Biden already came out in support of a $15 minimum wage. You are just pulling this theory from your ass.
-
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.
- Status
Right, which is why I've already voted for Biden. Doesn't mean that decisions like this from Biden and the party don't deserve strong criticism.
Era moderates after nothing happens after 4 years of Biden: It's okay, it was expected. Small steps, status quo, etc.
The annual 'wipe the slate clean' Democrat candidate. Time is a spiral that's accelerating down the toilet.
Okay so I know that I just poo-pooed this story as having no details and basically being an article written exclusively based on a conversation with "A former Republican house member who is close to the Biden transition"..... And that we shouldn't even waste mental energy thinking about this for at least another three weeks.....
BUT EVEN I CAN'T HELP IT
Charlie Baker is explicitly mentioned in the article. It seems unlikely because Baker has not endorsed Biden and it doesn't seem like he will, but rather Baker will go into the election quiet and then say that he wrote in his grandmother or something. I don't think that Baker would get an offer unless he specifically endorsed Biden in the campaign, and the clock is ticking, Massachusetts just started voting on Saturday.
BUT because Baker is explicitly mentioned in the article, I think he'd be a good addition as a HHS member, but more importantly, politically, it'd also open up the 2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial race for a Democrat, as Baker is very popular, Karyn Polito his Lt. Governor is not as popular, and there are no high profile moderate GOP gubernatorial candidates in Massachusetts: Geoffry Diehl [who unsuccessfully challenged Warren in 2018] wouldn't stand a chance, the guy trying to challenge Markey is going to lose badly and is a nobody, and this is a rough year for the GOP in Massachusetts so finding a successful candidate in 2 years is going to be challenging. Democrat Maura Healey, the Attorney General, would be a top candidate to run for Governor, and she's been very popular, she'd likely win against a really weak GOP. As is today, Healey is unlikely to challenge Baker. They've worked closely together and while Healey criticizes the Baker admin from time to time, the concentric circles of their support are almost the same... The people supporting Healey also generally support Baker, and vice versa (Baker polls better with Democrats in the state than Republicans). If Baker were running in 2022 (unknown at this point, although he has no place in a national GOP and he knows that; MA governor is the highest office he'll hold in Republican politics), I suspect Healey would run again as A.G., they'd both win. Appointing Baker to a technocratic position in HHS (Baker was previously the CEO of Harvard-Pilgrim, and then was on the Board of Beth Israel Deaconess) would open up the 2022 MA Gubernatorial race for a Democrat.
BUT EVEN I CAN'T HELP IT
Charlie Baker is explicitly mentioned in the article. It seems unlikely because Baker has not endorsed Biden and it doesn't seem like he will, but rather Baker will go into the election quiet and then say that he wrote in his grandmother or something. I don't think that Baker would get an offer unless he specifically endorsed Biden in the campaign, and the clock is ticking, Massachusetts just started voting on Saturday.
BUT because Baker is explicitly mentioned in the article, I think he'd be a good addition as a HHS member, but more importantly, politically, it'd also open up the 2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial race for a Democrat, as Baker is very popular, Karyn Polito his Lt. Governor is not as popular, and there are no high profile moderate GOP gubernatorial candidates in Massachusetts: Geoffry Diehl [who unsuccessfully challenged Warren in 2018] wouldn't stand a chance, the guy trying to challenge Markey is going to lose badly and is a nobody, and this is a rough year for the GOP in Massachusetts so finding a successful candidate in 2 years is going to be challenging. Democrat Maura Healey, the Attorney General, would be a top candidate to run for Governor, and she's been very popular, she'd likely win against a really weak GOP. As is today, Healey is unlikely to challenge Baker. They've worked closely together and while Healey criticizes the Baker admin from time to time, the concentric circles of their support are almost the same... The people supporting Healey also generally support Baker, and vice versa (Baker polls better with Democrats in the state than Republicans). If Baker were running in 2022 (unknown at this point, although he has no place in a national GOP and he knows that; MA governor is the highest office he'll hold in Republican politics), I suspect Healey would run again as A.G., they'd both win. Appointing Baker to a technocratic position in HHS (Baker was previously the CEO of Harvard-Pilgrim, and then was on the Board of Beth Israel Deaconess) would open up the 2022 MA Gubernatorial race for a Democrat.
