Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

But this part is what is not supported by the UN Charter. America itself supports it via our own laws, and its citing of the charter at the end is just fluff.
If the US were indeed following the UN charter then it would deem its own actions as illegal.

Shocking, powerful countries choose when they like international organizations/laws and when they don't. This has gone on, and will continue, until these international organizations have some teeth to them. Which they never will.

No one would deem it acceptable for say... Canada to bomb an area in America if a white terror group killed a bunch of people up there and came back here and we did nothing about it?

Because there are proper diplomatic relations between the two countries, the US is not still at war with itself and an active combat zone, and the white supremacists would need to have the backing of a separate foreign government. This is a bad attempt at a comparison.

This is a uniquely American thing using our own laws I know that. However, unlike Bush, Obama, and Trump, Biden cites international law and the UN charter to justify his actions. Which is a nice novelty... but it's bs.

See above: Choosing when we like international organizations and when we don't is very "first world country" of us, and every other first world nation that largely chooses when they ignore or follow the rules of those organizations.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep.

I am once again asking Congress to repeal the 2001 AUMF.

AUMF repeal wouldn't cover this as best as I can tell, as this was a retaliatory strike and not part of the "military actions in the WAR ON TERROR" nonsense.

But it's something that I'm not even entirely opposed to as long as they weren't risking civilians with a retaliatory strike. Our troops shouldn't still be in Iraq, don't get me wrong, but they're there now and if someone is taking shots at them the US should absolutely retaliate so that it doesn't give a green light to attack US and coalition troops and civilian contractors without repercussion.

[Ivanstone]

How is the min wage increase incidental to covid relief when covid itself has probably done enough economic damage to set back 2 generations?

They are entirely unrelated subjects even if they’re both helpful. One is the use of public money. The other is forcing a new rule onto private institutions.

Just because the latter is the right thing to do doesn’t change what it is.

[Breccia]

Why did GOP get rid of one, to pass Bush tax cuts, instead of just ignoring?

Yeah, I'm just going to quote this, point at it, and say "yep".

It's the same mistake as calling SCOTUS ruling "opinions".

[Belize]

They are entirely unrelated subjects even if they’re both helpful. One is the use of public money. The other is forcing a new rule onto private institutions.

Just because the latter is the right thing to do doesn’t change what it is.

It's also worth noting that minimum wage changes would do very little in the immediate.

There's essentially no way any Congress would pass a wage change that would immediately take effect over ramping up over a few years, and even if they did, then it wouldn't help those without jobs.

[Themius]

Why did GOP get rid of one, to pass Bush tax cuts, instead of just ignoring?

The parliamentarian serves at the will of the Senate secretary, who is chosen by the majority leader, and advises the presiding officer on rules, procedures and precedents -- a job requiring a high degree of expertise and experience. The presiding officer, who is often a junior member of the Senate, nearly always takes the parliamentarian's advice.


Dove angered Republicans, especially Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), with at least two recent rulings that effectively made it harder for the GOP to push President Bush's budget and tax cut proposals through the evenly divided body.

Republicans declined to say why Dove had been asked to leave, but his departure will force the appointment of a new parliamentarian -- one of the Senate's most important, if least-known, officers at a time in which the Democrats and Republicans are seeking to operate under an unprecedented power-sharing arrangement.

The office of the parliamentarian has always been one of the most important in the Senate, but Dove's rulings have been particularly sensitive this year with the body split between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. The controversy that led to his dismissal underscores the degree of frustration felt by GOP leaders as they seek to advance the agenda of the first Republican president in eight years.

There were conflicting reports about whether Dove was fired, rehired and then told he had to go, or was simply "given notice," as one source put it, that he would have to leave. But a senior Republican aide confirmed that Dove had been dismissed by Secretary of the Senate Gary Sisco Thursday at Lott's behest and would probably continue to work for no more than a month.

Dove, 62, an employee of the Senate since the mid-1960s, was at his desk on the Senate floor yesterday but did not return a phone call to his office. Sisco, who is Dove's immediate boss, issued a terse statement describing the situation as an "internal matter" and declining further comment. Lott told reporters he wanted to talk further with Dove before saying anything.

The parliamentarian serves at the will of the Senate secretary, who is chosen by the majority leader, and advises the presiding officer on rules, procedures and precedents -- a job requiring a high degree of expertise and experience. The presiding officer, who is often a junior member of the Senate, nearly always takes the parliamentarian's advice.

Democrats often complained privately that Dove tilted toward the Republicans, but, especially since the 50-50 Senate was elected last fall, his rulings have come under fire from Republicans as well.

The GOP's unhappiness came to a head during the tax and budget debate. Typically, Senate bills can be filibustered -- a parliamentary stalling tactic -- until supporters can assemble 60 votes. But Senate rules allow passage of certain budget measures by a simple majority, and Republicans want to apply those rules to a series of tax votes.

