[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.

Top_Shelf wrote:

That piece of federal contracts for small minority-owned businesses is going to be hard. In many cases the feds need so much scale it'll be hard for small shops to meet the business need.

Not saying it's not worth pursuing, but I've seen how like minded approaches have gone at the state level and for smaller contracts it really can be a good thing. For major, big dollar initiatives, it'll be hard for a firm to compete with Halliburton, McKinsey, Microsoft, Boeing or General Electric.

Nope. To expand on Garion's point, the government has offered bidding advantages to various disadvantaged businesses - veterans, women-owned, minority-owned, Native American, Native Alaskan, and probably others. The company I work for is part of a multi-billion dollar group of Alaska Native-owned corporations that employs over 10,000 people in its Federal practices alone, to benefit 14,500 Natives who live below or near the poverty level in resource-rich areas of the state.

We have, as a <50 person company, taken on billion-dollar decade long contracts with major companies as subs. And it works for everyone involved. It is absolutely a good avenue for this kind of compensation for past injustices, as well as a good value for the taxpayers.

fangblackbone wrote:
I mean, it's really just a continuation of the idea that everyone takes from campaigning - by having a left-leaning opponent, we push the leading candidate to the left. The idea is to keep up that pressure in the same way post-election.

The odd thing to me is it seems the only difference between a leftist and a centrist is the time table with which things will progress and the outrage.

Not true at all. For starters we’re not talking about true “seize the means of production” leftists in this case. We’re talking about “things should be more equitable and better” leftists.

Secondly, centrists will often stall progress completely. Centrists are currently preventing the country from adequately investigating an attack on the Capitol intended to overturn the results of an election. What’s the timetable on which we should deal with that problem? It feels like we should deal with it right now, but it looks like the answer is we’ll do nothing, along with failing to respond to the flurry of state-level legislation intended to ensure the next coup attempt is successful.

Centrism is often an excuse to maintain the status quo.

Finally, while we wait for progress haltingly people are hurt. More people die than need to. More people fall into poverty than need to. Centrism in America is the privilege of being safe politically and materially so you can wait for the gears to turn slowly, if they even turn. For other people, though, that time is a matter of life and death.

I see a lot of our problems as stopping a river. You can't just indiscriminately drop a dam across it. The water will crash over it, around it and probably knock the dam over at some point.

In most cases we’re talking about problems that have been slow-walked already, actually. Taking the urgency of voting protections alone, America has only been a functional democracy since everyone finally got access to the franchise in the 1960s. And even then politicians have spent every waking moment trying to take it away since then.

I feel like ensuring every American meaningfully has the right to vote is an issue that should have the most urgency and that any time we allow to pass fundamentally erodes our democracy and our society. This is not something we can wait on any longer. Not given our history. What’s the centrist solution? That by the 400th anniversary of our founding only then will everyone will have the right to vote? 500th anniversary? How long should people wait to be allowed to participate in the supposed democracy?

Secondly, centrists will often stall progress completely. Centrists are currently preventing the country from adequately investigating an attack on the Capitol intended to overturn the results of an election.

And this is exactly the type of thing "centrists" call out progressives for.
Progressives that follow that logic are passively giving the hard right a pass by blaming centrists and the potential filibuster instead of crucifying the 35 that voted against it and the 11 who couldn't be bothered to show up. The latter is the actual crime here.

As far as voting rights, I think America is waking up from a 30-40 year sleep where we forgot how racist we are/were. Black people knew. But white people lived in a suburban bubble where our racist history became equivalent to conspiracy theory. We basically had to be educated by a cable TV show and a cop kneeling on a man's neck to wake up and say WTF.

I watched Jason Johnson on Deadline:Whitehouse yesterday dismantle what I thought was a moving speech by Biden yesterday. And while I don't fault Biden, Johnson has some incredible points. Why not pay the victims of the Tulsa Massacre? The banks wouldn't give them loans to rebuild. The insurance companies denied their claims. The government can give them loans and grants if the banks won't. And the insurance companies should be investigated and fined or sued if they refuse to pay the claims. I think this dialogue shows just how far aparts whites and blacks are even after we've come together because of Floyd's murder.

The political party who held years' worth of investigations and committees into Benghazi is the real reason Jan. 6 isn't being further investigated. I don't think it's moderates who are to blame for the Jan 6 commission being denied. You've got a bunch of (now) moderate Republicans voting for it. It's those craven Republicans who are doing their damndest to allow a second rally attack happen.

