Yup, came here to say the same. Based on Biden's history alone, one could conclude that Biden will do more for the wealthy class than anyone else. OK to be fair, Biden will throw some leaf issues our way and act like they're trunk issues.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
New York Magazine - Biden Is Planning an FDR-Size Presidency
- Thread starter Deleted member 5666
- Start date
Yup, came here to say the same. Based on Biden's history alone, one could conclude that Biden will do more for the wealthy class than anyone else. OK to be fair, Biden will throw some leaf issues our way and act like they're trunk issues.
Did you go through the thread and find the numerous posts that highlighted the fallacy of that statement?
This would not fix the House. I think it's a good idea for other reasons if you're going to keep FPTP districts (people represent way too many constituents and can't deal with constituent services, but it would do nothing to fix what's ultimately wrong with the House.
You would need to have federal legislation that would ban gerrymandering that could service judicial review from a conservative supreme court.
I really think the next administration can thread the needle by having increased spending through "I thought Republicans didn't care about deficits anymore" while simultaneously putting forth a lower budget by crawling back tax-breaks for the 1%.
I strongly believe you can predict what kind of president someone will be by closely examining their past - this was certainly true for Obama and many others. There is nothing that suggests that Biden has any inclination to deal with the instiutionalized injustices, that Covid would have somehow lifted the heavy veil of ignorance that has spanned decades, and that has labeled Biden as yesterday's man. The kind of institutional transformations necessary are, in the article, the kind if reforms to healthcare and institutionalized racism that he still mislabels 'socialism and that kind of malarkey'. What is believable is the plan to create a 'national unifying council' with Romney, Walmart execs, and Buttigieg who will transform the nation not by abandoning cages for kids at the border but appointing a woman to head ICE as equal opportunity lean-in, and providing the kids with books and toothbrushes- making us applaud such radical change and label it transformation without any malarkey of real change.
Political appointees of an outgoing administration vacate their positions more or less automatically (in some cases at the lower level they remain until replacements are confirmed, but that's very much discretionary, and the most ideological generally aren't interested in doing so).
I'm sorry, the rich runs the country. Michelle a CNBC contributor does get coverage has received over a million dollars in donation from bankers
154k of Miami Dade's citizens voted in the 2020 democratic primary with Biden getting over 94k of the votes, that's worse than Hillary's number in 2016 where as Marco Rubio gotten 638k. It's not Puerto Ricans, Mexicans or Cubans, they have an image problem with Latinos in a important swing state like Florida
lmao this is where i'm at.
It gets hard reading anyones policies criticisms of Biden here. The last 4 years of been a disaster and thats not exclusive in the Executive Branch
Just a point of clarification -- the national unifying council you mention isn't actually a Biden plan. It's something someone else mentioned.
You can see here that the article itself notes it's "far-fetched" and that it immediately translates into the rather banal (though good) idea that Biden is thinking about rolling out Cabinet appointments during the campaign. There's nothing here to suggest that this is an idea remotely taken seriously by the Biden campaign. If anything, the article goes at pretty good lengths to explain how Biden has moved away from this type of thinking. ymmv if you think that's true, but I wouldn't say at all that that's Biden's plan.
You didn't say "the rich runs the country". You said Republicans run the country. If you would like to have an argument about if the rich run the country, I'll happily have that that discussion and most likely agree with you. But if you meant that, say it.
You also said that "Democrats are primarying AOC". I explained why it's not really Democrats who are propping this candidate up, and why she herself isn't really a Democrat. That's an important distinction. Note that I didn't say that it wasn't a real primary challenge, but more that it's unfair to say it that it is "Democrats" who are primarying AOC -- instead, this primary is coming almost exclusively from Republicans and Chamber-types who are propping up her candidacy.
And your final point is incorrect -- first, you're comparing a primary that happened during a pandemic to, I think(?), a general election. The 2020 primary happened right we were hitting our first lock downs and people had already chosen to shelter in place. Turnout in the primaries since then have largely gone down compared to 2016, which isn't shocking.
And yes, if you break out the 2018 and 2016 results by demographics, you'll see that Puerto Rican and Mexican-Americans in Florida (the latter isn't a gigantic % of Floridian Hispanic voters), vote pretty much in line with their national averages. Cuban Americans are still largely significantly Republican and have been for a while. They trended away from Democrats in 2016 but snapped back towards Republicans in 2018 for a variety of reasons that should be looked at, but I don't think that's the point you're making?
mantis gerrymandering may require an amendment, as states decide how their populations are divided for representing I remember correctly.
you could reinstate the voting rights act sections scotus gutted but I'm not sure that fixes things.
better fitting reps to population though adds potentially dozens of reps in more populated states, which helps dilute the power of the more risk states which now are over represented. Also helps correct the issue with the electoral college.
