Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Themius]

If you think this is a practical reality, I have a bridge to sell you.


It's nice, and I hope they do look into it, but it's not remotely practical with the razor thin margins they have.

They said they were looking into it from November to December and then once they won they entirely abandoned it.

No, it would be to prevent it legislatively to begin with, not pack the courts to get the ruling they want (even if this is a gross as fuck ruling).

Court packing has a certain negative notion that you're "packing" something unjustly, meanwhile republicans kept hundreds of seats unfilled just waiting to pack them... they actually did pack them and any expansion isn't "packing" the shit needs rebalancing after what they did. You say this almost as if you don't think the correct thing to do is to expand the courts so that they're filled at least by a democrat administration when they actually do have the real majority..

Plays well with the Democratic base but that's about it. Depending on the poll you look at, it has a slim majority of overall support.

Nearly half (48%) of democrats backed expanding the courts before Amy was appointed. I don't see any more recent polling on this though.

The SCOTUS isn't there to give "the majority of the country what it wants" dude. That's not how it operates at all, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of its role in government. A great many of its ruling, including rulings that many of us celebrate, were not popular at the time it was ruled.

SCOTUS historically has been used against the needs of the majority, for a short time, some things passed that were good but I'd disagree that they weren't popular.

Often the majority has been on the right side of history while SCOTUS and congress hasn't been.

- - - Updated - - -

Amusing enough, neither Ossoff and and Warnock supported expanding the court -

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...pansion-420650

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/war...-court-packing

They didn't even take hard positions on them. So they won despite that, not because of that.

I'm talking about the stance the party was taking.

[Edge-]

They said they were looking into it from November to December and then once they won they entirely abandoned it.

Democrats as a whole said that and...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...819_story.html

Yep, Biden is creating a commission for that. Which IIRC is more or less exactly what they said, they'd look into it, not immediatley do it.

Court packing has a certain negative notion that you're "packing" something unjustly, meanwhile republicans kept hundreds of seats unfilled just waiting to pack them...

Yes...and? I mean if Democrats want to repeat that strategy with lower court positions they're absolutely welcome to do so. It's shitty, but sadly it's a part of politics. Nobody here is pretending what the Republicans did was good, or should be acceptable so I don't know why you bring this comparison up.

You say this almost as if you don't think the correct thing to do is to expand the courts so that they're filled at least by a democrat administration when they actually do have the real majority..

I don't. I support bringing the judicary back to balance and getting politics out of it again as best we can. I don't support turning the entire branch into a political football, completely undermining its intent to act as a non-partisan check on partisan branches of government.

Nearly half (48%) of democrats backed expanding the courts before Amy was appointed. I don't see any more recent polling on this though.

The country isn't just Democrats, and a Democratic president isn't president of just Democrats.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...umber-of-seats

That's a slim majority

https://www.newsweek.com/only-32-ame...s-poll-1534200

That's a HUGE minority

SCOTUS historically has been used against the needs of the majority, for a short time, some things passed that were good but I'd disagree that they weren't popular.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...=publicopinion

Plenty of recent rulings that we celebrate are pretty unpopular.

I'm talking about the stance the party was taking.

https://www.vox.com/2020/8/20/213751...ublicans-trump

Wasn't a part of the party platform.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...court-packing/

Only one Democratic candidate explicitly supported it. Others were open to it, but the majority were not in support of it.

https://apnews.com/article/election-...9262eefc73a607

Some talked about it, not in their campaign efforts.

https://apnews.com/article/election-...5c3fd737892440

Progressives definitely pushed for it.

But the party never took a hard stance on expanding the court.

[Themius]

Democrats as a whole said that and...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...819_story.html

Yep, Biden is creating a commission for that. Which IIRC is more or less exactly what they said, they'd look into it, not immediatley do it.

Commissions are like the Washington's little "let's do like nothing... but look like we're doing something"

Yes...and? I mean if Democrats want to repeat that strategy with lower court positions they're absolutely welcome to do so. It's shitty, but sadly it's a part of politics. Nobody here is pretending what the Republicans did was good, or should be acceptable so I don't know why you bring this comparison up.

Because your take here is almost "oh no bad with Republicans did but we shoudln't try to expand the courts because then it is just a political football. Fuck that talking point, judges are there now, appointments are there now. God... all the cases coming out that are so bad, it's impossible to keep up with all of them and I don't think people even realise how bad of a situation it is.

I don't. I support bringing the judicary back to balance and getting politics out of it again as best we can. I don't support turning the entire branch into a political football, completely undermining its intent to act as a non-partisan check on partisan branches of government.

Poor take, entirely poor take. You want to get it back to what it used to be, well how do you expect to get that?

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...=publicopinion

Plenty of recent rulings that we celebrate are pretty unpopular.

That is not plenty...

Also don't you see that slim majority and see how that's kind of a big deal?

We went from 48% of just Democrats supporting it in September, to 52% of all registered voter supporting it in October.

[Edge-]

We went from 48% of just Democrats supporting it in September, to 52% of all registered voter supporting it in October.

