Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Do you think the average American cares about congressional procedure or results?

I'm sure they care about results. Unfortunately for them, that's not how it works. Otherwise we would have passed the "Nobody Pays Taxes But Everyone Still Gets Federal Services Act of 1994".

For every minimum wage bill shoved into a COVID relief bill that's blocked, there's a tax cut for the rich that's restricted. Re-read the tax cut for the rich discussion and imagine what would happen, if the Republicans weren't limited by how much they could have added to the deficit/debt. As a handout to the rich, it's bad enough as it is. The parliamentarian's binding opinion stopped it from being worse.

The average American probably doesn't care too much about the proper treatment of a mass murderer, but he still gets a trial. We don't just take an accused person out back and shoot them, even if that hs 70% popular support.

[Milchshake]

I'm sure if you ask folks

That's the rub, who are we asking? The past four years has shown a distinct disconnect between what "online people want" and what "voters want."

2020 should that loud people on podcasts and twitter are like 0.2% of the population? The Discourse keeps going through, and never learning from it.
Probably because some politicians and allied media keep ignoring this lesson. Because it would cost the Likes or Patreon bucks.


Sure $15 polls well, but most voters simply want Covid Relief more. Bungle or delaying of Covid Relief has higher political costs than passing $15 at the moment.

"I know people" is just a tell for a bluff.

[Breccia]

don't support stupid shit we all know is stupid?

If you're asking if I support raising the minimum wage, I do.

If you're asking if I support throwing away long-held federal rules I don't like because they stop a result I want, I don't. If the rules don't apply to everyone, they're not rules.

I look forward to seeing other ways the minimum wage issue is addressed. Shoving into a COVID relief bill simply doesn't seem to be working.

[Themius]

Is it illegal?

What does it have to do with talking about the minimum wage increase?

This is still a biden/harris thread. And i was noting a person can do good and bad. and this was a biden/harris administration bombing of Syria.

Goes against the proper procedure. International law, it is illegal. For America specifically, the president needed authorisation for bombing Syria. Obama tried the same thing btw and he never got authorisation:

Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris, like Psaki, are on the record questioning the legal basis of airstrikes that former president Donald Trump ordered in 2017 and 2019. Critics right and left jumped on these statements to accuse the administration of hypocrisy.

Several Democratic members of Congress, including senators Tim Kaine and Chris Murphy and Representative Ro Khanna, criticized the airstrikes and demanded that Congress be briefed on the matter. “Congress should hold this administration to the same standard it did prior administrations, and require clear legal justifications for military action, especially inside theaters like Syria, where Congress has not explicitly authorized any American military action,” Murphy stated. As these strikes were retaliatory and not in response to any imminent threat, Murphy argued, they were not legal without specific congressional authorization.

Biden is now the third president to order attacks in Syria without congressional approval since the start of that country’s civil war almost exactly a decade ago. Former president Barack Obama sought Congress’s permission to intervene and punish Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad for the use of chemical weapons against civilians in 2013, but that resolution never got a vote.

This is the issue.

In regards to Syria... here is Jen Pskai on the issue in 2017 on similar acts taken by Trump:

Also what is the legal authority for strikes? Assad is a brutal dictator. But Syria is a sovereign country.

[Edge-]

That's the rub, who are we asking? The past four years has shown a distinct disconnect between what "online people want" and what "voters want."

In this case, pretty much anyone. It's one of those random roles in the government nobody even knows exists. That's not to say it SHOULDN'T exist, but to say that it's not exactly the most noteworthy position around.

2020 should that loud people on podcasts and twitter are like 0.2% of the population? The Discourse keeps going through, and never learning from it.
Probably because some politicians and allied media keep ignoring this lesson. Because it would cost the Likes or Patreon bucks.

Considering I avoid political twitter (and twitter in general) and most political podcasts like the bloody plague, I haven't the foggiest what they're even talking about right now. I do my best to avoid the "very online" people as they seem to have little tethering them back to meatspace.

Sure $15 polls well, but most voters simply want Covid Relief more. Bungle or delaying of Covid Relief has higher political costs than passing $15 at the moment.

Sure, that's a possibility. Blame Republicans, then. How many Republicans are voting on this relief bill anyways? House vote showed 212 "No" votes from Republicans, which is all of them.

"I know people" is just a tell for a bluff.

Not really. It's like asking people if they knew that the Speaker had to invite POTUS to give the SOTU. Unless you're a West Wing fan and remembered that episode, you probably had no clue. Which is backed up by the endless media coverage of that factoid since it's one of the things in the massive volume of, "Shit nobody knows but is a part of how the government works".

[Themius]

That's the rub, who are we asking? The past four years has shown a distinct disconnect between what "online people want" and what "voters want."

2020 should that loud people on podcasts and twitter are like 0.2% of the population? The Discourse keeps going through, and never learning from it.
Probably because some politicians and allied media keep ignoring this lesson. Because it would cost the Likes or Patreon bucks.