Several Republican sources said Dove angered GOP leaders when he said the Senate could use the provision for only one tax-reduction measure. Because of Dove's decision, the GOP may need 60 votes to break a filibuster for these tax bills -- a much more difficult hurdle since Democrats hold 50 seats -- or strike a deal with the opposite party.

The "final straw," as one GOP aide described it, came late last week when Dove told Republican leaders that they would have to produce a 60-vote majority for the 2002 budget if it included a $5 billion fund to cover damage from natural disasters. The rules do not provide for such a fund, triggering the requirement for 60 votes. Republicans are having trouble getting even 50 votes for the budget, which is scheduled for a vote later this week. As a result, the GOP dropped the provision.

This is probably why... the parliamentarian requiring 60 votes for something the rules itself doesn't need 60 votes for.

Also wanted to highlight once again the language. Note again, "advises" the senate.

Also democrats have dismissed Parliamentarians before:

Dove served as parliamentarian after Republicans took control of the Senate in 1981. He was dismissed by the Democrats when they regained control in 1987 and became a consultant in the office of then-Republican leader Robert J. Dole (Kan.). When the GOP took back the Senate in 1995, Dove again became parliamentarian, although his relations with Lott have never been described as particularly close.

Republicans not pushing to dismiss the one appointed by Obama... probably points to them not being a hurdle for them. But they sure are a hurdle for democrats right now.

[Shadowferal]

Biden has already said he wasn't going to do anything about it frankly I don't think he wanted to change the minimum wage. Biden is an institutionalist who follows procedure sad because this is our only shot to stop the runaway freight train coming at us. If democrats do not pass a voting rights act democrats will lose the house and the senate but koombaya Biden won't repeal the fillibuster.

It's a political chip on the table that he knows he can play, especially if he wants the progresdive caucus to vote on a particular bill later.

[Themius]

It's a political chip on the table that he knows he can play, especially if he wants the progresdive caucus to vote on a particular bill later.

He doesn't have the votes for Neera but he's willing to give it his all and "fight his guts out" to get her nominated... Geoff when asking about this... well Jen got a little snippy with nbc... when he asked the question of why not fight for 15 then.

In fact the press secretary laid out how biden could fight for the minimum wage increase then just added but they're not doing that right now... but they are using that same argument in order to fight for Neera...

But go on and call me a crazy left person with crazy left arguments... and therefore what I just said doesn't matter.

[DarkTZeratul]

In fact the press secretary laid out how biden could fight for the minimum wage increase then just added but they're not doing that right now... but they are using that same argument in order to fight for Neera...

But go on and call me a crazy left person with crazy left arguments... and therefore what I just said doesn't matter.

Because they can't just not vote for Neera now and try again later under different circumstances like they can with minimum wage. For a cabinet appointment, literally their only two options are A) do it now, or B) pick someone else. Of course, you'd probably argue that because Donald Trump ratfucked the system by appointing acting cabinet members in defiance of all the rules and laws against that, then Joe Biden should also do so even if it's blatantly illegal, because fuck the rules when they're inconvenient to your agenda, right?

[Themius]

Because they can't just not vote for Neera now and try again later under different circumstances like they can with minimum wage. For a cabinet appointment, literally their only two options are A) do it now, or B) pick someone else. Of course, you'd probably argue that because Donald Trump ratfucked the system by appointing acting cabinet members in defiance of all the rules and laws against that, then Joe Biden should also do so even if it's blatantly illegal, because fuck the rules when they're inconvenient to your agenda, right?

Biden actually did say he would make people acting if need be in order to get things though. Neera though.. is just a bad pick so I'd rather he not. Also the only rule we are talking about was advisory ones.

But i guess fuck words like "advice" and "at the leisure of" when it suits your need to moan about... what are you moaning about exactly?

[cubby]

Because they can't just not vote for Neera now and try again later under different circumstances like they can with minimum wage. For a cabinet appointment, literally their only two options are A) do it now, or B) pick someone else. Of course, you'd probably argue that because Donald Trump ratfucked the system by appointing acting cabinet members in defiance of all the rules and laws against that, then Joe Biden should also do so even if it's blatantly illegal, because fuck the rules when they're inconvenient to your agenda, right?

There is a broader question here - if the GOP doesn't have to play by the rules, why should anyone else. The Democrats have been routinely scrutinized this a lot - not playing by the same rules the GOP does, which allows the GOP to get away with a lot more, but also advance their agenda.

Broadly speaking - how do we reconcile those two issues?

[Elegiac]

There is a broader question here - if the GOP doesn't have to play by the rules, why should anyone else. The Democrats have been routinely scrutinized this a lot - not playing by the same rules the GOP does, which allows the GOP to get away with a lot more, but also advance their agenda.

Broadly speaking - how do we reconcile those two issues?

In the grand scheme of things; if the filibuster has to be broken and the rules changed there is one item that political capital needs to be saved for, and that's passing a new Voting Rights Act. The importance of that exceeds anything else in such a way that every Democrat can be made to understand.