That the first reply about "FDR fighting for universal health care" keeps getting quoted in agreement, I'd like to restate on a new page:
FDR did not fight for universal healthcare. He never supported universal healthcare, either on the campaign trail, or once he was president. He was mum on it while president, intentionally left it out of early new deal proposals and actively opposed it in 1939.
FDR did not fight for universal healthcare. He never supported universal healthcare, either on the campaign trail, or once he was president. He was mum on it while president, intentionally left it out of early new deal proposals and actively opposed it in 1939.
It's a misguided debate anyway. Germany has a great healthcare system, and it "only" covers about 90% of people. The other 10% is covered by private insurers.
Percentages are less important a distinction than coverage gaps. All plans, even Sanders', have gaps. You need to be able to speak to the gaps a bit. Biden's plan would be a gamechanger for a lot of Americans. You're not going to convince people who like Biden (and outside of some bubbles, that's a lot of people) that his plan is bad, actually. His plan offers more than Germany, and they're not one of those "scary socialist hellholes" with empty grocery store shelves. Plus Biden is promising to pay for it all without raising your taxes, you red-blooded, God-fearing patriot.
It's all well-spoken for the electorate. People who want to debate him on 3% coverage missing from the plan have already started down the wrong road. Find a specific gap, argue why it shouldn't be a gap, and make your case. That's how voters are won over.
Ironically his history convinces me that actually this is actually possible. Im serious...
We will see though. Senate first, or this is all moot anyway. But Im not going to Boo as the man moves to the left. This is pretty much all we agree he's good for, 4 years of signing progressive policy likely created by other further left Dems in the branches... So seems odd to be mad about this. Lets just get it done.
Given Biden's history I don't believe this for a second. I'm also personally highly doubtful he'll be able to beat Trump in the first place.
some of the most effective presidents for the better were fuckholes in their personal life. a lot of the nicest ones had middling to shit presidencies. I really hope Joe Biden is the former, but some reciepts have to be seen.
OP
OP
What would he gain by lying about it? It does not benefit him at all in the election as moderates vastly outnumber of those seeking a more left policy push like this.
Most logical answer is he is saying it to his advisors because he believes corona offers a once in a life time opportunity to vastly change economic policies like the Great Depression did.
The primary reason to believe it would be to hold out hope that we're not doomed. I don't believe it myself, but I get why people would.
Some fragment of ERA really has a major problem rationalizing the fact that flawed people did good things, and that moral values change in time, huh.
I mean, of all people to call a piece of shit, FDR?
Oh sure, lemme just call someone who hates people of my skin color a 'good dude'.
FOH.
I don't care who you like, don't act like I have to.
Poster didn't say you had to call him a "good dude" just that bad folks sometimes get good things done. This shouldn't have to be explained as the post is clear as day. If you're going to be belligerent about it, it wouldn't hurt to get the context of the post correctly at least though. It's not an untruthful statement.
Oh cool, so you also have problems with me calling an overt racist a 'piece of shit'?
Edit: And calling me belligerent, when you are the ones to engage me, when you could have minded your own business is your fault. Get out of my mentions.
I'll believe it when I see it. He should pick Warren as VP if this is the route he wants to go.
one good thing about Biden potentially becoming President is that he won't go into office with anywhere close to the amount of goodwill Obama received. He'll be much more susceptible to pressure from the grassroots.
one good thing about Biden potentially becoming President is that he won't go into office with anywhere close to the amount of goodwill Obama received. He'll be much more susceptible to pressure from the grassroots.
Not really.
The fact that Biden is working with Sanders on policy and having policy conversations with Warren suggests that he'll have one of the furthest left platforms in history. Hopefully the Senate flips so that his administration's progressive policy goals can be implemented.
Joe Biden's entire career and his campaign up to this point has been about protecting the status quo and promoting austerity. He's the "reasonable" Democrat to Republican voters. I'm not voting for Joe Biden because of reasons which are barred from this thread, but I don't understand how anyone believes Joe Biden or his campaign are sincere about this new stance when they are bringing on Larry Summers to craft their economic response and you see the utter uselessness of Congress to pass anything to help working people as they are dying.
"I won't believe until I see it" is beyond naive at this point. I straight up just don't believe it.
"I won't believe until I see it" is beyond naive at this point. I straight up just don't believe it.
Let's hope that's not true. A lot has changed in the world since the debates and there's a good chance that Biden's policies will reflect some post-pandemic realities.
The pandemic exposed so many flaws in our system that I can't imagine he's going to be a status quo type candidate at this point.
Anyone who buys this is a mark. It will always be 100x easier to just say things than to actually commit to disregarding the interests of your corporate donors.
This is the mental gymnastics I was referring to. Biden who has lied throughout his career isn't gonna do shit on the progressive front.