The Democrats appear to be playing the game of putting up votes that will march us closer to ending the filibuster. They're still definitely working toward that.

garion333 wrote:

The Democrats appear to be playing the game of putting up votes that will march us closer to ending the filibuster. They're still definitely working toward that.

Do they need votes for that? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on the American political system, but the impression I have from news reports and online discussions is that the filibuster is just a convention, not a law, and the majority party could put an end to it by fiat any time they want to - that's the "nuclear option". Is that wrong?

garion333 wrote:

The political party who held years' worth of investigations and committees into Benghazi is the real reason Jan. 6 isn't being further investigated. I don't think it's moderates who are to blame for the Jan 6 commission being denied.

fangblackbone wrote:

And this is exactly the type of thing "centrists" call out progressives for.
Progressives that follow that logic are passively giving the hard right a pass by blaming centrists and the potential filibuster instead of crucifying the 35 that voted against it and the 11 who couldn't be bothered to show up. The latter is the actual crime here.

Republicans were never going to help, but centrist Democrats could push the investigation and voting rights over the top and they claim to be better than the Republicans.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTmJ5PbWsAE8poK.jpg)

Republicans will revoke, neuter, or have SCOTUS declare HR-1 unconstitutional as soon as they have power again, so trying to assign blame is kinda pointless.

DSGamer wrote:
garion333 wrote:

The political party who held years' worth of investigations and committees into Benghazi is the real reason Jan. 6 isn't being further investigated. I don't think it's moderates who are to blame for the Jan 6 commission being denied.

fangblackbone wrote:

And this is exactly the type of thing "centrists" call out progressives for.
Progressives that follow that logic are passively giving the hard right a pass by blaming centrists and the potential filibuster instead of crucifying the 35 that voted against it and the 11 who couldn't be bothered to show up. The latter is the actual crime here.

Republicans were never going to help, but centrist Democrats could push the investigation and voting rights over the top and they claim to be better than the Republicans.

I'm talking about Republicans voting for it to move forward and two Democrats who didn't show up. This is not moderate Dems holding things back.

What am I missing here?

garion333 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
garion333 wrote:

The political party who held years' worth of investigations and committees into Benghazi is the real reason Jan. 6 isn't being further investigated. I don't think it's moderates who are to blame for the Jan 6 commission being denied.

fangblackbone wrote:

And this is exactly the type of thing "centrists" call out progressives for.
Progressives that follow that logic are passively giving the hard right a pass by blaming centrists and the potential filibuster instead of crucifying the 35 that voted against it and the 11 who couldn't be bothered to show up. The latter is the actual crime here.

Republicans were never going to help, but centrist Democrats could push the investigation and voting rights over the top and they claim to be better than the Republicans.

I'm talking about Republicans voting for it to move forward and two Democrats who didn't show up. This is not moderate Dems holding things back.

What am I missing here?

I think it's referring to Manchin and Sinema (and maybe others) keeping the filibuster in place so that the threshold is still 60, not 50+VP for getting things passed

Correct. Those Democrats just ducked under cover once they knew that even an insurrection wasn’t enough to convince Sinema and Manchin to kill the filibuster.

CaptainCrowbar wrote:
garion333 wrote:

The Democrats appear to be playing the game of putting up votes that will march us closer to ending the filibuster. They're still definitely working toward that.

Do they need votes for that? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on the American political system, but the impression I have from news reports and online discussions is that the filibuster is just a convention, not a law, and the majority party could put an end to it by fiat any time they want to - that's the "nuclear option". Is that wrong?

A rule change requires a majority vote, the VP does get the tiebreaker, but currently two of the 50 Democrats in the Senate are publicly hesitant about changing it at best. Manchin and Sinema have to be convinced to abolish it or at least change it to be harder to sustain, There is an argument that things like bringing the January 6 commission up for a vote and having it be shut down by the Republicans is essentially theater to get them to do this.

If voters in Maine didn’t decide to be bipartisan and re-elect Collins while Biden easily won the state you could ignore one of them, and if our nominee in NC avoided a historically boring (and sexy) affair by texting, or the voters ignored it, you could let both of them be as against it as they wanted. Alas

Tanglebones wrote:
garion333 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
garion333 wrote:

The political party who held years' worth of investigations and committees into Benghazi is the real reason Jan. 6 isn't being further investigated. I don't think it's moderates who are to blame for the Jan 6 commission being denied.

fangblackbone wrote:

And this is exactly the type of thing "centrists" call out progressives for.
Progressives that follow that logic are passively giving the hard right a pass by blaming centrists and the potential filibuster instead of crucifying the 35 that voted against it and the 11 who couldn't be bothered to show up. The latter is the actual crime here.