[Themius]

In the grand scheme of things; if the filibuster has to be broken and the rules changed there is one item that political capital needs to be saved for, and that's passing a new Voting Rights Act. The importance of that exceeds anything else in such a way that every Democrat can be made to understand.

It's kind of telling that such a thing would die to filibuster...

[cubby]

It's kind of telling that such a thing would die to filibuster...

It really is - the GOP's assault on democracy is unrelenting. Strategically speaking, I'm concerned that if we get a new Voting Rights Act passed, the GOP stooges in SCOTUS will kill it. I know that's WAY down the road but....

[Bodakane]

I think the unspoken issue here is the continuation of the bizarre "both sides' narrative and how some people are unwittingly pushing it forward. Almost every time this is put forward it is always about false equivalences.

Over ruling legal procedural advice to help people who have been crushed by the system for decades is not the same fucking thing as the Repubs breaking actual laws to benefit themselves and billionaires all to promote a facist state.

Acting like this is a "both sides" issue is as out of touch as saying a 3 Michelin Star establishment is the same thing as Krystals because they are both restaurants.

[Felya]

This is probably why... the parliamentarian requiring 60 votes for something the rules itself doesn't need 60 votes for.

That’s reconciliation... going from 60 to simple majority... that doesn’t explain why he was replaced, instead of ignored.

- - - Updated - - -

In the grand scheme of things; if the filibuster has to be broken and the rules changed there is one item that political capital needs to be saved for, and that's passing a new Voting Rights Act. The importance of that exceeds anything else in such a way that every Democrat can be made to understand.

They can’t use reconciliation for a voting rights act... this is about spending only. Reconciliation to pass this stimulus, is breaking the filibuster.

[Endus]

There is a broader question here - if the GOP doesn't have to play by the rules, why should anyone else. The Democrats have been routinely scrutinized this a lot - not playing by the same rules the GOP does, which allows the GOP to get away with a lot more, but also advance their agenda.

Broadly speaking - how do we reconcile those two issues?

The only real way to do so is to enforce those rules.

That means sanctioning members who break them, charging them criminally where appropriate, and removing them from office where warranted.

Refusing to do so out of some sense of "playing nice" is unreasonable, unjust, and only serves to empower the bad actors.

There must be consequences to rule-breaking. Or there aren't any rules. You're just wagging your finger uselessly at people who don't give a shit.

[Elegiac]

They can’t use reconciliation for a voting rights act... this is about spending only. Reconciliation to pass this stimulus, is breaking the filibuster.

No it isn't.

Breaking the filibuster would mean lowering the cloture threshold to a simple majority, effectively ending the practice. Reconciliation refers to a specific procedure by which "budgetary" bills can bypass normal debate and is within the current set of rules.

[cubby]

I think the unspoken issue here is the continuation of the bizarre "both sides' narrative and how some people are unwittingly pushing it forward. Almost every time this is put forward it is always about false equivalences.

Over ruling legal procedural advice to help people who have been crushed by the system for decades is not the same fucking thing as the Repubs breaking actual laws to benefit themselves and billionaires all to promote a facist state.

Acting like this is a "both sides" issue is as out of touch as saying a 3 Michelin Star establishment is the same thing as Krystals because they are both restaurants.

I have to say, I cannot agree more with the above. And the 'Pubs always seem to win that bullshit "both sides" narrative/message because...reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

The only real way to do so is to enforce those rules.

That means sanctioning members who break them, charging them criminally where appropriate, and removing them from office where warranted.

Refusing to do so out of some sense of "playing nice" is unreasonable, unjust, and only serves to empower the bad actors.

There must be consequences to rule-breaking. Or there aren't any rules. You're just wagging your finger uselessly at people who don't give a shit.

I agree - but currently the GOP continues to break the rules without any repercussions. And I don't see that changing much in the future. Which means the GOP will continue to get away with it over and over again.

[Felya]

No it isn't.

Breaking the filibuster would mean lowering the cloture threshold to a simple majority, effectively ending the practice. Reconciliation refers to a specific procedure by which "budgetary" bills can bypass normal debate and is within the current set of rules.

By saying “bypass normal debate”, do you mean filibuster proof?

[Elegiac]

By saying “bypass normal debate”, do you mean filibuster proof?

Sure, even though the terminology is inaccurate. Normal debate has a supermajority cloture threshold - i.e. it requires a supermajority of senators to vote to end debate on legislation. Reconciliation avoids this by treating the articles under discussion as budget adjustments rather than legislation which has a different debating structure, hence things like the vote-a-rama."Eliminating the filibuster" means changing the rules so that debate on all legislation can be ended with a simple majority - i.e. what was done with judicial appointments. Reconciliation is, again, within the existing scope of rules but there are limits to what constitutes a budget adjustment because reasons.

If this sounds arcane and stupid, it's because it is.