Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Kaleredar]

There was an initial point to be made, though. Stewart's ask for reasonableness, even in 2010, was not a good place to be. Conservatives in this country have been batshit insane since McCarthy.

I think the problem is that the necessity gets lost in an effort to sound "non-partisan." Because most conservatives, when you say "democrats and republicans need to move closer to one another politically" would agree... Because they think democrats need to move more towards them.

The concept that the right-wing in the United States is much too far to the right, and it, exclusively, has to move back towards the center needs to be normalized in the public conscious.

[BeepBoo]

As long as you're aware this applies to all uses of State violence as well, and thus you're arguing that police shouldn't be entitled to use force to effect an arrest for any non-violent crimes.

Non-violent/NON HARMFUL crimes.

Is that your argument?

Yes, but you're forgetting or misunderstanding the full breadth of the term "harm."

Or are you holding a double standard, which was my whole point?

No, but you're going to tell me how property theft or damage isn't something you recognize as harm.

A better way of articulating my point would be "there's no such thing as a victimless crime."

[Endus]

There was an initial point to be made, though. Stewart's ask for reasonableness, even in 2010, was not a good place to be. Conservatives in this country have been batshit insane since McCarthy.

It's the core issue with the USA's Overton Window. The Democrats are a center-right neoliberal conservative party, for the most part; they're a big enough tent there's a smattering of center-left types hanging out like Bernie and AOC and such, but that's largely from not having anywhere else meaningful to [i]go[i]. A "reasonable" political divide in the USA would be between the Democratic core, the Obama/Clinton/Biden types, forming the right wing, and the Bernie/AoC types forming the basis of the left-wing party, but leaning slightly further left overall than even they do. Then there'd be all kinds of room for really functional debate and spats around the precise balance of cost-effectiveness and outcomes. Much like the Progressive Conservatives of old, and the Liberals. Instead, you've got this absolutely confused mess where people think Biden is left-wing, somehow, actual left-wing views are anathema, and the right wing has been steadily driving towards fascism and ethnostate genocide for a good half-century, after a brief hiatus where neither party really supported such a view in the middle 20th.

Reasonableness isn't an option when an entire party and every single one of their representatives, yes even the Liz Cheneys, aren't "reasonable". Reagan was unreasonable. And it's been a steady slide to greater extremism ever since.

I'm more and more convinced that the political sphere of the USA can't survive if the Republicans continue to exist as a party. There's no reforming them. It's been core to their values for the entire political careers of every representative. Their position isn't a momentary slip or accident; they've been driving towards this, intentionally and with full awareness, for decades. They've just gotten close enough to the goal they don't need to play coy about it any more.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but you're forgetting or misunderstanding the full breadth of the term "harm."

Oh, so economic "harms" justify violence? Can I beat the shit out of my employer for paying me too low a wage? Or are you shifting goalposts without taking a moment to consider your base premises?

No, but you're going to tell me how property theft or damage isn't something you recognize as harm.

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge them as "harm", as long as you acknowledge that paying someone less than they think they're worth is also "harm", in exactly the same sense. I don't care that it's legal to do so; we're not discussing what should be a crime, we're discussing why the State is entitled to enact political violence upon citizens.

Which I'm not contesting, to be clear. I'm making the point that use of institutional violence is inherent to all society. Because once you acknowledge that, you can't feasibly claim that violence is inherently "wrong"; you've admitted that it's situationally justifiable.

A better way of articulating my point would be "there's no such thing as a victimless crime."

And in the context of this discussion, by referring to "crime", you're trying to make a circular argument regarding state violence against citizens. They've committed crimes, so the violence is justified. Why is it justified? Because they've committed what the State calls "crime". Back and forth, never actually getting to the point of why law enforcement is justified, and what that actually means.

That's the problem with "violence is never justified" as an argument. The State is justified in their use of violence, within reason. Anyone supporting responsible police action can't actually argue that violence isn't justifiable. Because law enforcement necessarily requires violence.