That's more indicative of there not being consensus in the polling than anything else.

[Edge-]

Polling is trash these days. Best not to give it too much credence.

I don't, unless we're getting a number of polls all showing the same data. That we're not on this is why I don't put too much stock in the few polls that I've seen.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.axios.com/gop-senators-c...ea55cea12.html

I don't totally believe it, but maybe there is some room for bipartisan support for raising corporate taxes? Or at least closing loopholes within the existing tax code. It's not much, but it's a start.

[Kellhound]

Yes yes, you have repeatedly stated in the past that you think acres of land deserve more representation than actual people do.

Here's my thought on the "Senate serving its purpose". The Senate was originally designed with the US in mind being a loosely unified country with extremely diverse states. That used to be the case. A conservative in one state could hold wildly different views from a conservative in another state. Now, the US is more unified than ever. It is a unified country where individual statehood means less nd less all the time. Republicans are one giant party, as are Democrats.

In a highly unified country, all the senate really does is grant power to the minority. And literally, on top of already having an advantage with the Senate, Republicans are STILL dangerously close to losing it, even with all their voter disenfranchisement and straight up purging colored voters from the rolls.

Again, Republicans only like the Senate because it's the last bastion where you can rule by tyranny of the minority. The day the Senate becomes irreversibly Democrat controlled is the day you and every other Republican party of Trumper will want to get rid of it.

That is the most simplistic and misguided statement concerning US politics I have ever heard.

The only thing I actually want to see with the Senate is it always being controlled by the party that does not hold the Presidency (or a Senate significantly split between 3 or more parties).

[Huehuecoyotl]

That is the most simplistic and misguided statement concerning US politics I have ever heard.

The only thing I actually want to see with the Senate is it always being controlled by the party that does not hold the Presidency (or a Senate significantly split between 3 or more parties).

So if I were to go back through your posts (not that I can be bothered) I'd find 4 years worth of calls from you for Democratic control of the Senate? Is that right?

Or is this some realisation that you've come to relatively recently?

[fwc577]

My fuck.

There is no good rationale for them to not make DC a state other than "It's unfair to us."

I saw nothing new in some of the comments sections on news articles reporting on Rafael Cruz's continued whining.

The biggest thing I see people saying is to make DC part of Maryland.

Like, sure, we will consolidate the land into Maryland right after we consolidate the Carolinas and the Dakotas and consolidate 8 Republican senators down to 4 Republican senators.

[uuuhname]

My fuck.

There is no good rationale for them to not make DC a state other than "It's unfair to us."

I saw nothing new in some of the comments sections on news articles reporting on Rafael Cruz's continued whining.

The biggest thing I see people saying is to make DC part of Maryland.

Like, sure, we will consolidate the land into Maryland right after we consolidate the Carolinas and the Dakotas and consolidate 8 Republican senators down to 4 Republican senators.

do that with most western states for that matter. you could combine Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Montana and they would still have half the population of Colorado.

[Felya]

That is the most simplistic and misguided statement concerning US politics I have ever heard.

Oh that’s hyperbole... I saw you reply to people in the Ukraine thread... this wasn’t that bad... it can’t be most.

[Milchshake]

Remember a year ago .. when the very online people claimed that Biden couldn't carry young voters. Also the Enthusiasms Gap!

More than 6 in 10 college-age Americans approve of President Biden’s job as president thus far, according to a new youth poll from the Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School, representing the highest figure for any president in the history of the survey.

Overall, 59 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds approve of Biden’s job as president, with 65 percent approving of his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and 57 percent of his handling of race relations specifically, according to the poll released on Friday.


Also, will the Biden policy of Free school Lunches gut the next generation of Libertarian Bros?

Because Free Lunches are a real thing now.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So prepare to see more and more shit SCOTUS judgements coming down that go against what the majority of the country wants all because the democrats are weaklings who allows Republicans to do whatever they wanted, and then don't care to rectify the issue in any manner.

Ah yes, it's all the Democrats fault that the checks and balances of government tie their hands on so much, and it's the Democrats fault that the GOP are awful people. Yes. All Democrats, all the fault, all the time. Democrats bad!

[Kaleredar]

Ah yes, it's all the Democrats fault that the checks and balances of government tie their hands on so much, and it's the Democrats fault that the GOP are awful people. Yes. All Democrats, all the fault, all the time. Democrats bad!

Well clearly the democrats just don't want it enough! Obviously If they have the numbers to do it without being filibustered (which they don't) to pass the through the senate, they should go ahead and do it. If they don't do that, they're being lazy and are not actually committed to governance or progressive ideals.

...So, clearly, the democrats should obviously just take control of the senate with a simple majority by dissolving the filibuster. If they don't do that, they're being lazy and are not actually committed to governance or progressive ideals.

...So, clearly, If they don't have the numbers required to do that (which they don't) they should obviously just pressure the non-acquiescent democrats more to change their minds to get the numbers they require. If they don't do that, they're being lazy and are not actually committed to governance or progressive ideals.

