[Discussion] Welcome to the Biden Administration!

Anything related to Biden and his upcoming administration. May this thread be less active and controversial as that last guys thread.

I like that Biden plans to put a lot of focus on healthcare.

Biden's transition team.

Pretty predictable, really. There are some people in there from some corporations and banks I wish weren't represented, but hey.

For cult members, ostracism can be the worst imaginable punishment.

r013nt0 wrote:

Biden's transition team.

Look at all those people not likely to be convinced of obstruction of justice, money laundering and the like.

Farscry wrote:

I'd be fine with bringing Mattis back too, but would prefer new blood across the entire Cabinetry.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Mattis has the judgment of a flea. He served not only Trump, he ALSO served on the Board of Directors of Theranos, which is famous as being one of the LARGEST scientific frauds in history.

Tach wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I'd be fine with bringing Mattis back too, but would prefer new blood across the entire Cabinetry.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Mattis has the judgment of a flea. He served not only Trump, he ALSO served on the Board of Directors of Theranos, which is famous as being one of the LARGEST scientific frauds in history.

Mattis was a Marine, so he wasn't a slouch.

I have respect for Mattis for taking on the job he did and trying to keep a lid on Trump. I can't say I'd want him on Biden's administration, but I think he's done significantly more things on the side of service and 'good' than on the negative side.

Most of the board were simply there for paychecks anyway. And it isn't like they knew the product was a lie.

Tach wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I'd be fine with bringing Mattis back too, but would prefer new blood across the entire Cabinetry.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Mattis has the judgment of a flea. He served not only Trump, he ALSO served on the Board of Directors of Theranos, which is famous as being one of the LARGEST scientific frauds in history.

He was the SecDef, and he was there as much to be a buffer to protect the armed forces from Trump by that point as he was there to provide advice to a "president" who refused to take any.

A good president needs the SecDef for a very limited set of reasons:

  • Bridge the gap & translate between the government & the military
  • Keep the president & Cabinet appraised of operations and capabilities
  • Provide strategic advice towards both military and diplomatic goals from the perspective of national defense priorities

Probably a couple other things too, but that's just what comes to mind offhand. Silly as it sounds, it's like the council in Crusader Kings: your chief military leader doesn't need good business judgement, that's what your economic adviser is for. It should be quite possibly the least partisan Cabinet post of all.

I'm sure there are better choices. I'm merely saying that for that specific role, I'd be fine with Mattis.

Farscry wrote:
Tach wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I'd be fine with bringing Mattis back too, but would prefer new blood across the entire Cabinetry.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Mattis has the judgment of a flea. He served not only Trump, he ALSO served on the Board of Directors of Theranos, which is famous as being one of the LARGEST scientific frauds in history.

He was the SecDef, and he was there as much to be a buffer to protect the armed forces from Trump by that point as he was there to provide advice to a "president" who refused to take any.

A good president needs the SecDef for a very limited set of reasons:

  • Bridge the gap & translate between the government & the military
  • Keep the president & Cabinet appraised of operations and capabilities
  • Provide strategic advice towards both military and diplomatic goals from the perspective of national defense priorities

Probably a couple other things too, but that's just what comes to mind offhand. Silly as it sounds, it's like the council in Crusader Kings: your chief military leader doesn't need good business judgement, that's what your economic adviser is for. It should be quite possibly the least partisan Cabinet post of all.

I'm sure there are better choices. I'm merely saying that for that specific role, I'd be fine with Mattis.

Mattis performed very poorly in that role if only for one specific reason.

Trump demanded soldiers be sent to the border right before the midterms to "protect" the border from the caravan. Mattis complied with a blatantly political request. The American military ended up going there and mostly just hanging out, doing nothing and stringing some barbwire.

That was a catastrophic failure to act as an independent, non-partisan leader of the Defense Department and for that reason alone Mattis should never be a part of any future administration.

Coincidentally enough, Bernie Sanders seeks support from allies in push to lead Biden's Labor Department. You know the only way that has a chance of happening? Democrats having a majority in the Senate.

garion333 wrote:

Most of the board were simply there for paychecks anyway. And it isn't like they knew the product was a lie.

This is literally the job of the board to serve as a check on management. So we know of at least two jobs Mattis was unable to do properly, and people want to give him a shot at doing one of the jobs he failed at AGAIN?

The evidence between his time in Trump's cabinet and Theranos's board is that he's very good at turning a blind eye to malfeasance.

I guess it is a good thing that I haven't heard of any of those people on the transition team?

I only vaguely followed Theranos, but I was under the impression that even the board was being misled about the results of the devices. Elizabeth Holmes seemed to be willing to lie to anyone.

Malor wrote:

I only vaguely followed Theranos, but I was under the impression that even the board was being misled about the results of the devices. Elizabeth Holmes seemed to be willing to lie to anyone.

Yes, but I suspect the information they were being fed was a thin veneer. Even if not directly complicit in the fraud, a modicum of digging on the board's probably part would have exposed serious issues.

And as far as Jim Mattis being secretary of defense, there's a reason (I happen to strongly agree with) that the National Security Act of 1947 requires that cabinet position be filled by a civillian. Jim Mattis is hardly that.

