[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.

Robear wrote:

So we should have turned down the $1.2T in absolutely useful project funds and put the Republicans in charge in the Senate, meaning Democrats will get nothing going forward, DS? I can't fathom this. And you have no replacement strategy. None! We share exactly the same concerns, but can't you at least accept a partial win, instead of nothing?

That's what astounds me. This is a "burn the bridges" approach indeed. And there's no reason for it.

There is a reason for it. We have a small window in which to get election reform done or there may never be a Democratic Congress or President again.

And I keep asking, how do we get it done without Sinema and Manchin? Without 50+1 votes, nothing happens, no matter the state of the filibuster. Please, I'm begging you, how does that happen? I'd love to have some hope but you're not giving it to me.

Robear wrote:

And I keep asking, how do we get it done without Sinema and Manchin? Without 50+1 votes, nothing happens, no matter the state of the filibuster. Please, I'm begging you, how does that happen? I'd love to have some hope but you're not giving it to me.

If it could happen with them, it would have by now. Congress can do more than one thing at a time, and they have refused to do what is necessary to pass the Stop Republicans From Cheating bills. Because cheating Republicans gives them something to run against that isn't actually governing or raising taxes to pay for things we need.

Robear wrote:

And I keep asking, how do we get it done without Sinema and Manchin? Without 50+1 votes, nothing happens, no matter the state of the filibuster. Please, I'm begging you, how does that happen? I'd love to have some hope but you're not giving it to me.

They’ve made it apparent that nothing happens with Manchin & Sinema either, so I guess we’re at an impass. The infrastructure vote was 69-30 so that may not be the example you think it is.

I agree, Mixolyde. It could be done with Sinema and Manchin on board. In no way can it be done without that.'

I agree with Ruhk. We are at an impasse. The only things getting done are those that McConnell allows. Until that's changed - as I mentioned above, it's been going on since 2009 - until that's changed, we are already at the mercy of Republicans. But at least there are procedural moves for some types of bills that can move with 51. Without Sinema and Manchin, we lose those too.

Robear wrote:

So we should have turned down the $1.2T in absolutely useful project funds and put the Republicans in charge in the Senate, meaning Democrats will get nothing going forward, DS? I can't fathom this. And you have no replacement strategy. None! We share exactly the same concerns, but can't you at least accept a partial win, instead of nothing?

That's what astounds me. This is a "burn the bridges" approach indeed. And there's no reason for it.

It's not like the bridges were that stable to begin with. I agree that getting rid of Manchin and Sienna won't help anything, but I can understand the desire to publicly rebuke them and stop having to play nice with them. We're never going to get anything from them that will be of any actual help in 2022 and 2024 anways. The $1.2T is certainly useful from a practical point of view, but its useless from a public perception point of view because of all the stuff we had to give up just to get it. Getting some good done now doesn't really matter if we lose in '24, because if we lose then, we won't get another shot.

As I said, Stengah, I get the frustration. I just want some kind of explanation as to how we pull of the resulting power-dive. Limping along is better than diving off a cliff.

Robear wrote:

As I said, Stengah, I get the frustration. I just want some kind of explanation as to how we pull of the resulting power-dive. Limping along is better than diving off a cliff.

Unless Biden is willing to get extremely dirty in dealing with M&S there is no path out of this where the Dems don’t lose at least some power, but limping along like they are now, showing voters that they don’t have the will or ability to fight during multiple global and national crises, that’s going to be far more damaging to long term political power than losing control of a Senate they don’t actually control anyway.

I really don't think so. I think people understand the situation. That's why I think compromise, thin and infrequent as it is, is likely the only possible way to maintain and possibly cut our losses.

Robear wrote:

I really don't think so. I think people understand the situation. That's why I think compromise, thin and infrequent as it is, is likely the only possible way to maintain and possibly cut our losses.

We understand the situation, but the people in this thread follow these things more closely than most people. Most people’s political engagement is limited to social media and corporate news that has been recalcitrant to report on this in an honest way and has even tried to blame progressives for the obstructionism (and has spent way too much time with “how will we pay for this?!?” rhetoric).

Edit: double post

Robear wrote:

As I said, Stengah, I get the frustration. I just want some kind of explanation as to how we pull of the resulting power-dive. Limping along is better than diving off a cliff.