Sure $15 polls well, but most voters simply want Covid Relief more. Bungle or delaying of Covid Relief has higher political costs than passing $15 at the moment.

"I know people" is just a tell for a bluff.

You know we have a lot of polling on this and it is now popular with both sides... why are you even trying to argue this is just an online thing? The fuck is wrong with you? Everything to you is "online people!! very lefty online!!! evil left online!" can you cork the silly rhetoric for like idk... a minute?

[Verdugo]

If the rules don't apply to everyone, they're not rules.

So... they are not rules. Since GOP wipes their palid, wrinkly behind with them.


You are aware that you are not facing just political oposition, but an actual threat to democratic process, right?

[Themius]

If you're asking if I support raising the minimum wage, I do.

If you're asking if I support throwing away long-held federal rules I don't like because they stop a result I want, I don't. If the rules don't apply to everyone, they're not rules.

I look forward to seeing other ways the minimum wage issue is addressed. Shoving into a COVID relief bill simply doesn't seem to be working.

The rule leaves space for Kamala to say "it should be included" so tell me what rule is being thrown away when the rule is still being followed? Why do you want to listen to part of the rule and ignore the other half of the rule? Why do you want to ignore the advisory opinion noting the Byrd rule, the rule itself which doesn't prohibit the inclusion of the provision in question?

[Breccia]

So... they are not rules. Since GOP wipes their palid, wrinkly behind with them.

In a lot of cases, yes. But the parliamentarian issue we're talking about right now isn't one of them, as shown during the tax cut for the rich situation.

[Themius]

So... they are not rules. Since GOP wipes their palid, wrinkly behind with them.


You are aware that you are not facing just political oposition, but an actual threat to democratic process, right?

Well we have to following 60% of the rule and ignore the 30% of the rule that states the rule can be overruled.

Oh and we must also ignore the 10% of the rule that notes within the very rule itself that the provision can be included

I mean just ignore all that and to Breccia norms of following rules are broken!!
Never mind the rule stays the provision can be included, never mind the rule says that the VP can either take or ignore the opinion...those rules don't matter....

[Edge-]

This is still a biden/harris thread. And i was noting a person can do good and bad. and this was a biden/harris administration bombing of Syria.

Goes against the proper procedure. International law, it is illegal. For America specifically, the president needed authorisation for bombing Syria. Obama tried the same thing btw and he never got authorisation:



This is the issue.

In regards to Syria... here is Jen Pskai on the issue in 2017 on similar acts taken by Trump:

Hey, the Democrats can always rescind the AUMF, which I believe Biden used as justification. As Trump did before him. And Obama before him. And Bush Jr. before him.

Again, the problem seems to be that Congress doesn't want to have to be held accountable for military actions and gave that broad authority to the executive branch.

[Themius]

In a lot of cases, yes. But the parliamentarian issue we're talking about right now isn't one of them, as shown during the tax cut for the rich situation.

1. byrd rule doesn't prohibit inclusion
2. the rule allows for the VP to either take or ignore the advice

In fact... ignoring the rule and keeping it in the bill is 100% in line with what the rules outline so save the argument about "oh but the rules!" no one gives a shit about them you know why? Because they're fucking poor and dying and homeless or working 3 jobs to piss it all away on bills.

you're treating this shit like a fucking thought experiment and not real life.

[Ivanstone]

it's still a poor question because what is saved by ensuring poverty wages? Tell me can a person do good and bad things? I mean for instance Biden saying he supports unions... good...

Biden illegally bombing Iranians in syria which is straight up and down illegal... bad....

the question you're looking for

"would a virtuous person use legal reasons when confronted with another legal argument, to make an advisory opinion"

In that case we already know what the will of the people is... that was to have aca and expand it even...

The point is you support unethical actions to work on something you deem moral.

I look at this way. This is a lawyer who somehow survived the Trump years despite not giving them all they want. The Dems should've passed better crafted legislation because the other side at least somewhat respects her opinions.

I generally expect better behaviour from politicians in general.

Finally, because you keep on ignoring this, even if her opinion is over-ridden that is no guarantee of getting you want. The Dems would probably have to go nuclear which doesn't have the support of their caucus. There are 50 (or more) senators who will fight the minimum wage provision if they don't go nuclear which delays the rest of the bill. After all that you have to deal numerous state AG's who will sue because they don't believe in minimum wage in general and are wholly against the idea of a minority earning a living in particular. And those AG's will eventually make their way to a partisan supreme court and they will try to use this abolition of senate procedure to their advantage.

[Themius]

Hey, the Democrats can always rescind the AUMF, which I believe Biden used as justification. As Trump did before him. And Obama before him. And Bush Jr. before him.

Again, the problem seems to be that Congress doesn't want to have to be held accountable for military actions and gave that broad authority to the executive branch.

Oh yes... it's only a few voices that are upset about this, but still... the strike on Syria is dubious by our own standards.. I don't like any of it, my opinion unlike Jen Pskai's has remained consistent on bombing Syria.