Republicans were never going to help, but centrist Democrats could push the investigation and voting rights over the top and they claim to be better than the Republicans.

I'm talking about Republicans voting for it to move forward and two Democrats who didn't show up. This is not moderate Dems holding things back.

What am I missing here?

I think it's referring to Manchin and Sinema (and maybe others) keeping the filibuster in place so that the threshold is still 60, not 50+VP for getting things passed

DSGamer wrote:

Correct. Those Democrats just ducked under cover once they knew that even an insurrection wasn’t enough to convince Sinema and Manchin to kill the filibuster.

Gotcha. I, personally, have concerns over dumping the filibuster due to the possible ramifications down the line.

I'm not sure the benefit is there just yet because there will be a backlash, not only from Republicans, but from the populace who will see everything that's passed as weak and partisan.

garion333 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
garion333 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
garion333 wrote:

The political party who held years' worth of investigations and committees into Benghazi is the real reason Jan. 6 isn't being further investigated. I don't think it's moderates who are to blame for the Jan 6 commission being denied.

fangblackbone wrote:

And this is exactly the type of thing "centrists" call out progressives for.
Progressives that follow that logic are passively giving the hard right a pass by blaming centrists and the potential filibuster instead of crucifying the 35 that voted against it and the 11 who couldn't be bothered to show up. The latter is the actual crime here.

Republicans were never going to help, but centrist Democrats could push the investigation and voting rights over the top and they claim to be better than the Republicans.

I'm talking about Republicans voting for it to move forward and two Democrats who didn't show up. This is not moderate Dems holding things back.

What am I missing here?

I think it's referring to Manchin and Sinema (and maybe others) keeping the filibuster in place so that the threshold is still 60, not 50+VP for getting things passed

DSGamer wrote:

Correct. Those Democrats just ducked under cover once they knew that even an insurrection wasn’t enough to convince Sinema and Manchin to kill the filibuster.

Gotcha. I, personally, have concerns over dumping the filibuster due to the possible ramifications down the line.

I'm not sure the benefit is there just yet because there will be a backlash, not only from Republicans, but from the populace who will see everything that's passed as weak and partisan.

The Senate is already a counter-majoritarian institution, though.

garion333 wrote:

I'm not sure the benefit is there just yet because there will be a backlash, not only from Republicans, but from the populace who will see everything that's passed as weak and partisan.

I think we're well past this point.

DSGamer wrote:

Correct. Those Democrats just ducked under cover once they knew that even an insurrection wasn’t enough to convince Sinema and Manchin to kill the filibuster.

I'm exceptionally curious how many of "those Democrats" you think there are--and who they are--considering your argument right now seems to be extrapolating the positions/actions of Sinema and Manchin and attributing them to every Democrat you feel is insufficiently progressive.

That lets you blame an entire party instead of acknowledging the political reality that the required numbers to get sh*t done gives a tremendous amount of power to holdouts who are first and foremost concerned with their constituents: one of which incredibly narrowly voted for Biden and one which overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

DSGamer wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
garion333 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
garion333 wrote:

The political party who held years' worth of investigations and committees into Benghazi is the real reason Jan. 6 isn't being further investigated. I don't think it's moderates who are to blame for the Jan 6 commission being denied.

fangblackbone wrote:

And this is exactly the type of thing "centrists" call out progressives for.
Progressives that follow that logic are passively giving the hard right a pass by blaming centrists and the potential filibuster instead of crucifying the 35 that voted against it and the 11 who couldn't be bothered to show up. The latter is the actual crime here.

Republicans were never going to help, but centrist Democrats could push the investigation and voting rights over the top and they claim to be better than the Republicans.

I'm talking about Republicans voting for it to move forward and two Democrats who didn't show up. This is not moderate Dems holding things back.

What am I missing here?

I think it's referring to Manchin and Sinema (and maybe others) keeping the filibuster in place so that the threshold is still 60, not 50+VP for getting things passed

DSGamer wrote:

Correct. Those Democrats just ducked under cover once they knew that even an insurrection wasn’t enough to convince Sinema and Manchin to kill the filibuster.

