Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

Too bad the child credits expire.

For now.

But think of the ACA. Nobody really wanted that...until they saw how good a lot of the protections it added were, now they'll fight to keep it. Imagine what will happen once folks see how beneficial and effective the tax credit is.

This is what I keep bangin on about with stepping stones. This would have never been added permanently to begin with, and the best chance of a meaningful and pretty progressive policy change being put into longterm effect is to give folks "trial runs" so they can turn that experience into pressure on their elected Rep/Senators.

[Breccia]

72% of Americans Approve of Joe Biden's Handling of the Coronavirus Pandemic: Poll--I'll be honest and say I feel like it's kind of a shitty poll, but it's still far above Trump's approval for his "handling" of the crisis while he was in office.

538 has Biden between 53% and 55% general approval for every day of his tenure so far.

Granted, most Presidents fall some once they're elected. They have to make unpopular decisions or bad things happen. We all get it. But Biden is already about 10% higher than Trump as his highest.

It's like he's doing a decent job, or something.

[Themius]

For now.

But think of the ACA. Nobody really wanted that...until they saw how good a lot of the protections it added were, now they'll fight to keep it. Imagine what will happen once folks see how beneficial and effective the tax credit is.

This is what I keep bangin on about with stepping stones. This would have never been added permanently to begin with, and the best chance of a meaningful and pretty progressive policy change being put into longterm effect is to give folks "trial runs" so they can turn that experience into pressure on their elected Rep/Senators.

Were manchin and sinema against it being permanent? if so i didn't hear much about that.

The issue with stepping stones this small is that you can begin repealing shit via those same "stepping stone" methods over time.

A lot of aspects of the new deal for instance over time have been legislated away over decades.

[Kaleredar]

Were manchin and sinema against it being permanent? if so i didn't hear much about that.

The issue with stepping stones this small is that you can begin repealing shit via those same "stepping stone" methods over time.

A lot of aspects of the new deal for instance over time have been legislated away over decades.

Except that things, once given, are a lot less of a "sell" to then take away. Which is why the GOP never actually removed ACA; they knew those people would be pissed beyond measure. They just bandied it about as a talking point, as they always do, because they wanted to rile their base up against the "welfare queens."

And the alternative is what... making a big, bold push, then having it outright rejected? "Meaning it more" doesn't get you anywhere in politics if the numbers just aren't there.

For a real example, the legalization of same-sex marriage was done largely state-by-state until 2015 when it was legalized across the nation, but politicians who were once rallying against it are now almost completely silent on the matter, because they know Americans have largely accepted it. Would it have been better to have done it in one broad, unambiguous swoop nation-wide at the start? Yes. Was that possible in the past political climate when it was a hot-button issue? Unfortunately, probably not.

[Themius]

Except that things, once given, are a lot less of a "sell" to then take away. Which is why the GOP never actually removed ACA; they knew those people would be pissed beyond measure. They just bandied it about as a talking point, as they always do, because they wanted to rile their base up against the "welfare queens."

And the alternative is what... making a big, bold push, then having it outright rejected? "Meaning it more" doesn't get you anywhere in politics if the numbers just aren't there.

For a real example, the legalization of same-sex marriage was done largely state-by-state until 2015 when it was legalized across the nation, but politicians who were once rallying against it are now almost completely silent on the matter, because they know Americans have largely accepted it. Would it have been better to have done it in one broad, unambiguous swoop nation-wide at the start? Yes. Was that possible in the past political climate when it was a hot-button issue? Unfortunately, probably not.

You are right that is is harder, much harder. Which is why it has taken some good 50 years to whittle away at aspects of the old new deal. Now we need a new new deal.

You say "big bold push" and then mention gay marriage which passed federally in a big bold push... consider that while it was becoming legally federally it was both becoming illegal in states as well as legal.

States were actively passing laws to fully outright ban gay marriage.

Fuck... NC went so far with their gay hatred they decided to fuck over straight unmarried couples at the same time.

[Dontrike]

So Trump's press secretary went on FOX News to talk about Infrastructure week.



Uh...hold on a minute...

(flips back and forth between open tabs)

Holy shit, that's Biden's press secretary! On FOX News! Talking about infrastructure! Weren't any Nazis carrying torches, either!



