uncleoswald wrote: » A bit harsh on Obama as his hands were tied massively when they lost the congress after two years. And even then, the control was something of a mirage and they were dealing with a massive recession in that time.
uncleoswald wrote: » Back on this election I seem to sway hourly between thinking it's all going to be ok in the end because the system has enough safeguards, and panic that the system just wasn't built to withstand someone as brazen as Trump and as blindingly devoted as his followers.
Manic Moran wrote: » Or, as an alternative, we can go back to remembering that the Tenth Amendment is a thing, and go back to letting States sort out their own problems to their own satisfaction. It’s how the country was designed to operate in the first place. What progressive policies cannot be enacted at the State level? (To counter that, what conservative ones cannot, but I can think of fewer at the national level) For example, some states, famously Massachusetts, but not only, had their own broad healthcare plans before ACA came along. Why does Congress need to get involved? As mentioned, California alone has the, what, 9th largest economy in the world? Does it really need Congress and the federal budget to create a healthcare system to satisfy California voters? If there are impediments to such a thing (there are some), Congress can remove them. California or New York can do Single Payer, a more swing state can do something closer to ACA, and Utah or whatever can go pure capitalist. As mentioned, Florida just put in a new minimum wage. $15/hr may do all right in Florida, it may be insufficient in California, it’s probably overkill in Wyoming. Why does the federal government need to get involved? The States have show that they can do things if they want to.If you are in a Cleveland suburb and you don’t like progressive policies in your State, you can vote against the Democrats in Congress. If you are in Cleveland and you do want progressive policies in Ohio, you can vote for a progressive in Columbus to pass those policies without risk of pushback from someone in neighboring Kentucky.
Infini wrote: » Honestly regardless of what Trump does now, he's done and he knows it, the chances of him being able to engineer an outcome favorable to himself is remote at worst and impossible at best, he's unlikely to get any serious support to keep him in the white house, republicans as thick as they can be aren't fools expecially McConnell they're in it for the long game and the minute Trump lost the election he became a liability. They'll play nice because he still was able to get supporters out and they won't want to split the party but he'll either be leaving come January or he goes down in acrimony. One way or another he's a dead man walking politically right now and that's why he's probably acting the way he is, the walls are closing in, he's the emperor with no clothes and there's nothing he can do to stop it now as his powers are essentially gone.
everlast75 wrote: » It's not surprising that Trump keeps losing his cases, when these are the witnesses they are rolling out..https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1327038586819145732?s=19
circadian wrote: » I see Warren is suggesting cancelling billions in student loans along with all the other day 1 changes for the Biden administration. While cancelling the debt solves a small part of a larger problem it would allow more financial freedom to those who are currently drowning in debt. It could be the kind of gesture to win across some Republicans, even possibly Trump voters and to ease tensions. Sure there are always going to be the hardcore base but the Trump supporters who are supporting him because they believe he'll relieve financial and economic stresses might warm to the idea of a party willing to make things more livable for the majority of the middle class.
DubInMeath wrote: » Who is going to be fired from homeland security for this statement? Krebs or someone else?
Manic Moran wrote: » Or, as an alternative, we can go back to remembering that the Tenth Amendment is a thing, and go back to letting States sort out their own problems to their own satisfaction. It’s how the country was designed to operate in the first place. What progressive policies cannot be enacted at the State level? (To counter that, what conservative ones cannot, but I can think of fewer at the national level)
everlast75 wrote: » https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1327105993910722560?s=19 At every single turn, there is real hypocrisy. It's an international embarrassment for the U.S. and only serves to highlight the difference between the childishness and ineptitude of 45 and the next administration. At every press conference for the next year regarding any issue, 46 should point out what Trump's response had been to that issue, who supported it, and then follow it with 46's response. It'll be devastating
BluePlanet wrote: » That died a death in the aftermath of the Civil War. The southern states pleaded 'states rights' to keep blacks as property.
Manic Moran wrote: » They did, and it was wrong to do so for that purpose. But 'states rights' as a concept is not wrong and, indeed, continued as it was until 1935 after a number of Supreme Court rulings when FDR blackmailed the court into "Rule the way I tell you and give Congress authority to do all sorts of things you keep saying we can't, or I'll pack the court with enough judges who agree with me and you'll rule that way anyway. And every other way I decide after that". So now, it's "States rights, but Congress righter in most cases", with only in the last couple of decades the courts starting to roll back, ever so slowly, congress's reach. The idea that the States cannot govern themselves is supported neither by history nor by reality on the ground, subject to the supervision of basic rights. There have been very, very few initiatives that a State has tried in the last 80 years which Congress has put a stop to.
Manic Moran wrote: » The idea that the States cannot govern themselves is supported neither by history nor by reality on the ground, subject to the supervision of basic rights.
Quin_Dub wrote: » I guess the thing that I struggle with in terms of that approach is , if all this autonomy is given to the States , what's the point of the country as a whole? Taken to it's limits , does the USA not just become a "NATO" alliance of sorts for shared external security? I know it's infinitely more nuanced than that but the issues caused this year by an inability to formulate and adhere to national plans etc. highlighted a lot of issues.
Foxtrol wrote: » For all their complaining about voter fraud, it looks like the GOP have found a new way to disenfranchise voters - running fake candidates to pull votes away from democrats. Examples of it happening in 2 states so far and presumably what they were hoping for with Kanye before he ruined his 'campaign' on day 1.https://twitter.com/stuffie1977/status/1326950969662451712?s=20
Infini wrote: » That's pretty interesting, if the 3rd party candidate is a fake candidate would that not be illegal or something as they're there purely to manipulate the vote and are not a legitimate candidate?
Foxtrol wrote: » Well how deep red states litter the bottom of the league tables for the likes of education, healthcare, economy etc provides plenty of evidence that states can not govern many aspects fundamental to those that live there.
I guess the thing that I struggle with in terms of that approach is , if all this autonomy is given to the States , what's the point of the country as a whole? Taken to it's limits , does the USA not just become a "NATO" alliance of sorts for shared external security? I know it's infinitely more nuanced than that but the issues caused this year by an inability to formulate and adhere to national plans etc. highlighted a lot of issues.
Manic Moran wrote: » That's for them to decide. Ireland has still, I believe, one of the best education systems in the EU, why aren't the Irish dictating to the Italians, British, or Lithuanians how they should run their education systems? Maybe because it's their own business, and the Irish would equally resent the Europeans saying something like "You must put at least 2% into your defense budget like the rest of us and buy fighters so we can stop patrolling your airspace?" If someone living in Idaho thinks that their healthcare standard is below that of California, if they want to, they can vote for people to implement it in Idaho. They don't need, nor want, Californians coming in and telling them what's good for them. The intended purpose of the Federal Government is laid out in the Constitution (Article 8), and, yes, it was for much of its existence an improved version of a military alliance. Think of it as a something of a cross between NATO and the EEC. Look at the US Federal Budget through the 1920s. It had two major expenses which accounted for the vast majority of the budget: Defense expenditure, and debt servicing, the debt was almost invariably for other defense expenditures. The remainder was covered by foreign relations (Ambassadors, treaties, Indian affairs), and some other issues like National Parks. Only after FDR rammed the Commerce Clause down the Supreme Court's neck did the US really start getting involved in things which could be handled at the internal State level. That Congress has started doing it does not deny that it can still be done at the State level, much like EU nations still do most of their day to day business domestically. There's no "EU Healthcare system", "EU Education System", or "EU Pension system". Dublin, Berlin, Paris can take care of those things just like Sacramento, Albany or Springfield.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eaabbaf8a16773590ee22dd6c15f1d68.svg)