Gotcha. I, personally, have concerns over dumping the filibuster due to the possible ramifications down the line.

I'm not sure the benefit is there just yet because there will be a backlash, not only from Republicans, but from the populace who will see everything that's passed as weak and partisan.

The Senate is already a counter-majoritarian institution, though.

By design though, right?

NathanialG wrote:
garion333 wrote:

I'm not sure the benefit is there just yet because there will be a backlash, not only from Republicans, but from the populace who will see everything that's passed as weak and partisan.

I think we're well past this point.

Centuries past.

garion333 wrote:

I'm not sure the benefit is there just yet because there will be a backlash, not only from Republicans, but from the populace who will see everything that's passed as weak and partisan.

How many people making minimum wage would reject a raise because the federal vote to increase it was “partisan”? How many people would choose to keep paying massive amounts for health insurance because the federal vote to institute public healthcare was “partisan”? I think there is an awful of concern about how a thing will be interpreted when what people want is for things to get better for them.

EDIT: folks already complain about things they don’t like as partisan (among other things) whether they are or not. Let’s not overestimate the political investment by the average citizen.

garion333 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
garion333 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
garion333 wrote:

The political party who held years' worth of investigations and committees into Benghazi is the real reason Jan. 6 isn't being further investigated. I don't think it's moderates who are to blame for the Jan 6 commission being denied.

fangblackbone wrote:

And this is exactly the type of thing "centrists" call out progressives for.
Progressives that follow that logic are passively giving the hard right a pass by blaming centrists and the potential filibuster instead of crucifying the 35 that voted against it and the 11 who couldn't be bothered to show up. The latter is the actual crime here.

Republicans were never going to help, but centrist Democrats could push the investigation and voting rights over the top and they claim to be better than the Republicans.

I'm talking about Republicans voting for it to move forward and two Democrats who didn't show up. This is not moderate Dems holding things back.

What am I missing here?

I think it's referring to Manchin and Sinema (and maybe others) keeping the filibuster in place so that the threshold is still 60, not 50+VP for getting things passed

DSGamer wrote:

Correct. Those Democrats just ducked under cover once they knew that even an insurrection wasn’t enough to convince Sinema and Manchin to kill the filibuster.

Gotcha. I, personally, have concerns over dumping the filibuster due to the possible ramifications down the line.

I'm not sure the benefit is there just yet because there will be a backlash, not only from Republicans, but from the populace who will see everything that's passed as weak and partisan.

The Senate is already a counter-majoritarian institution, though.

By design though, right?

Correct. Which means the filibuster is redundant. The only reason we have it was because racist politicians wanted to defend institutional racism.

Robear wrote:
Top_Shelf wrote:

That piece of federal contracts for small minority-owned businesses is going to be hard. In many cases the feds need so much scale it'll be hard for small shops to meet the business need.

Not saying it's not worth pursuing, but I've seen how like minded approaches have gone at the state level and for smaller contracts it really can be a good thing. For major, big dollar initiatives, it'll be hard for a firm to compete with Halliburton, McKinsey, Microsoft, Boeing or General Electric.

Nope. To expand on Garion's point, the government has offered bidding advantages to various disadvantaged businesses - veterans, women-owned, minority-owned, Native American, Native Alaskan, and probably others. The company I work for is part of a multi-billion dollar group of Alaska Native-owned corporations that employs over 10,000 people in its Federal practices alone, to benefit 14,500 Natives who live below or near the poverty level in resource-rich areas of the state.

We have, as a <50 person company, taken on billion-dollar decade long contracts with major companies as subs. And it works for everyone involved. It is absolutely a good avenue for this kind of compensation for past injustices, as well as a good value for the taxpayers.

Good points on subs.

NathanialG wrote:
garion333 wrote:

I'm not sure the benefit is there just yet because there will be a backlash, not only from Republicans, but from the populace who will see everything that's passed as weak and partisan.

I think we're well past this point.

Agreed. And if we don't do it, you know damn well Republicans will make the change if/when they take power.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
garion333 wrote:

I'm not sure the benefit is there just yet because there will be a backlash, not only from Republicans, but from the populace who will see everything that's passed as weak and partisan.