Just a reminder: Trump campaigned and ran on the promise of infrastructure. You can see it right here on the Contract with the American Voter. Twice. He said he'd have it in the first 100 days.

He didn't. Seven months later, Aug 2017, Infrastructure Week was interrupted by literal torch-carrying Nazis, one of whom murdered a human being (see also the "run over protestors" thread if you're wondering if we've learned anything). The idea, once shoved to the background, was never fully re-introduced.

Rather than go back into a five-page rant, I'll just link Trump's infrastructure plan in ruins after wrecking ball of neo-Nazi comments and Trump scraps plan for infrastructure council after 2 other panels dissolve. That second one is dated Aug 2017, just so we're clear. I would say "Trump never signed an infrastructure bill" but he did sign this one, a $6 billion water one. Near as I can tell, it's primary purpose was to force water companies to write a letter saying they had a plan.

Biden made no such promise, but is already five months ahead of Trump's schedule. We're about to find out if Republicans really want infrastructure, or were just kidding when they backed Trump in every way except sometimes Nazis.

Didn't Trump also walk away from an infrastructure bill with Pelosi and Schumer for no reason one time?

[Kaleredar]

You are right that is is harder, much harder. Which is why it has taken some good 50 years to whittle away at aspects of the old new deal. Now we need a new new deal.

You say "big bold push" and then mention gay marriage which passed federally in a big bold push... consider that while it was becoming legally federally it was both becoming illegal in states as well as legal.

States were actively passing laws to fully outright ban gay marriage.

Fuck... NC went so far with their gay hatred they decided to fuck over straight unmarried couples at the same time.

And if it hadn't already been progressively legalized or formalized in 38 states then it might never have been able to crest the national wave of support that helped formalize it as a nation-wide done deal before the supreme court in 2015. Which forced all of the hold-out states to accept it, no matter how deep red of a state they might have been. Now THAT'S progress, wrought from over a decade of step-by-step, backbreaking legislative and policy work taken nation-wide on the matter.

If, say, Obama had run a hard-line on same-sex marriage being legalized nation-wide in 2008 and made that a platform issue, might he have lost to McCain over it? Maybe. The US' opinion on same-sex marriage was far, far different back then. And would McCain's United States and the subsequent supreme court justices he'd have appointed and national discourse he'd have cultivated during the subsequent years been far, FAR more hostile to same-sex marriage, even so far as preventing the progress we've seen on it from having happened at all? Also a possibility.

Now don't misconstrue this as me saying that politicians should be afraid to support just causes that seem "unpopular" or be reticent in their support. What I am saying is that sometimes progress can only happen in piecemeal steps because the unfortunate fact of the matter is that trying to pass it in some monumental push when voting lines are so contentious will put off too many voters or senators or other people necessary to passing it at all and that ultimately nothing will come of those efforts, no matter how noble they might have been. And that, when you see that piecemeal step in the right direction, that you hold on to it and fight for it as hard as you possibly can, and not poo-poo it because it isn't everything you ever wanted with a cherry on top.

[Breccia]

Didn't Trump also walk away from an infrastructure bill with Pelosi and Schumer for no reason one time?

That was one of the times he walked out, yes.

Trump walked away from infrastructure negotiations before they really began

Trump made official Wednesday what many have suspected for months: There will never actually be an infrastructure week, or at least there won’t be as long as House Democrats are investigating him.

In response, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she’d “pray” for the president.

After an “excellent” infrastructure meeting between Trump and Democratic leaders last month, a second planned meeting between the two sides on Wednesday went completely awry.

Trump and Democrats barely talked about infrastructure before the president said he would refuse to work with Democrats until they stopped investigating him. Trump walked out soon after — fuming that Pelosi recently accused him of engaging in a “cover-up” for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas.

“Instead of walking in happily to a meeting, I walk in to look at people that just said that I was doing a cover-up. I don’t do cover-ups,” Trump complained to the press in the White House Rose Garden shortly after the meeting with Democrats, standing in front of a sign that said “No Collusion, No Obstruction.”

Although Pelosi has made it clear she doesn’t think impeaching Trump is worth it at this point, she doesn’t plan to back down on investigations. Just a few hours after a meeting where she tried to steer members of her caucus away from impeachment, Pelosi alluded to it herself.