Trying to appease Manchin and Sinema won't help us avoid the cliff they're steering us towards, so both diving off the cliff and limping along towards the edge of it end with us falling towards the bottom, the only difference is how we look during the fall. To clarify, I don't think kicking them out of the party will help us at all either, I just don't think it will hurt us any more than they're already hurting us.
I'm okay with not kicking them out too, I'm just so very tired of preemptive capitulation being the go-to negotiation tactic for Democrats.

So i am guessing you all support Cheney being kicked out of the GOP?

SallyNasty wrote:

So i am guessing you all support Cheney being kicked out of the GOP?

it seems sensible to me. She's what the party used to be, and the GOP never really cared about being a big tent anyway, even less so now, I'd wager. It's interesting that the vote was as close as it was, though.

UpToIsomorphism wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Robear wrote:

But at least, as we see with the recent votes, it gives *something*. Not at all optimal but better than losing everything.

I consider losing a habitable planet and democracy “losing everything”, personally.

I mean, how many of those do we have?

Edit, and as loathsome as I find Sinema and Manchin (especially Manchin) you can also target the 50 R Senators who put their party and quest for power over the interests of the people they represent, the country, the world...

Or, I would also vote to abolish the senate and the racist origins of it. (You remember the 3/5 Compromise... what if we just did that but as a way to structure one of the three branches of government).

Ok, I'm a bit sleep deprived, but isn't the 3/5 for the House?

There's only one option, and the Republicans have been changing the rules for decades now...

IMAGE(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/51892897.jpg)

I've become increasingly convinced that the only way out is secession. The Republicans are going to openly, blatantly cheat to win an election - I don't mean by underhanded methods like voter suppression, which they're already doing, but by some states just declaring that their side "won" even though their candidate got less votes. The House is gerrymandered, the Senate is rigged, and the Supreme Court is packed because of McConnell.

I hope (?) that New England gets pissed enough and is like, you know what, we split off once because we didn't want to be ruled by a king, we're not letting you do this again, and leaves. I don't know that Red America will care enough to do anything about it, they'll probably think that they're better off without them. Hopefully New England decides to implement a better system with things like built-in protection from gerrymandering, public financing for elections... I mean, if you're starting all over and The People are rewriting things, might as well actually fix them, right? Little enough hope for that part, though.

I think at this point there's nothing Biden can do about it, because I don't think any kind of elections bill can get passed with 50 votes (not that the Democrats have 50 votes for one anyway) and the Republicans have no incentive to make elections free and fair. I think the United part of the USA is pretty well doomed.

That would lead to another civil war, as even the reddest states have about 24% Democrats and the bluest (barring outlier DC) about 30% Republicans - which would also be reflected in the military.

Even assuming that the split would be peaceful, and you end up with 3 countries (Blue West Coast, Red States, Blue East Coast) these would be in a constant tension with Red US posturing to gloss over massive inequalities etc. You know, like they do now but within the US.

I am not very confident that this would remain a peaceful co-existence for very long...

Best case scenario is America obliterates itself in the most environmentally responsible way possible - nukes preferably - so the rest of the world can continue to fight climate change.

This is not satire. That’s the best realistic scenario I can come up with.

There is no clean secession/split scenario for the US. The divide is too much of an urban/rural divide, and even that is oversimplifying it.

If the US falls apart, it'll essentially become the Middle West and then eventually foreign powers will regret muddling with the region as they get stuck in the quagmire of Middle Western politics and violence for decades.

Unfortunately, I think this is becoming an inevitability and I'm not looking forward to living through it (or, more realistically, dying as collateral damage in some random sectarian violence).

OG_slinger wrote:

Now explain how any of that can be achieved when the Senate is effectively 50-50 and people are proposing to "punish" recalcitrant Democrats by turning it into a 48-52 Senate.

I don't want to rehash this but it is classic moving the goal posts. "Give me a plan!" "here is a plan" "now give me something else! and if you don't then you are wrong for that reason not the first one!" It doesn't matter what is offered you just move the goal.