How many people making minimum wage would reject a raise because the federal vote to increase it was “partisan”? How many people would choose to keep paying massive amounts for health insurance because the federal vote to institute public healthcare was “partisan”? I think there is an awful of concern about how a thing will be interpreted when what people want is for things to get better for them.

EDIT: folks already complain about things they don’t like as partisan (among other things) whether they are or not. Let’s not overestimate the political investment by the average citizen.

And here I thought the entire Republican voting block frequently voted against things that would be better for them...

Minimum wage is easy without filibuster. It won't be $15/hr, but it also won't be $7/hr either.

But healthcare? How do you set that up, get it running before the other side wins enough seats to dismantle it? Again.

garion333 wrote:

But healthcare? How do you set that up, get it running before the other side wins enough seats to dismantle it? Again.

We don’t. This is how politics and politicians work now. It’s no longer working towards a common good. It’s just grievances and declaring that the other side is wrong and only interested in destroying America.

Zona wrote:
CaptainCrowbar wrote:
garion333 wrote:

The Democrats appear to be playing the game of putting up votes that will march us closer to ending the filibuster. They're still definitely working toward that.

Do they need votes for that? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on the American political system, but the impression I have from news reports and online discussions is that the filibuster is just a convention, not a law, and the majority party could put an end to it by fiat any time they want to - that's the "nuclear option". Is that wrong?

A rule change requires a majority vote, the VP does get the tiebreaker, but currently two of the 50 Democrats in the Senate are publicly hesitant about changing it at best. Manchin and Sinema have to be convinced to abolish it or at least change it to be harder to sustain, There is an argument that things like bringing the January 6 commission up for a vote and having it be shut down by the Republicans is essentially theater to get them to do this.

If voters in Maine didn’t decide to be bipartisan and re-elect Collins while Biden easily won the state you could ignore one of them, and if our nominee in NC avoided a historically boring (and sexy) affair by texting, or the voters ignored it, you could let both of them be as against it as they wanted. Alas

I get it now. Thanks.

JC wrote:
garion333 wrote:

But healthcare? How do you set that up, get it running before the other side wins enough seats to dismantle it? Again.

We don’t. This is how politics and politicians work now. It’s no longer working towards a common good. It’s just grievances and declaring that the other side is wrong and only interested in destroying America.

I hate to continually "both sides" everything, but all I see everywhere is this mentality.

garion333 wrote:
JC wrote:
garion333 wrote:

But healthcare? How do you set that up, get it running before the other side wins enough seats to dismantle it? Again.

We don’t. This is how politics and politicians work now. It’s no longer working towards a common good. It’s just grievances and declaring that the other side is wrong and only interested in destroying America.

I hate to continually "both sides" everything, but all I see everywhere is this mentality.

Yup. I can point the finger at both sides, but/and… Republicans have weaponized it.

Republicans weaponized it, Democrats won't defend against it. Get your passport.

garion333 wrote:
JC wrote:
garion333 wrote:

But healthcare? How do you set that up, get it running before the other side wins enough seats to dismantle it? Again.

We don’t. This is how politics and politicians work now. It’s no longer working towards a common good. It’s just grievances and declaring that the other side is wrong and only interested in destroying America.

I hate to continually "both sides" everything, but all I see everywhere is this mentality.

The danger there is that one side is visibly pushing positions that would actively and incontrovertibly harm a large number of people while (and probably by) centralizing power, and the other side is pushing positions that would cause people in power (whatever your definition of power) to have to share. Yes, both sides are saying similar things about the other, but that doesn't make them the same.

If two people are trapped in a submarine with limited air, and one person is trying to breathe while the other person is trying to fill as many personal air tanks as possible, they will both say the other is using all the air. That doesn't mean that their grievances hold the same amount of weight.

EDIT: Better example. If you're fighting me to get into my house to hurt my family, and I'm fighting you to keep you out of my house and away from my family, it's really unfair to tsk and say, "That's just how living in the suburbs is these days, everybody just fighting. Really, there's aggression on both sides."

I swear it was on these boards, but maybe it wasn't, but I saw a similar analogy using pizza parties - One person takes three pieces of pizza because they're worried there won't be enough pizza, and another person only takes one piece for the same reason.

NSMike wrote:

I swear it was on these boards, but maybe it wasn't, but I saw a similar analogy using pizza parties - One person takes three pieces of pizza because they're worried there won't be enough pizza, and another person only takes one piece for the same reason.

What about the pedophile lizard people in the basement!!!!?