“That’s why I think the president was so steamed off this morning ... he’s obstructing justice and engaged in a coverup, and that could be an impeachable offense,” Pelosi said at a Center for American Progress forum on Wednesday, a few hours after her White House meeting.

[Themius]

Gay marriage didn’t “pass federally” due to a big push. It was deemed legal based on previous legislation due to a lawsuit before SCOTUS.

Which is a bold push....to go from no equal law for lgbt to having it.

[Milchshake]

The mass of republican senators shipping themselves off to the border tells me otherwise!


/s

Looked like they're filming the sequel to Wild Hogs.

Susan Collins got coveted part for the lone female part. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl, who pretends that she's totally not a conservative.

[Edge-]

Which is a bold push....to go from no equal law for lgbt to having it.

No, it's not. That's a legal challenge that thankfully made it to the SCOTUS.

What you're ignoring is decades of work put in by LBGTQ+/civil rights advocates and activists slowly building support for marriage protection and pushing for legalization in individual states. That it all came to a head after decades of slow steps in a big SCOTUS case doesn't mean that it was a "big bold push" at all.

[Endus]

No, it's not. That's a legal challenge that thankfully made it to the SCOTUS.

What you're ignoring is decades of work put in by LBGTQ+/civil rights advocates and activists slowly building support for marriage protection and pushing for legalization in individual states. That it all came to a head after decades of slow steps in a big SCOTUS case doesn't mean that it was a "big bold push" at all.

Also that it ignores the societal acceptance of some flavours of bigotry; the law always should have protected LGBT marriages, but it was never interpreted that way before that decision because those responsible for the interpretation were, pretty much without exception, homophobes who did not consider LGBT people to be anything but deviants to be oppressed.

[Milchshake]

No, it's not. That's a legal challenge that thankfully made it to the SCOTUS.

What you're ignoring is decades of work put in by LBGTQ+/civil rights advocates and activists slowly building support for marriage protection and pushing for legalization in individual states. That it all came to a head after decades of slow steps in a big SCOTUS case doesn't mean that it was a "big bold push" at all.

It's much easier to colonize activist movements if you purposefully ignore all their work before 2015.

Also, I'd like to welcome our fellow "long time online leftists". Being "long time" activists. They seem curiously unused to the numerous setbacks and glacial pace that have been part of these movements since forever. It's like they're expecting quick and glamourous wins. And a Server wide anthem to announce their cheeves and tendies.

They dont understand that the Steve Bannon Method, of harnessing the outrage of online dudes, is simply not compatible with movements built on board and diverse coalitions.

[Kaleredar]

No, it's not. That's a legal challenge that thankfully made it to the SCOTUS.

What you're ignoring is decades of work put in by LBGTQ+/civil rights advocates and activists slowly building support for marriage protection and pushing for legalization in individual states. That it all came to a head after decades of slow steps in a big SCOTUS case doesn't mean that it was a "big bold push" at all.

It also paints a picture of how actually quite rapidly these individual steps can add up. In 2004 same sex marriage was legal in only one state; 11 years later due to many individual steps taken over not only those years but in the decades prior and its legal nation-wide. And progress was being made despite mainline politicians being against it initially. (Obama thankfully saw the light and changed his tune on it)


A big wave might cause some spectacle and awe, but a slow, steady river is what carves a canyon.

[Endus]

It also paints a picture of how actually quite rapidly these individual steps can add up. In 2004 same sex marriage was legal in only one state; 11 years later due to many individual steps taken over not only those years but in the decades prior and its legal nation-wide. And progress was being made despite mainline politicians being against it initially. (Obama thankfully saw the light and changed his tune on it)


A big wave might cause some spectacle and awe, but a slow, steady river is what carves a canyon.

A lot of people miss the building pressure behind those sudden shifts. Nothing really happens out of the blue, in this respect; big shifts are almost always the result of decades of social pressure and the resistance to that pressure finally cracking, like a dam breaking.

And, like with the metaphor of a river we're using, when it's backed up so long, it generally pushes a lot further, a lot harder, than slow change in immediate response will.

I agree; I think a lot of people saw a couple recent major shifts and thought all change is like that, out of nothing, and they get frustrated when their new issue doesn't see similar change. They ignore the past 50+ years of building pressure behind those movements.

[Themius]

Are you suggesting that incremental change... works?! Madness. Complete and utter madness.

