There isn't a doubt in my mind that if Biden was in power and the GOP held the Senate they would do the same again. It is extremely naïve to think different.

Bit of a shame I didn't hear Pence ask about Harris' home state government's hopes for Prop 16. California's government doesn't like the bit in the Constitution which says "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." (Socioeconomic status is authorised, though, so grants to lower classes for education etc). It would be interesting to see the balance in the response between supporting the California Democrat position, and not alienating third-state voters.

Bit of shame Pence didn't answer any questions actually put to him

I think it's not that useful to try to look at support for one policy or another with respect to the judiciary yet.

Once the new Justice is confirmed, and if we start seeing massively unpopular decisions passed, we could well see a huge shift, while if we fail to see minoritarian, anti-democratic or politically unpopular decisions passed, it may well boost the perception that the SC is still legitimate and trustworthy.

And that's leaving aside that Biden hasn't actually won, so even him doing so could make the proposition real, and could shift perceptions one way or the other.

Whatever the Democrats decide to do, they'll probably take any such movements into account.

Another thing, is that they'll have a lot more ability to ram through changes early on, safe in the knowledge that it'll be largely forgotten about by the time the midterms roll around.

Also, if such a thing happens, it also would likely mean reversing the anti-democratic measures instituted by Republicans, like the dismantling of the voting rights act, which would make it less likely for Republicans to win. They're already running at a democratic deficit, so any bad polling would have to take that into account and work the benefits of proportionality and representation into the political calculus.

A point that I've heard made repeatedly by Ezra Klein in his many interviews and dicussions over the last year or so about climate change policy, democratic reform, the Supreme Court, and about the filibuster itself, is that whether or not the democrats actually plan on making any changes and acheiving anything, will depend on how willing they are to make changes to the processes that prevent any serious legislation or reform getting passed.

They can have all the policy proposals in the world, but if they're not willing to remove the filibuster, then they're just lying through their ****ing teeth about actually caring about any of it. They know the system. If they can't get a supermajority, and aren't willing to change it, then they're not actually for the things they claim to be for.

Maybe Obama and the Democrats of that era had some excuse. They were perhaps caught on the hop by the Republican party's increasing intrasigence. Ignorance of that is no longer an excuse. And they will be absolutely crushed in subsequent elections because of that. There is an enormous responsibility being put in the Democratic establishment in this set of elections, and they'll pay a very heavy price if they don't make good on their promises.

Gbear wrote: »

I think it's not that useful to try to look at support for one policy or another with respect to the judiciary yet.

Once the new Justice is confirmed, and if we start seeing massively unpopular decisions passed, we could well see a huge shift, while if we fail to see minoritarian, anti-democratic or politically unpopular decisions passed, it may well boost the perception that the SC is still legitimate and trustworthy.

And that's leaving aside that Biden hasn't actually won, so even him doing so could make the proposition real, and could shift perceptions one way or the other.

Whatever the Democrats decide to do, they'll probably take any such movements into account.

Another thing, is that they'll have a lot more ability to ram through changes early on, safe in the knowledge that it'll be largely forgotten about by the time the midterms roll around.

Also, if such a thing happens, it also would likely mean reversing the anti-democratic measures instituted by Republicans, like the dismantling of the voting rights act, which would make it less likely for Republicans to win. They're already running at a democratic deficit, so any bad polling would have to take that into account and work the benefits of proportionality and representation into the political calculus.

A point that I've heard made repeatedly by Ezra Klein in his many interviews and dicussions over the last year or so about climate change policy, democratic reform, the Supreme Court, and about the filibuster itself, is that whether or not the democrats actually plan on making any changes and acheiving anything, will depend on how willing they are to make changes to the processes that prevent any serious legislation or reform getting passed.

They can have all the policy proposals in the world, but if they're not willing to remove the filibuster, then they're just lying through their ****ing teeth about actually caring about any of it. They know the system. If they can't get a supermajority, and aren't willing to change it, then they're not actually for the things they claim to be for.

Maybe Obama and the Democrats of that era had some excuse. They were perhaps caught on the hop by the Republican party's increasing intrasigence. Ignorance of that is no longer an excuse. And they will be absolutely crushed in subsequent elections because of that. There is an enormous responsibility being put in the Democratic establishment in this set of elections, and they'll pay a very heavy price if they don't make good on their promises.

If they are serious about enacting policy, then they have to secure themselves against Republican electoral shenanigans. It's a rare occassion where what benefits them and the public align. Easy win for them. Likewise, pushing for non-partisan reform of the judicial system should be pretty straightforward. Term limits, candidates selected by non-partisan panel of jurists and legal academics. All proposals that have been pushed for by the legal community themselves.

By doing that, the Democrats will be able to build on their legislative momentum and operate with less worry about having to protect against losing power to the Republicans.

It should also serve to revitalise the Republican party to find its purpose and soul; to where they start to compete with ideas again, instead of fear and disenfranchisement.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If they are serious about enacting policy, then they have to secure themselves against Republican electoral shenanigans. It's a rare occassion where what benefits them and the public align. Easy win for them. Likewise, pushing for non-partisan reform of the judicial system should be pretty straightforward. Term limits, candidates selected by non-partisan panel of jurists and legal academics. All proposals that have been pushed for by the legal community themselves.

By doing that, the Democrats will be able to build on their legislative momentum and operate with less worry about having to protect against losing power to the Republicans.

It should also serve to revitalise the Republican party to find its purpose and soul; to where they start to compete with ideas again, instead of fear and disenfranchisement.

Agreed on the non-partisan stuff, although the Republicans will no doubt try to make it appear partisan, because they'll attempt to make anything the Democrats do appear partisan. There'll be a lot of nattering about tradition and words like "besmirchment" used.

However non-partisan changes might not be enough.

With term limits, formalised procedures for having SC nominations at least heard in the Senate (which would put individual senators under pressure to be less partisan - see what's happened to Susan Collins), and whatever else, the balance of the SC might eventually return to something reflective of US politics, rather than the absurd conservative slant it currently has.

But we don't have 18 years to wait for climate change policy. Women won't have 18 years to wait for abortions.

We'll have to wait an see. There's an awful lot that could happen between now and the beginning of the next presidential term, that could change the political landscape wildly.

I agree on your last point though. This isn't a good situation to be in for Republicans. Their political reach has exceeded their grasp. They have to live in the US too (well, I guess they could flee). Civil war isn't in their interests any more than anyone else's.

Foxtrol wrote: »

The bits in bold are somewhat contradictory. By the time you wait for those unpopular decisions to be made you're likely running into midterms. Anything regarding the filibuster, expanding the senate, or expanding the supreme court need to be done ASAP to ride out any blow back and ensure the benefits can be gained in advance of potentially losing the senate or house during mid-terms

By that I mean that if between now and, say, February, there's 3 big rulings passed by the supreme court along 6-3 partisan lines, that could give the Democrats the public support they need to do something like stack the court.
I don't mean that they should wait, but that they might be facing a different political landscape by the time they can do something about it.

But regardless, they can make those kind of changes ASAP, and by the time the 2022 elections roll around, if the changes are unpopular, they'll be mostly forgotten by then, and/or the energising of the Republican base will have died down a bit.

Who's still talking about putting immigrants in cages? Remember the Muslim ban? People have short memories.