[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.

Ugh

BadKen wrote:

I apologize for the now nearly an entire page worth of derail, and I also apologize for egging it on.

So you acknowledge that you realize you were making a joke that was being misunderstood by some people, and instead of correcting it, you kept it going because....check notes...It was

BadKen wrote:

harshing my groove.

Got it.

BadKen wrote:

This week month year (let's hope), I. am. exuberant. I want to dance and sing and throw ribbons.

Maybe stick with this approach next time since it was pretty clear to some people (myself included) that it was pretty hard to tell you were joking. I'm sorry if I don't know the posting history of every member of GWJ, but when we're pretty fresh off men getting upset when some women put the "Dr." in front of their names, maybe still too early to be making ironic jokes about them? Especially when multiple people are not getting it.

Sorry if explaining the joke ruins the mood. Let's go back to commenting on the attractiveness of former and current press secretaries, a perfectly normal and healthy thing that happens to either male/female/non-binary people equally every time.

(see, it's a joke because it doesn't happen equally)

Lovesauce would look great on a Tennessee hockey jersey!

The only press secretaries I remember by name are fictional ones, and that's because I only recently watched West Wing.

bekkilyn wrote:

The only press secretaries I remember by name are fictional ones, and that's because I only recently watched West Wing. :)

FOGGY BOTTOM!

bekkilyn wrote:

The only press secretaries I remember by name are fictional ones, and that's because I only recently watched West Wing. :)

I HAD WOOT CANAL.

I think Gail is my favorite though.

We should start a West Wing swoon thread. Also, the rewatch podcast with Joshua Malina is delightful.

I started a rewatch of the West Wing about 18 months ago, and I only managed a few episodes. Couldn't take it, what with clownshoes in the big chair.

Maybe I'll be able to stomach it again, after a month or two of sane governance. Perhaps it won't seem like such an insane flight of fantasy.

edit: I mean, it was actively painful to watch it, with such monsters occupying the real West Wing.

I recommend the West Wing Thing podcast.

I may have said it here before, but my favourite description of the West Wing is ‘Mills and Boon for the politically aware centre-left’

I struggle with West Wing, because it inhabits a fantasy world where people are persuadable. Even rival politicians. The last 40 years of American politics have been the exercise of raw power in the service of making the wealthy wealthier and beating back the modest welfare state we had.

I find the show to be depressing in that respect.

The West Wing is often lightly examined through the rose-colored glasses of the "prestige TV" era. When you watch the show and examine its politics, it's a horror show.

Like, setting aside even the general left, center, or righted-ness of the show's politics at any given time, it's supposed to be a fantasy where a writer can write the world he actually wants. Its popularity with Obama-era Democrats speaks volumes for the current tenor of the Democratic party that so many of the show's plotlines dead-end into nothingness or die for the sake of compromise.

I used to be a fan of the West Wing, but it's so hard now to ignore that its politics are actually reprehensible.

That too. Love watching a fantasy political world where there’s a chance to make poor people slightly less poor, but won’t somebody please think of the deficits?

DSGamer wrote:

That too. Love watching a fantasy political world where there’s a chance to make poor people slightly less poor, but won’t somebody please think of the deficits?

All of the above and the fact that Sorkin's writing is clever but ultimately doesn't do much for me, then or now.

We just watched West Wing for the first time maybe 2 years ago. So it was depressing to see many of the same issues (gun control, abortion, etc.) still in entrenched positions almost 20 years later, with even less chance of compromise.

Also jarring to see an actual honorable Republican like John Goodman's character.

Back to the topic (If this is the topic, and if not, feel free to ignore me)

I've been hearing rumblings of trying to remove the filibuster. I personally think this is a HORRIBLE idea. I think Biden has more then enough political power to materially change things for the poorest of Americans NOW. Without removing the filibuster. What makes things worse is that, I think that even if the Democrats reform or remove the filibuster, they will immediately turn into a circular firing squad. I don't believe that Biden and his current crop of Democrats have it in them to maintain majority in 2022.

Here's a scary thought, what happens if Biden loses in 2024 and Trump 2.0 goosesteps his (or her) way into office? They will take out the rest of Democracy in one big bite.

Drazzil wrote:

Back to the topic (If this is the topic, and if not, feel free to ignore me)

I've been hearing rumblings of trying to remove the filibuster. I personally think this is a HORRIBLE idea. I think Biden has more then enough political power to materially change things for the poorest of Americans NOW. Without removing the filibuster. What makes things worse is that, I think that even if the Democrats reform or remove the filibuster, they will immediately turn into a circular firing squad. I don't believe that Biden and his current crop of Democrats have it in them to maintain majority in 2022.

Here's a scary thought, what happens if Biden loses in 2024 and Trump 2.0 goosesteps his (or her) way into office? They will take out the rest of Democracy in one big bite.

It's a problem/challenge to be sure. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Republican's can just obstruct for 2 years and claim nothing is getting done and run on that in 2022 (their usual M.O.) Alternatively, Democrats get rid of the filibuster, get sh*t done, and then hope Republicans don't take over power in 2 years.

If democrats DO get rid of the filibuster, they need to take actions that will have a direct impact on voters and then they need to get on message and beat that drum for the next 2 years. Even if they accomplish that, it's still an uphill climb when you're trying to use facts against blatant lies.

Messaging and results will be everything for the next 2-4 years. Abstract isn't going to cut it.