Incremental changes work slowly... and the issue I pointed out was that incremental changes can also be incrementally undone. Huge changes can also be incrementally undone.

No one is arguing that incremental changes never work... it is more that they take a long time... too long often enough and can be stunted so when the opportunity to fully fix something happens upon you... it should be taken.

If you must use incrementalism fine... but if you have the power to do something without needing to take a decade or five, why vote for incrementalism over larger change?

The argument was already given that once something is in place it is hard to remove it...which why I am more for big changes when possible.... The ACA was an incremental change and how has it worked out? it is still alive; however, has it incrementally changed into what we want it to be? No... it is less so.

Instead what has changed is the mindset around healthcare itself. If the opportunity for universal care arises it should be snatched now.

- - - Updated - - -

A lot of people miss the building pressure behind those sudden shifts. Nothing really happens out of the blue, in this respect; big shifts are almost always the result of decades of social pressure and the resistance to that pressure finally cracking, like a dam breaking.

And, like with the metaphor of a river we're using, when it's backed up so long, it generally pushes a lot further, a lot harder, than slow change in immediate response will.

I agree; I think a lot of people saw a couple recent major shifts and thought all change is like that, out of nothing, and they get frustrated when their new issue doesn't see similar change. They ignore the past 50+ years of building pressure behind those movements.

Which in my mind isn't exactly incremental change.

incremental change I take as legislation passed over time working towards a goal.

Not years of government stagnating and social pressure building up until it forces them to do something. That to me is a sudden change from societal pressure, forcing a big change.

[Endus]

Which in my mind isn't exactly incremental change.

incremental change I take as legislation passed over time working towards a goal.

Not years of government stagnating and social pressure building up until it forces them to do something. That to me is a sudden change from societal pressure, forcing a big change.

It's a different thing entirely. You're looking at outcomes, where we were talking about societal pressure. People seek change and reform, and that builds pressure. Incrementalism is, essentially, a government making regular adjustments based on that kind of pressure. It can also lead to bigger shifts if they refuse to budge for a while, and that pressure builds.

The issue with describing this as incrementalism or not is that governments can also approach matters with an incrementalist attitude when there isn't public pressure on an issue, easing into things to see which step forward starts to generate pushback or just to assess at each stage.

[Edge-]

Incremental changes work slowly... and the issue I pointed out was that incremental changes can also be incrementally undone. Huge changes can also be incrementally undone.

And big changes done at once can also be undone. What's your point here?

No one is arguing that incremental changes never work... it is more that they take a long time... too long often enough and can be stunted so when the opportunity to fully fix something happens upon you... it should be taken.

Yes, they take longer. But they're more likely to be successful. So you either take the big gamble on a "BIG CHANGE" that's less likely to happen, or smaller changes more likely to be effective over time given the nature of this country and our politics.

If you must use incrementalism fine... but if you have the power to do something without needing to take a decade or five, why vote for incrementalism over larger change?

Do they have that power? Haven't we already seen conservative/moderate Democrats that make up the razor thin majority be uneasy with big, sweeping change?

The ACA was an incremental change and how has it worked out? it is still alive; however, has it incrementally changed into what we want it to be? No... it is less so.

It's set a new baseline, which is a huge win. People don't want to lose the protections and additional benefits it gave them, and is a big reason why the Republican attempt to repeal thankfully fell through.

Where are we at now? A place with an administration and Congress has the capability to potentially work to improve/expand it alongside the huge list of other issues they're facing. Will it be big change? Probably not, but more incremental change is good and will get us closer and closer to M4A.

If the opportunity for universal care arises it should be snatched now.

If it does, I agree. But I don't think it will in the immediate.

- - - Updated - - -

incremental change I take as legislation passed over time working towards a goal.

That's not the extent of incremental change. It's also changing minds.

Not years of government stagnating and social pressure building up until it forces them to do something. That to me is a sudden change from societal pressure, forcing a big change.

Yes, and what caused that societal pressure to begin with? How did it build up over time?

[Themius]

And big changes done at once can also be undone. What's your point here?

much harder to do since it is harder to take away something, we both know and agree on this already so idk why you're saying this.