Last edited:
Yes, because potentially having control of the Senate, House, and Presidency means we should definitely only take half measures on legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by the American public. I'm sure Dems will definitely not lose control again before they take all of their slow moving increments forward to meaningful change.
criticism of your favorite candidate is not vote suppression. good lord.
Huh? That's not an excuse, that's literally reality as they see it. Joe Biden has been preaching unity for months. This is in his wheelhouse of stuff he does. Obama did the same thing with Bob Gates 12 years ago! And the GOP was the same racist GOP back then too.
How old are you people? Damn. This isn't news lol...
Bernie (and lol Gravel!) is the obvious exception, not the rule. 🤦🏻‍♂️
It can and will change as younger people get more involved and vote. That's my point. We've only grown up under Reagan and terrible GOP rule. That's not necessarily the same for Biden and ppl in his cohort that have been in the Senate since the literal 70s!
That doesn't make it right. Don't get me wrong there.
And then they'll be back to blaming leftists for losing more elections.
like clockwork
On one hand he's clearly keeping Warren and Sanders at arm's length for strategic reasons, but otoh lol.
not much to see here really, Biden knows how this gov't works, at least the old side of it that still has a very firm grip, and it takes people, and usually a lot of them, so to get stuff done from his POV you need to win hearts and minds wherever they are. coalition around ideas to move forward is not a bad approach, GOP mostly believe first in foremost in protecting their power. when you have Trump at the head, that changes the power dynanic. If Biden is willing to give a little to get a little, he'll be much more effective and the GOP rhetoric will fall in line accordingly (here and there, not everywhere. hopefully enough to enact some policy anyway)
This thread is a repeat of the BS story about Biden considering Republicans for VP. I'm pretty sure Politco put that one out as well. Some of you need to take a chill pill and stop being so reactionary. Wait until something actually happens before you get angry.
I think this accurately sums up the feeling of many on the Left. Where has progress led us to? We're here now, slow pragmatism clearly isn't working.
Biden ain't putting those two at state. Not when he has people he likes far far far more as potential candidates. It shouldn't even be given serious thought.
We've gotten nowhere every time we've been told this.
At this point, I don't care at all. I will take anything Biden over Trump. Whatever it takes to get his ass out.
..... What the fuck?
Gerrymandering is voter suppression.
Egregious voter ID laws are voter suppression.
Taking away the right to vote from felons is voter suppression.
Burning ballot boxes is voter suppression.
Poll taxes are voter suppression.
Horrible mid-week scheduling in winter with only two working machines is voter suppression.
Saying a candidate is not your ideal candidate is not voter suppression.
Holy shit.
I don't think liberals are the ones critical of Biden here.
Not everyone on the left is a liberal.
Decriminalization would still be a huge step in the right direction.
Expunging the records of all people in jail for marijuana use and possession (to a certain amount) is far more important than the legalization on its own (which mostly has financial considerations). Decriminalizing marijuana has direct implications on policing and the amount of minorities in the prison system, which is hardly a "miss."
What you fail to realize is...down that path/line of thinking, there's no going back. As a country we would forever be in a tit for tat battle. I'd like for there to be some work toward some resolution. Someone has to do it at some point.
He should know better after Obama picked Republican Ray LaHood as secretary of transportation and destroyed his administration and set progressives back 1 million years.
You've given more praise to Mike Pence than you have to Biden or Harris judging by your post history. If Biden is your favorite candidate you have a hard time showing it.
I have no problem criticizing Biden. But it's abundantly obvious ya'll look at this rumor as 'proof' of what a Biden presidency will look like to justify your criticism, while conveniently dismissing direct action and comments from Bidens campaign when he's trying to appeal to ya'll.