You are way too naive if you still buy the establishment Democrat snake oil they try to sell you when they actively go against every leftist democrat at every level.
Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice, well you know the rest.
I pray your right and I'm wrong.
Well either way, we have to go with who is winning. Until prefect progressives start winning in numbers that matter, this is what I'll have to consider and work with. This gets me closer to the alternative.
This bears repeating everytime we get a thread with a bunch of posters whining about how it must be lies.
Politicians keep most of their promises
fivethirtyeight.com
if you really believe that, there's a good chance you've been manipulated by right wing disinformation designed to keep turnout low.
Politicians keep most of their promises
Trust Us: Politicians Keep Most Of Their Promises
Regardless of what happens between now and the GOP convention, there is little doubt that Donald Trump has undermined our understanding of primary politics. It …
fivethirtyeight.com
Biden working closely with Sanders on policy and being in conversation with Warren around policy are good reasons to believe the statement.
"Mental gymnastics"?
How is this "going against every leftist democrat at every level"?
Biden and Sanders form 'policy working groups' for 2020 campaign
Presumptive nominee joins senator's camp to 'work out real solutions to these very, very important problems' in bid to lure progressive voters
www.independent.co.uk
Not just Sanders, but other "leftists", folks doing the work and looking to hit the ground running
eeeeeh all it means is he is working with sanders on policy and having policy conversations with warren. politics and collaborations can end in many ways, don't disappoint yourself
Honestly, Biden's history with policy isn't very reassuring, vouching to do better during this pandemic is a really low bar seeing how shitty Trump's response is.
Exactly!
I'm being cautiously optimistic, but all signs point toward an extremely progressive administration, especially if Dems win the Senate.
Biden working closely with Sanders on policy and being in conversation with Warren around policy are good reasons to believe the statement.
"Mental gymnastics"?
How is this "going against every leftist democrat at every level"?
Biden and Sanders form 'policy working groups' for 2020 campaign
Presumptive nominee joins senator's camp to 'work out real solutions to these very, very important problems' in bid to lure progressive voters
The Democrats were so terrified of the notion of Sanders winning the nomination that they coalesced behind a weak candidate in Biden.
Biden is an even weaker candidate than Clinton was in 2016. Just like the emails in 2016, Trump will tear Biden a new one with Hunter Biden. And that was before Tara Reade's story came out.
Democrats have shown multiple times that they will go after whoever primary against the incumbent Democrat unless that Democrat is a leftist. Then it's suddenly fair game.
Biden's policies have been either vague w/ no substance, half-assed with a lot of restrictions or just pure shit.
Right, so these are a bunch of inaccurate generalizations that ignore the reality of the current situation with regard to Biden's working with the left wing of the party. There are also some right wing talking points sprinkled in. There's also conspiratorial thinking with regard to ascribing motivations for how the primary shook out.
Biden has a documented history of being a horrible liar for the sake of petty self-congratulations (remember the Mandela thing? lol) but I'm sure at nearly 80 years old he's turning over a new leaf and completely rethinking the political philosophies that have utterly shaped his record thus far.
we have like 40 years of Joe doing politics to safely say that he's probably not going to be a FDR style Democrat those Democrats don't exist anymore. he's going to be the same Neoliberal Democrat that he's been for his major political career almost .This continuing dream of trying to make someone who no one really likes into something they like is a fool's errand
I remember Obama came in with a Democratic House and a filibuster-proof Senate, and instead of passing sweeping legislation and strengthening that social safety net, all they managed to do was limp the ACA across the goal line and dick around until the mid-terms. Amidst the greatest crisis since the Great Depression and handed an overwhelming mandate by the country to Do Something, all we got was meandering mediocrity and a gimped healthcare bill that was basically written by the insurance companies.
They allowed the Republicans and conservative media to dictate the discourse, the pace, and the perception of the healthcare debate and the Democrats got bogged down in trying to compromise and appear reasonable. After it was done, they didn't have the stomach for anything else.
Outside of a handful of newer representatives who know what needs to be done, I don't see any reason for the situation to be any different this time around. Too much of the old stock is still in there, and Biden is the oldest of them all. Voting for Democrats is essentially a defensive act -- a holding action against Republican harm until enough of the dead weight is cycled out and enough people with the guts and teeth to do what needs to be done get in there.
They allowed the Republicans and conservative media to dictate the discourse, the pace, and the perception of the healthcare debate and the Democrats got bogged down in trying to compromise and appear reasonable. After it was done, they didn't have the stomach for anything else.
Outside of a handful of newer representatives who know what needs to be done, I don't see any reason for the situation to be any different this time around. Too much of the old stock is still in there, and Biden is the oldest of them all. Voting for Democrats is essentially a defensive act -- a holding action against Republican harm until enough of the dead weight is cycled out and enough people with the guts and teeth to do what needs to be done get in there.