And following my plan, pushing relentlessly for it would energize a hell of a lot more voters in the mid terms then appeasement and crumbs.
trump's cult is not the majority of republicans but they push the republican agenda because they are energized and relentless in being involved.
that kind of dedication from liberals would be great and could push things back.

Seth wrote:

Best case scenario is America obliterates itself in the most environmentally responsible way possible - nukes preferably - so the rest of the world can continue to fight climate change.

This is not satire. That’s the best realistic scenario I can come up with.

As someone from a country where most of our population is within 200kms of the US border...please don't turn your country into a nuclear wasteland.

farley3k wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Now explain how any of that can be achieved when the Senate is effectively 50-50 and people are proposing to "punish" recalcitrant Democrats by turning it into a 48-52 Senate.

I don't want to rehash this but it is classic moving the goal posts. "Give me a plan!" "here is a plan" "now give me something else! and if you don't then you are wrong for that reason not the first one!" It doesn't matter what is offered you just move the goal.

Your list was as much a plan as the underpants gnome's business plan. You can just list unattainable dreams and call it a plan.

lunchbox12682 wrote:
UpToIsomorphism wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Robear wrote:

But at least, as we see with the recent votes, it gives *something*. Not at all optimal but better than losing everything.

I consider losing a habitable planet and democracy “losing everything”, personally.

I mean, how many of those do we have?

Edit, and as loathsome as I find Sinema and Manchin (especially Manchin) you can also target the 50 R Senators who put their party and quest for power over the interests of the people they represent, the country, the world...

Or, I would also vote to abolish the senate and the racist origins of it. (You remember the 3/5 Compromise... what if we just did that but as a way to structure one of the three branches of government).

Ok, I'm a bit sleep deprived, but isn't the 3/5 for the House?

I am trying to find the links with more historical context than my addled mind, but as I understand it the the Electoral College, the 3/5 Compromise, and the Bicameral Senate all come from the same place: that Southern States with lower populations (of free white landowning men) wanted more power and Northern states with greater populations (of free white landowning men) wanted more power. The three all come from the same place, with the statesmen at the Constitutional Convention creating the 3/5 Compromise first, and then using those principles to create the other two.

Remember, Senators are supposed to represent the states, not the people in those states (and originally were not elected by the people). So each compromise is meant to take power away from the citizens directly and to empower state governments.

Keldar wrote:

I hope (?) that New England gets pissed enough and is like, you know what, we split off once because we didn't want to be ruled by a king, we're not letting you do this again, and leaves. I don't know that Red America will care enough to do anything about it, they'll probably think that they're better off without them.

As others have mentioned, this would assuredly lead to civil war. Red states are looking for a reason to use all their guns and this would give them the excuse to use them on "democrat secessionists."

I would be against secession now just as I am against the South doing it in the 1800s.

Our Constitution was designed to be a living document that can change with the times. It can be changed and should be for a multitude of issues. Whether it would be or not is another story, but the mechanisms are there.

Even if there were a split, I'm not sure how long the fighting would last, since almost all of the domestically produced oil and most of the gas in the US comes from red states...

Vehicles aside, unless there are major imports from Canada, the gas shortage would be a major problem by the first winter in the blue states.

All the financing and money comes from blue states though. What will Texas Oil do when New York City kicks them off the stock exchange? When Big Tech in California exits the Trump economy?

Or will the capitalists in trump country not GAF and just keep selling oil to both sides, like oil companies have done since time immemorial?

Also, the south better hope climate change kicks in fast. They can’t keep their own cities running in a snow flurry, what are they gonna do in a blizzard in enemy territory?

There’s lots of fun ink spilled over a boogaloo.

Confederexit?

The problem with the system is that the 1% (and 2/100 Senators is literally 1%) can stop meaningful reform. You can call it a hangover from Roman law or a design feature but the point stands - you get more power being a fly in the ointment than toeing the party line. It's a problem in every democratic system.

The other problem in the system is the bipartisan nature of politics. Imagine if every vote was made "a vote of conscience" - perhaps you'd have more accountability and laws enacted or repealed based on merit rather than along party lines.

But anyway. We all know that isn't going to happen unless voters use their full power to nominate candidates that represent the wider interest as opposed to vested (corporate and private wealth) interests. The present stalemate probably suits those vested interests very much.