"I don't believe him" when he says something you like.
"See, this is proof!" when it's a rumor from Politico.
I mean....you are arguing you have a right to criticize Biden.....because of a rumor...and you think that's perfectly normal and not intellectually dishonest bullshit.
There is a weird presumption about just how much power this cabinet member would have in this thread.
We've done this song and dance before. It's not expunging the records of marijuana related offenses. It's only possession.
It does not include using and dealing.
Why would we take a step in the right direction when the country is already set for just finishing the job and making it legal.
It doesn't matter if he does now in a time when it won't pass, in the same way as the House. And even if he's sincere, that doesn't mean it will pass. The odds of Biden winning the Senate still slim, and even if he does, there won't be a Supermajority, so if it gets raised at all it's going to go through a lot of cutting up. And again, that wage hike you championed a minute ago, did you go and look how much that hike actually was? It was just over $2 from what I'm reading, and that was after 10 years of no raise.
So who is pulling what out of where now?
idk it seems like there would still a lot of drugs on the federally controlled substances list for which possession would be a felony. it's called the war on drugs not the war on cannabis. Ending the prosecution of cannabis is great in terms of moving America away from police state territory but it ignores #1 how civil violations can still be abused and impact the lives of socially and economically vulnerable people. #2 All the people using hard drugs.
so ending seems a little premature.
When you have a population that overwhelmingly supports a further step, it's insane to just take the smaller one.
bi-partisanship for bi-partisanship's sake is fucking stupid. Bi-partisanship toward tangible policy goals can be commendable and wise if done correctly.AOC Supports Cannabis Legalization & Ending War on Drugs | BudSoul
AOC supports cannabis legalization and ending the war on drugs. Speaks with Rep Early Blumenauer or Oregon in virtual joint town hall.budsoul.com
When AOC is working for bipartisanship, it's good, but if it's Biden...
This is bi-partisanship as performative theater and signaling. Someone explain to me what policy goal will be better achieved by placing a Republican over a Democrat in that space?
Okay but like
Criticizing Biden because of a rumor doesn't make a "VOTE" post more relevant lol
I think this accurately sums up the feeling of many on the Left. Where has progress led us to? We're here now, slow pragmatism clearly isn't working.
I want to be very clear. I support all of these needs. But in this current moment, i support winning by any means necessary even more. I am making an argument AGAINST apathy in this moment of greatest need. But, i wholly agree the US NEEDS universal income, legalized marijuana, and a thorough enema of the republican party.
But that cannot and will not happen if Trump isn't defeated right now, and if Biden's current plan is what it takes to meet the current crisis, then I feel all this discussion does is foment apathy.
I completely understand the failures of liberalism to meet the crisis of our time. And the fallacious argument for neo-liberal policy. I'm not a moron. AND i'm not asking people to 'wait' for progress. Furthermore, i don't agree that my statement that pragmatic, CONSISTENT movement forward is asking ANYONE to wait. I never said wait. But people like to just dump all their fucking anger because we're all wound up.
Last edited:
Citations Needed: Episode 51: How 'The West Wing' Poisoned the Liberal Mind
Post-Cold War liberal chauvinism knew no better ideological conduit than the hit NBC series The West Wing. Foreign policy was imperial, staffers were self-satisfied, and Serious Democrats fended off radical leftists and made the Tough Choices needed to run a benevolent superpower. The West...
citationsneeded.libsyn.com
I admit it's probably not the right term to use, but far leftists online attacking Biden is already causing impressionable people online not to vote or vote 3rd party, because they believe he is the same or as bad as Trump and nothing will change under a Biden administration. Not sure what else to call it.
It does actually....because those very criticisms are built around the belief that progressive legislation won't happen in a Biden presidency, and that this is evidence of why.
To which I say....having a theoretical Republican in a cabinet position has jack shit to do with passing progressive legislation. Voting does.
- Status