I can see your point but it really has been shown not to work and to prevent meaningful legislation. Compared with "it might in the future be bad." I have to go with getting rid of it. We know it has been abused in the past so the argument that having it gone might lead to abuse in the future is not convincing to me.

Drazzil wrote:

Back to the topic (If this is the topic, and if not, feel free to ignore me)

I've been hearing rumblings of trying to remove the filibuster. I personally think this is a HORRIBLE idea. I think Biden has more then enough political power to materially change things for the poorest of Americans NOW. Without removing the filibuster. What makes things worse is that, I think that even if the Democrats reform or remove the filibuster, they will immediately turn into a circular firing squad. I don't believe that Biden and his current crop of Democrats have it in them to maintain majority in 2022.

Here's a scary thought, what happens if Biden loses in 2024 and Trump 2.0 goosesteps his (or her) way into office? They will take out the rest of Democracy in one big bite.

Well your last point is a vote for removing the filibuster.

No filibuster => less obstructionism => Dems getting more done in the next four years => having a positive record to run on for 2024.

Gerrymandering in the House aside, the Senate is easier for the GOP to flip than the House due to small, red states getting outsized representation. At the current 50-50 split, Democratic Senators represent 40 million more Americans than GOP Senators. That's an argument against removing the filibuster.

But I'm encouraged by Georgia. If we can get improved voting rights and systems legislation passed to make it harder for the GOP to steal elections through disenfranchisement the filibuster could be a moot point in a few years. Demographics are not on the GOP's side.

Like JC said, the most important thing for the Democrats right now is to get important legislation passed, and not let an archaic norm like the filibuster stand in their way.

Yeah, the Rs will just get rid of it themselves when they need to. The only reason they didn't during Trump is because they were able to pass the big stuff they wanted to without doing that.

DC statehood will help the Senate too.

Georgia and other states are already looking to roil back no Justification absentee ballots. I suspect that within the next 6 months you will see major changes at the state level based upon the fake concept that people are concerned about voting security

Stele wrote:

DC statehood will help the Senate too.

Puerto Rico, too, if they want.

farley3k wrote:

I can see your point but it really has been shown not to work and to prevent meaningful legislation. Compared with "it might in the future be bad." I have to go with getting rid of it. We know it has been abused in the past so the argument that having it gone might lead to abuse in the future is not convincing to me.

Now please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Democrats remove the judicial filibuster option the last time they were in power, only to have the R's run with it and appoint THREE extremist "judges" to the supreme court?

Oh, in other news. Not related to the filibuster issue, Biden removed, then put back Trumps "Diet Coke" button. I guess the man likes DC.

JC wrote:
Drazzil wrote:

Back to the topic (If this is the topic, and if not, feel free to ignore me)

I've been hearing rumblings of trying to remove the filibuster. I personally think this is a HORRIBLE idea. I think Biden has more then enough political power to materially change things for the poorest of Americans NOW. Without removing the filibuster. What makes things worse is that, I think that even if the Democrats reform or remove the filibuster, they will immediately turn into a circular firing squad. I don't believe that Biden and his current crop of Democrats have it in them to maintain majority in 2022.

Here's a scary thought, what happens if Biden loses in 2024 and Trump 2.0 goosesteps his (or her) way into office? They will take out the rest of Democracy in one big bite.

It's a problem/challenge to be sure. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Republican's can just obstruct for 2 years and claim nothing is getting done and run on that in 2022 (their usual M.O.) Alternatively, Democrats get rid of the filibuster, get sh*t done, and then hope Republicans don't take over power in 2 years.

If democrats DO get rid of the filibuster, they need to take actions that will have a direct impact on voters and then they need to get on message and beat that drum for the next 2 years. Even if they accomplish that, it's still an uphill climb when you're trying to use facts against blatant lies.

Messaging and results will be everything for the next 2-4 years. Abstract isn't going to cut it.

This. So much this.

Drazzil wrote:

Now please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Democrats remove the judicial filibuster option the last time they were in power, only to have the R's run with it and appoint THREE extremist "judges" to the supreme court?

Hypothetically, if it had remained in place do you think Trump would have compromised and appointed moderate judges? Nah, they’d still go with the same people and as soon as Dems started registering any concerted objections (even to having a rapist Justice), McConnell would have removed the filibuster AND said it was all the fault of Democrats for forcing him to do so.

Drazzil wrote:
farley3k wrote:

I can see your point but it really has been shown not to work and to prevent meaningful legislation. Compared with "it might in the future be bad." I have to go with getting rid of it. We know it has been abused in the past so the argument that having it gone might lead to abuse in the future is not convincing to me.

Now please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Democrats remove the judicial filibuster option the last time they were in power, only to have the R's run with it and appoint THREE extremist "judges" to the supreme court?

For lower-court justices only. The Democrats specifically left the filibuster in place for Supreme Court justices, until McConnell and the Republicans removed it years later. Now both sides point and scream, "It's their fault!"

Ego Man wrote:

Georgia and other states are already looking to roil back no Justification absentee ballots. I suspect that within the next 6 months you will see major changes at the state level based upon the fake concept that people are concerned about voting security

We only had anyone can absentee voting in SC due to COVID. It was a one time thing, so there’s nothing for them to roll back.
We were able to vote in person early, and it only took an hour in line! Not bad!

In 2008 it took us over 3 hours on Election Day. Guess what skin color predominates in our county?
Friend who is in next county has far shorter lines every time. Our county has the better library though.