[BeepBoo]

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge them as "harm", as long as you acknowledge that paying someone less than they think they're worth is also "harm", in exactly the same sense.

Nah. If someone thinks they're worth more they can go get more. Someone offering you a deal and you accepting it isn't harm. What someone thinks anything is worth and what they can get for it are two different things. Just don't accept the transaction if you're not actually ok with the terms.

inb4 "but some people can't afford!" sorry. Desperation is part of reality. One I'm fine with existing.

[Nymrohd]

A better way of articulating my point would be "there's no such thing as a victimless crime."

That's stupid. Depending on the laws, you can have a crazy amount of victimless crimes. The US still had multiple states with SODOMY laws up until recently.

[tikcol]

Biden and the Democratic party are looking strong right now. Such a great speech by our illustrious leader.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/09/05/...e-below-3.html

Bad news for Republicans, but good news for America:

Prices at the pump could continue their two-month decline. GasBuddy expects some states could see prices average even below $3 per gallon at some point later this year.

Those Biden stickers on pumps are gonna start backfiring pretty soon.

- - - Updated - - -



Just highlighting the differences in how POTUS's from different parties handle hecklers.

Biden: Tells security to let him go and then calls him an idiot.

Trump: "I'd like to punch him in the face" and also "They used to go out on a stretcher"

But DEmOCrAtS PRoMOtE ViOLEncE

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/b...fast-food.html

Federal labor regulators on Tuesday proposed a rule that would make more companies legally liable for labor law violations committed by their contractors or franchisees.

Under the proposal, which governs when a company is considered a so-called joint employer, the National Labor Relations Board could hold a company like McDonald’s liable if one of its franchisees fired workers who tried to unionize, even if the parent company exercised only indirect control over the workers. Indirect control can include requiring the franchisee to use software that locks in certain scheduling practices and setting limits on what the workers can be paid.

Under the current approach, adopted in 2020, when the board had a majority of Republican appointees, the parent company could be held liable for such labor law violations only if it exerted direct control over the franchisee’s employees — such as directly determining their schedules and pay.

The joint-employer rule also determines whether the parent company must bargain with employees of a contractor or franchisee if those employees unionize.

Employees and unions generally prefer to bargain with the parent company and to hold it accountable for labor law violations because the parent typically has more power than the contractor or franchisee to change workplace policies and make concessions.

“In an economy where employment relationships are increasingly complex, the board must ensure that its legal rules for deciding which employers should engage in collective bargaining serve the goals of the National Labor Relations Act,” Lauren McFerran, the chairwoman of the board, which has a Democratic majority, said in a statement.

The legal threshold for triggering a joint-employer relationship under labor law has changed frequently in recent years, depending on the political composition of the labor board. In 2015, a board led by Democrats changed the standard from “direct and immediate” control to indirect control.

As a result of that shift, parent companies could also be considered joint employers of workers hired by a contractor or franchisee if the parent had the right to control certain working conditions — like firing or disciplining workers — even if it didn’t act on that right.

Editors’ Picks

The Unexpected Power of Random Acts of Kindness

Money Can’t Buy Class. Or Can It?

Tending to Grass, and to Grief, on a Tennis Court in Iowa
Under President Donald J. Trump, the board moved to undo that change. The Republican-led board not only restored the standard of direct and immediate control, it also required that the control exercised by the parent be “substantial,” making it even more difficult to deem a parent company a joint employer.

The franchise business model has faced rising pressure. On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said he had signed a bill creating a council to regulate labor practices in the fast food industry. The council has the power to raise the minimum wage for the industry in California to $22 an hour next year, compared with a statewide minimum of $15.50, and to issue health and safety standards to protect workers.

The fast food industry strongly opposed the measure, arguing that it would raise costs for employers and prices for consumers.