[Breccia]

The rule leaves space for Kamala to say "it should be included"

And she instead is saying "I don't like the result but I will follow the rules anyhow".

And you still seem hung up on "non-binding" despite everyone seeming to act like that opinion is very much binding. Why would you care what Harris says, if she's overruling a non-binding opinion? I think your assumption the opinion is non-binding is incorrect.

[Themius]

The point is you support unethical actions to work on something you deem moral.

I look at this way. This is a lawyer who somehow survived the Trump years despite not giving them all they want. The Dems should've passed better crafted legislation because the other side at least somewhat respects her opinions.

I generally expect better behaviour from politicians in general.

Finally, because you keep on ignoring this, even if her opinion is over-ridden that is no guarantee of getting you want. The Dems would probably have to go nuclear which doesn't have the support of their caucus. There are 50 (or more) senators who will fight the minimum wage provision if they don't go nuclear which delays the rest of the bill. After all that you have to deal numerous state AG's who will sue because they don't believe in minimum wage in general and are wholly against the idea of a minority earning a living in particular. And those AG's will eventually make their way to a partisan supreme court and they will try to use this abolition of senate procedure to their advantage.

perform an unethical analysis else you're just saying nothing.

Pinpoint and argue using an ethical framework of your choice, to explain how my argument is unethical.

- - - Updated - - -

And she instead is saying "I don't like the result but I will follow the rules anyhow".

And you still seem hung up on "non-binding" despite everyone seeming to act like that opinion is very much binding. Why would you care what Harris says, if she's overruling a non-binding opinion? I think your assumption the opinion is non-binding is incorrect.

because it isn't binding... seeming to act like the opinion is doesn't mean it is...

The republicans "act" like they care about the deficit when it comes to giving money to people, but then they have no issue with giving trillions away to corporate interests.

You know this... why even try this silly argument?

[Draco-Onis]

I'm sure they care about results. Unfortunately for them, that's not how it works. Otherwise we would have passed the "Nobody Pays Taxes But Everyone Still Gets Federal Services Act of 1994".

For every minimum wage bill shoved into a COVID relief bill that's blocked, there's a tax cut for the rich that's restricted. Re-read the tax cut for the rich discussion and imagine what would happen, if the Republicans weren't limited by how much they could have added to the deficit/debt. As a handout to the rich, it's bad enough as it is. The parliamentarian's binding opinion stopped it from being worse.

The average American probably doesn't care too much about the proper treatment of a mass murderer, but he still gets a trial. We don't just take an accused person out back and shoot them, even if that hs 70% popular support.

Have you been in a coma the last few decades? Tax cuts have zero problems passing under Republicans and they blow up the debt / deficit every time they have power.

It would have been marginally worse oh noes it just meant they had to vote for it again which they did.

[Breccia]

1. byrd rule doesn't prohibit inclusion

I haven't seen the parliamentarian spell out "By the way, this is the Byrd Rule" and in previous posts lamented that fact. The Senate has lots of rules. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on all of them. Nor am I going to point to a single rule, say "it doesn't break that rule, therefore, it doesn't break any other rules either."

2. the rule allows for the VP to either take or ignore the advice

That sure sounds like it's not "advice" but actual proof of a binding opinion. If the parliamentarian's opinion carries no weight, why are we talking about this for pages and pages? Why is the House, the Senate, Harris and Biden?

Because it carries weight. Because there are rules. We don't just choose not to follow rules or laws because they don't fit our desired result. Or, at least, we shouldn't.

I want that minimum wage increase, but I will not fault Harris for following the rules. Yeah, the result isn't to my liking. I don't like it when the Eagles lose to the Cowboys, but if they score fewer points I have nobody to blame but them.

There are other options. I look forward to seeing them in action.

[Ivanstone]

perform an unethical analysis else you're just saying nothing.

Pinpoint and argue using an ethical framework of your choice, to explain how my argument is unethical.

You posted every step of the Byrd rule. Not following every step is unethical. Period. You might not like the rule but its currently what's in place. There are a lot of shitty things about American politics but until they can be adequately changed you have to deal with what you have.

Seriously, you keep trying to saying this is non-binding. But that's just your belief and your beliefs are less relevant than Harris's and the rest of the Senate.

[Breccia]

Tax cuts have zero problems passing under Republicans and they blow up the debt / deficit every time they have power. .

And they were passed legally.

The tax cut for the rich was slowed (not stopped) because it broke the Senate rules. The parliamentarian pointed that out, correct. The Senate followed and nerfed the tax cut for the rich.

Clearly you feel the end justifies the means, which considering the end is a higher minimum wage is a noble set of morals. We're going to disagree on the ethics. Simply put, if the parties were reversed, I don't want to see what would happen if the parliamentarian had been overruled/removed/replaced and rich people/corporations would pay even less in taxes than they already got away with.

I'm not asking you to like the result. I'm glad you don't. I am asking you to reconsider what "we'll just choose not to follow the rules/laws we don't want to" because of what that leads to. If you stick with your principles, we'll just have to respectfully disagree. Won't make you a bad person.