Ok so now that things are better than they were will the DNC start giving progressives a turn or will "No we can't or Trump will win" become "No we can't or another Trump might win"?

strangederby wrote:

"No we can't or another Trump might win"?

Regardless of the direction of the DNC, this is a very real thing and should be scary to everyone. We've seen what incompetence can accomplish when enabled, imagine what it would look like with even a minuscule amount of intelligence.

Sanders for SecDef. Wouldn't it be rad to have a person who has repeatedly, if not exclusively, voted against war?

But man, it certainly would be good to have him in charge of Labor, as well... Hmm.

JC wrote:
strangederby wrote:

"No we can't or another Trump might win"?

Regardless of the direction of the DNC, this is a very real thing and should be scary to everyone. We've seen what incompetence can accomplish when enabled, imagine what it would look like with even a minuscule amount of intelligence.

Environmental destruction and lack of adequate health care are real things.

strangederby wrote:

Ok so now that things are better than they were will the DNC start giving progressives a turn or will "No we can't or Trump will win" become "No we can't or another Trump might win"?

Either way, I fear infighting and a general feeling of discouragement are going to hamstring their effectiveness. It feels like the Democratic Party is full of too many disparate groups with different priorities. And unfortunately, losing just one of those groups could prove decisive in future elections.

On the other hand, Republicans’ purpose seems to have devolved to: “Libs are scary. We must own them.” Which... fine... I thought I understood the appeal of fear and a simple message. But I’ve been persistently shocked and disappointed that this message is apparently so compelling they’re willing to put up with (hell, embrace) someone as obviously incompetent and immoral as Trump. How can Democrats effectively fight that much less defeat it? Right now it feels like a slide to authoritarianism is inevitable. It’s just a matter of how fast.

This should be everyone’s number one priority but I have no idea how they can tackle it.

The left will always be at a disadvantage in that regard. They have to effectively herd cats while right just has a bunch of boot lickers just begging to be told to what to do and how to think.

The platforms and identities of the two parties basically guarantee that this will continue to be the case.

bekkilyn wrote:

I think this is the cart WAY before the horse. Yes, let's push progressive policies and install Bernie or one of his allies as Sec of Labor. But we are assuming Biden will be sworn in as predicted. If anything, Bernie needs to be rallying his base against the GOP power grab.

Vermont has a Republican governor. Bernie isn't going anywhere but the Senate.

This is like saying they need to fix the crash in Level 3 before worrying about the sound bugs. Groups can do two (ten) things.

gewy wrote:
strangederby wrote:

Ok so now that things are better than they were will the DNC start giving progressives a turn or will "No we can't or Trump will win" become "No we can't or another Trump might win"?

Either way, I fear infighting and a general feeling of discouragement are going to hamstring their effectiveness. It feels like the Democratic Party is full of too many disparate groups with different priorities. And unfortunately, losing just one of those groups could prove decisive in future elections.

On the other hand, Republicans’ purpose seems to have devolved to: “Libs are scary. We must own them.” Which... fine... I thought I understood the appeal of fear and a simple message. But I’ve been persistently shocked and disappointed that this message is apparently so compelling they’re willing to put up with (hell, embrace) someone as obviously incompetent and immoral as Trump. How can Democrats effectively fight that much less defeat it? Right now it feels like a slide to authoritarianism is inevitable. It’s just a matter of how fast.

This should be everyone’s number one priority but I have no idea how they can tackle it.

These might be two sides of the same coin. It might be that centrists are just *really* bad at political campaigns for elections against Republicans, and are only good at political campaigns for primaries against progressives.

If the Democrats were as good at actual elections as Republicans, this could be a two (or more)-birds-one-stone situation. Dems wouldn't be as afraid of running more leftwards while also reaching more of the low-information voters that Republicans capture.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if stuff like The Lincoln Project actually went over to the progressive wing. Sure, that's a further reach ideologically for them, but what I think they really enjoy is power, and they might prefer to work with people who agree that Democrats suck at winning actual elections and need to improve.

Stele wrote:

Vermont has a Republican governor. Bernie isn't going anywhere but the Senate.

A governor who voted for Biden and called Trump's voter fraud allegations "shameful". Plus Sanders is extremely popular in Vermont (40pt margin win in 2018), so I'd say his seat is pretty safe to give up.

Bernie will not be anywhere near the Cabinet, as much as I would love for him to be. Even if the Democrats win 50 seats, there’s a WV Senator that will suddenly have a lot more power and influence.

The most I could hope for is Liz, and even that is a stretch. Get ready for centrism.

Natus wrote:

I think this is the cart WAY before the horse. Yes, let's push progressive policies and install Bernie or one of his allies as Sec of Labor. But we are assuming Biden will be sworn in as predicted. If anything, Bernie needs to be rallying his base against the GOP power grab.

I just took it as Bernie reassuring people that he believed that Biden would do as he promised considering that a lot of people who support Bernie are doubtful of Biden and may need such reassurance.

They are doing a hand-recount of all the Presidential votes in GA.