...So, clearly, if the democrats that wont acquiesce aren't moved by that (which they aren't) then they should obviously just explain to them that certain polls in certain areas about certain progressive ideals poll well among certain demographics, and that they'd be greatly increasing their chances of subsequent political victory because obviously polling data translates directly into their political chances 1:1 and with no additional or extemporaneous considerations required and those reticent democrats will see the light and go along with them. If they don't do that, they're being lazy and are not actually committed to governance or progressive ideals.


It'd be that simple! Why aren't the democrats doing that?!

[Themius]

When asked about whether to even try they outright say no... if you start from a position of "we won't do anything about this" how does the future progress?

[Belize]

When asked about whether to even try they outright say no... if you start from a position of "we won't do anything about this" how does the future progress?

Because you're starting from a position of progress needs to be immediate, instead of incremental.

[Benggaul]

When asked about whether to even try they outright say no... if you start from a position of "we won't do anything about this" how does the future progress?

I'm just spitballing here, but maybe they know a bit more about it than you do, know it has no chance of being passed (it doesn't) and therefore want to focus on other things like Infrastructure (which they can still force through reconciliation) and HR1 (which they can't, but it will make the GOP look even worse when they vote against it).

While I have no real love for the Democratic Party as a whole, what they've shown me so far during this administration is that they are trying to get through as much as they can while they can despite both the GOP and fence-sitters like Manchin and Sinema. You're mistaking the outright "no" as "we have no interest" rather than "this has no chance and can only aid the GOP in the attempt". After all, it can very easily be painted as petty and unnecessary to the more centrist or conservative voters who went with Biden this term.

[Themius]

Because you're starting from a position of progress needs to be immediate, instead of incremental.

That's a fucking foolish conclusion to come to.

did you read or not?

"how does the future progress" future is not immediate you are aware right?

If you want something in the future you kind of need to start planning for how you're going to get to the outcome. If you start now (from what needs to be several years in the making) from the position of not even interested... how does that bode for the future? what "incrementalism" is there is "no"???

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just spitballing here, but maybe they know a bit more about it than you do, know it has no chance of being passed (it doesn't) and therefore want to focus on other things like Infrastructure (which they can still force through reconciliation) and HR1 (which they can't, but it will make the GOP look even worse when they vote against it).

While I have no real love for the Democratic Party as a whole, what they've shown me so far during this administration is that they are trying to get through as much as they can while they can despite both the GOP and fence-sitters like Manchin and Sinema. You're mistaking the outright "no" as "we have no interest" rather than "this has no chance and can only aid the GOP in the attempt". After all, it can very easily be painted as petty and unnecessary to the more centrist or conservative voters who went with Biden this term.

Oh cut the bullshit.

"maybe they know a bit more than you do" oh is that the case? You'd have to first believe they actually want to change things deeply is that the assumption you're working from?

They have outright said "this has no chance and can aid gop" before however that's not what the point is now... when a rather large number of democrats are taking the stance of "the sanctity" nonsense.

[Benggaul]

Oh cut the bullshit.

"maybe they know a bit more than you do" oh is that the case? You'd have to first believe they actually want to change things deeply is that the assumption you're working from?

They have outright said "this has no chance and can aid gop" before however that's not what the point is now... when a rather large number of democrats are taking the stance of "the sanctity" nonsense.

*yaawwwwwn* Always being one step away from "OMG DEMONRATS" in just about every post you make here doesn't really make anyone want to take you seriously. If you ever decide to rejoin reality I'll be happy to discuss things with you again, sport. Toodles.

[Themius]

*yaawwwwwn* Always being one step away from "OMG DEMONRATS" in just about every post you make here doesn't really make anyone want to take you seriously. If you ever decide to rejoin reality I'll be happy to discuss things with you again, sport. Toodles.

So you scuttle off without an actual rebuttal to the very real question of whether you believe they actually deeply care to make changes, that's the fucking bore.

Fuck the decorum bullshit "oh no you said things harshly so ima ignore the point" is playing at folly.

There are very real issues that plague the party and bringing them up is not "omg democrats" well are there issues or are there not issues? If the issues are plaguing democrats why the fuck do you've an issue with me saying it?

Seems to me a lot of people that were very critical of democrats now want to treat criticism against them with fucking kids gloves because now they've a trifecta.

Any person who believe that democrats by and large deeply care to increase minimum wage... or pass anti-corruptiopn laws, or raise taxes to a reasonable level in my mind is playing a game where they're asking to be made a fool of. Too many of them do not seem very sincere at all on their positions yet you are treating them as if they are.

You should begin from the stance of "is this something they truly care about and want or not?"

[Edge-]

Seems to me a lot of people that were very critical of democrats now want to treat criticism against them with fucking kids gloves because now they've a trifecta.

Not really, plenty of us remain critical. Just like, reasonable and sensible. Because we also understand like, the courts aren't designed to rule by popular opinion. Otherwise we wouldn't have courts and we'd just like, have county/state/national polls where everyone gets to weigh in on an issue regardless of what the law actually says.