Yes, they take longer. But they're more likely to be successful. So you either take the big gamble on a "BIG CHANGE" that's less likely to happen, or smaller changes more likely to be effective over time given the nature of this country and our politics.

Is there proof it is more likely to be successful? If the votes existed to get something big done, and it was done... and it is harder to take away things once done why would it be "harder"?

Do they have that power? Haven't we already seen conservative/moderate Democrats that make up the razor thin majority be uneasy with big, sweeping change?

We have but this is why it is a general statement that when the opportunity arises it should be snatched.

It's set a new baseline, which is a huge win. People don't want to lose the protections and additional benefits it gave them, and is a big reason why the Republican attempt to repeal thankfully fell through.

Where are we at now? A place with an administration and Congress has the capability to potentially work to improve/expand it alongside the huge list of other issues they're facing. Will it be big change? Probably not, but more incremental change is good and will get us closer and closer to M4A.

Your first point is why big changes once done are hard to undo. Many other countries got to universal healthcare rather quickly once the idea was brought up... America has been incrementally trying for decades now.

If it does, I agree. But I don't think it will in the immediate.

But that's not incremental change. That's the government being absent until society rallies behind the issue.

when people say incremental changes. I think of legislation working towards a goal.

That's not the extent of incremental change. It's also changing minds.

But that's society incrementally changing their mindset.

I'm talking about the government implementing changes over time to reach a goal.

we are talking about two related, but different issues.

Incrementalism as a legislative practice to implement changes, and the notion of incrementalism being the change of the opinions of society. The latter is more in the field of activism to my mind, and the former more about government.

[Edge-]

much harder to do since it is harder to take away something, we both know and agree on this already so idk why you're saying this.

That's applicable to both approaches. Again: See the ACA, which was an incremental step. Has it been weakened? Sure. But was it taken away? No, because it's harder to take away when it's got popular support because folks liked it.

Is there proof it is more likely to be successful? If the votes existed to get something big done, and it was done... and it is harder to take away things once done why would it be "harder"?

Man, the conservative Democrats like Manchin and Sinema that have pearl-clutched about spending and the $15/h wage will totes go for this without public pressure, I tells ya!

This line of logic clashes with the progressive framing of folks like Manchin and Sinema (the two highest profile Democrats being sticks in the mud, but hardly the only two). If they didn't go for it, the votes likely didn't exist for it. This is the ACA approach, think of it almost like drugs but without the addiction part. The first taste is free, but if you want to keep this beneficial policy change you're gonna need to hound your Rep./Senators to vote to make it permanent/expand it.

We have but this is why it is a general statement that when the opportunity arises it should be snatched.

And I think we can pretty safely say that given what we've already seen from the conservative/moderate wing, that the opportunity isn't quite here yet.

Your first point is why big changes once done are hard to undo.

The ACA was an incremental change, not a big one.

Many other countries got to universal healthcare rather quickly once the idea was brought up... America has been incrementally trying for decades now.

Not really, there have been a few attempts but nothing too seriously or sustained until much more recently. America is notoriously conservative, for better or worse, so I don't know why we keep comparing the US to more progressive countries where the leadership doesn't have a huge swath of the electorate believing things like "clean coal exists!"

But that's not incremental change. That's the government being absent until society rallies behind the issue.

...how do you think a lot of social movements achieved their goals, yo? This is some a-historical nonsense ignoring that the biggest driver of change in a Democracy isn't politicians, but social pressure on those politicians.

when people say incremental changes. I think of legislation working towards a goal.

That's what the ACA is working towards, intentionally or not.

But that's society incrementally changing their mindset.

Again, how do you think things like Civil Rights legislation got passed? You have to change minds incrementally to force elected officials to respond to their changing constituency.

I'm talking about the government implementing changes over time to reach a goal.

Yes, and this is often done via the indirect approach of changing minds which can lead to folks electing different representatives or pressuring their current representatives to change their stances on things.

Incrementalism as a legislative practice to implement changes, and the notion of incrementalism being the change of the opinions of society. The latter is more in the field of activism to my mind, and the former more about government.

Those are two sides to the same coin. Sometimes the Legislature takes the lead (ACA), sometimes it's public pressure taking the lead (marriage equality). Politics is expansive, confusing, messy, and not so clearly defined as you seem to think it is. The people and politicians are as connected to each other as they are disconnected to each other simultaneously.