IMO this is a great move. Franchise chains shouldn't have protection from legal liability for the actions of the franchisees they directly oversee, unless they were directly involved in determining schedules and pay. Something very easy to do by simply issuing broad directives regarding scheduling/pay and leaving the specifics up to franchise owners.

Also possibly opens up more direct union negotiations with the parent company who have more authority to enact changes within a franchise store than the franchisee does.

Again, Biden is delivering for labor and unions, step by step. It's slow, but it's at least happening.

[Milchshake]

Man, Cosplay Leftists are even tone policing the Biden speech.
David Sirota: "Actually, it's the Democrats that are responsible for the rise in fascism."




Can't believe this guy wrote Don't Look Up Causes of Fascism.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/polit...ver/index.html

Over a year and half into the Biden administration, there have been 0 replacements of Cabinet officials so far. Almost like, despite some disagreements, it's largely a pretty good team.

In comparison

At this point in Trump's administration, he had already lost three Cabinet officials: his secretaries of Health, State and Veterans Affairs. He had moved another — Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly — to chief of staff after firing his first top aide Reince Priebus.

Before closing out his second year in office, Trump would go on to lose three additional Cabinet officials, including his attorney general, Defense secretary and Interior secretary.

So it's totally possible that Biden will replace 5 Cabinet members, plus his chief of staff, in the next 4 months to match Trump. But I think we can agree that's unlikely.

And he's not even relying on the extensive use of "acting" department heads yet.

[Breccia]

And he's not even relying on the extensive use of "acting" department heads yet.

I don't think even this sarcastic line does it justice.

Trump had a total of five Attorneys General. Yates was first in an acting role, no surprise there, having someone in the role for the first few months while your real choice is confirmed seems to be the standard. Obama did it, W did it, Clinton did it. Nothing wrong with Yates being replaced in a couple months. Trump replaces Yates with Boente for a couple weeks...okay, not great but still early on it's understandable. Then, Jeff Sessions was confirmed and stuck around for a year and a half. Then, Whitaker for four months. Then, Barr until he resigned in disgust. And Rosen until Trump fairly and legally lost the election.

Six.

How do you expect to get anything done if you keep replacing people? Leaving the acting issue aside, again sometimes it's understandable, if you run a company that has more CEOs than years, it doesn't have a plan.

In the likely situation Garland lasts two years, he will break Trump's record. He never had an AG last more than 22 months.

[downnola]

I'm more and more convinced that the political sphere of the USA can't survive if the Republicans continue to exist as a party. There's no reforming them. It's been core to their values for the entire political careers of every representative. Their position isn't a momentary slip or accident; they've been driving towards this, intentionally and with full awareness, for decades. They've just gotten close enough to the goal they don't need to play coy about it any more.

There are many reasons why there isn't a legitimate labor party in the United States but the main ingredient is bigotry. The paranoid fringe gains more traction every time the country makes a move to become a little more inclusive. I'm convinced that left-wing policy is not so unpopular that a party couldn't form around those policies, it's just people can't get over their racism and bigotry enough to vote that way if it means trans women can take a shit in peace or if immigration isn't strictly from Europe/Australia.

[Nymrohd]

There are many reasons why there isn't a legitimate labor party in the United States but the main ingredient is bigotry. The paranoid fringe gains more traction every time the country makes a move to become a little more inclusive. I'm convinced that left-wing policy is not so unpopular that a party couldn't form around those policies, it's just people can't get over their racism and bigotry enough to vote that way if it means trans women can take a shit in peace or if immigration isn't strictly from Europe/Australia.

The thing is, you can absolutely have a party that is left wing on the economy and very socially conservative. Nothing about believing in unions and workers' rights requires people to not be homophobic. Now racism CAN be an issue there since you are effectively dividing the working class but you can be socially conservative without being racist you can just focus on queerphobia and misogyny instead

[Milchshake]

Are we talking about the Romanticized-Version-of-Labor that American conjure up in their heads.
or
The actual version of Labor parties. That's chasing anti-immigration populism voters in a bid to remain relevant?



Bigotry... sorry but it's a worldwide problem. Classically European people just don't like sharing their Social Welfare with others.
The typical center left European party is an anti-immigrant and transphobic trash fire that simply hasn’t dismantled the public welfare Deere they inherited in the 50s too much.
Even Manchin out-Lefted them with his stripped down bill.

[Ivanstone]

The thing is, you can absolutely have a party that is left wing on the economy and very socially conservative. Nothing about believing in unions and workers' rights requires people to not be homophobic. Now racism CAN be an issue there since you are effectively dividing the working class but you can be socially conservative without being racist you can just focus on queerphobia and misogyny instead

This was pre-CRA America. Today’s taker states got a lot of federal money because the Dixiecrats managed to provide some very long term benefits for their states back in the 30’s to 60’s.

Fred Phelps was a life long democrat who fought against Jim Crow laws. He was also a religious fanatic who was virulently homophobic. People are nuts.

[Muzjhath]

Are we talking about the Romanticized-Version-of-Labor that American conjure up in their heads.
or
The actual version of Labor parties. That's chasing anti-immigration populism voters in a bid to remain relevant?



Bigotry... sorry but it's a worldwide problem. Classically European people just don't like sharing their Social Welfare with others.
The typical center left European party is an anti-immigrant and transphobic trash fire that simply hasn’t dismantled the public welfare Deere they inherited in the 50s too much.
Even Manchin out-Lefted them with his stripped down bill.

Center left, yes social democrats who've gotten rugpulled by neoliberal claptrap and trying to get back some voters who left for fasist parties by "hard on crime"? stuff? Yeah, they need to not do that. It's dumb.
Most of our actual left? No, they tend to not be that.

[NED funded]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...hield-00055771

Its clear that Biden's administration has been taken over by leftist weirdos on social issues. Killing 230 is effectively killing social media full stop

[Endus]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...hield-00055771

Its clear that Biden's administration has been taken over by leftist weirdos on social issues. Killing 230 is effectively killing social media full stop

Killing 230 is a right-wing obsession, stop being ridiculous.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...hield-00055771

Its clear that Biden's administration has been taken over by leftist weirdos on social issues. Killing 230 is effectively killing social media full stop

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ccountability/

Remove special legal protections for large tech platforms.
Tech platforms currently have special legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that broadly shield them from liability even when they host or disseminate illegal, violent conduct or materials. The President has long called for fundamental reforms to Section 230.

I mean, 230 has needed updating for years now given how much the internet has changed since it used to exist. Biden is not calling for the "repeal" or for it to be killed, he's being consistent in the argument that it needs updating for social media companies to be more accountable than they are now for illegal content hosted on their platforms. If they're working in good faith to keep it off/remove it? Cool. If they're doing very little because that costs money and they just can't be bothered? Not cool.

What leftist weirdos are you even talking about?

[NED funded]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ccountability/



I mean, 230 has needed updating for years now given how much the internet has changed since it used to exist. Biden is not calling for the "repeal" or for it to be killed, he's being consistent in the argument that it needs updating for social media companies to be more accountable than they are now for illegal content hosted on their platforms. If they're working in good faith to keep it off/remove it? Cool. If they're doing very little because that costs money and they just can't be bothered? Not cool.

What leftist weirdos are you even talking about?

They are already accountable for hosting illegal stuff. Report it to law enforcement and when they send an order to take it down they take it down. Attempts to touch established policy will only make companies to err on the side of caution and censor everything that might be slightly controversial

[Edge-]

They are already accountable for hosting illegal stuff. Report it to law enforcement and when they send an order to take it down they take it down.

That's the protection that they have now that, arguably, they should not given how the internet has changed since the 90's. Policy needs updating to stay current and relevant with the times, yaknow?

Attempts to touch established policy will only make companies to err on the side of caution and censor everything that might be slightly controversial

Controversy is not illegal and there is no federal or state law that I am aware of relating to the legality or illegality of controversy.