The Swamp

A_B wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:00 pm

sancarlos wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:53 pm Mr. D (and JoeK to a degree) - honest question. You've done a good job of pointing out the weaknesses of Biden, the man, and the candidate. What would you have the Democratic party do at this point in time, regarding their presumptive candidate for president?

Oh please do tell. I’d love to know this too. Because this thread has been a damn mess for a long while.

DINGDINGDINGDING

winner

2.5

Probably like a 2 but the Biden Adminstration could be a 7? The other likely Democratic candidates right now are a <null>, if that's the next question.

Well off white guys saying there's a marginal difference between Biden and Trump.

Chef's kiss.

Privilege isn't just a river in Egypt.

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:14 am Lets put McConnell at -10, Romney at zero and Sanders at 10. What number is Biden at?

I think it has to depend on the issue. But generally, if McConnell and Sanders are both tens, then Romney is -5 and Biden is +5.

That economic inequality and unchecked corporate power the Bernie folks tend to focus on? Romney is 100% in favor of it.

A Biden administration with Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of the Treasury tasked with reigning in Wall Street could easily be an 8 before we hear almost anything else about other appointments.

I'm encouraged by even more progressives winning primaries this year. Excitement surrounding voting for Biden (or voting against Trump) will help those down ballot. It doesn't help when Biden does move left (after securing the nomination) that people just scoff instead of cheering. That's probably part of what leads to great skepticism (along with continuing to point out Biden flaws that are minuscule next to comparable Trump flaws) that some of you actually want Biden to win...or at the very least think he's not much different than Trump.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:27 am Well off white guys saying there's a marginal difference between Biden and Trump.

Chef's kiss.

Privilege isn't just a river in Egypt.

Not for nothing, but establishment Democrats also own a huge chunk of privilege because a lot of them are multimillionaires who would love to see their status quo maintained. They don't want anything progressive within their ranks. And that's just a fact. I hate their hubris of "We're shit. We know we're shit, but look at the alternative." It sucks.

But I'd vote for a literal flaming bag of dogshit instead of Trump and the Democrats are going "Manchester." So here I am. They win my vote this time because of just how awful Trump is. I'd wear an outbreak suit and crawl through broken glass to vote for Biden but luckily I can just do it by mail.

All I literally want from Biden at the very least is for the entirety of the Trump Crime family to be investigated. I'm hoping he unleashes the SDNY on those mother fuckers.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:55 am

All I literally want from Biden at the very least is for the entirety of the Trump Crime family to be investigated. I'm hoping he unleashes the SDNY on those mother fuckers.

And I feel like Biden is the least likely of any of the 20 or so Dems who ran to do this. Biden will protect the 2 party system and try to work with the GOP in a way they would never work with any Dems. I think Biden will try to move on from the past and let the GOP Senate enablers off the hook and act like the past 4 years never happened. I may be wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but I am confident Biden would do less than any other candidate to hold Trump and the GOP responsible if he wins.

If Biden becomes president and absolves Trump and his family from all the wrongs of the last 4 years, then fuck this country. I'll just go back to not voting and being blamed for everything again.

What if he absolves Trump and his family from all the wrongs of the last 4 years and also implements policies that help "fix" education and the economy and civil rights and criminal justice and the environment...?

If Biden is running a truly independent Justice Department he won't get a say on if SDNY or the FBI or whomever goes after Trump and his crime family.

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:46 am I'm encouraged by even more progressives winning primaries this year. Excitement surrounding voting for Biden (or voting against Trump) will help those down ballot. It doesn't help when Biden does move left (after securing the nomination) that people just scoff instead of cheering. That's probably part of what leads to great skepticism (along with continuing to point out Biden flaws that are minuscule next to comparable Trump flaws) that some of you actually want Biden to win...or at the very least think he's not much different than Trump.

It didn't in Kentucky last year.

All he has to say is "it's a bad look for an incoming president to investigate the previous president as was shown by President Trump's numerous abuses of power to try and find wrongdoing by my administration with President Obama. However, I am appointing an independent counsel to investigate many serious alleged violations of the Constitution by the previous administration and will abide by whatever the independent counsel's office decides. This is the last time I will comment on President Trump and possible wrongdoing."

Then get to fucking work fixing shit.

Ryan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:20 am Probably like a 2 but the Biden Adminstration could be a 7? The other likely Democratic candidates right now are a <null>, if that's the next question.

This is about where I land without any belief in the second part. Pelosi’s vision seems infinitely more likely than anything approaching Sanders.

Also, this is why actual inspiring candidates matter versus an expectation the public must comply with “Blue No Matter Who”:

If Trump is absolved from the previous 4 years of criminal activity, that would be atrocious. And it really depends upon the level of how his administration corrects the ship for me to determine if not going after Trump was worth anything in the first place. He'd probably just be a placeholder until the next Republican gets in and continues the chaos.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:55 amNot for nothing, but establishment Democrats also own a huge chunk of privilege because a lot of them are multimillionaires who would love to see their status quo maintained. They don't want anything progressive within their ranks. And that's just a fact. I hate their hubris of "We're shit. We know we're shit, but look at the alternative." It sucks.

Yes, most of them are rich. But they passed a massive tax increase on the rich in 2010 in order to fund health care for the poor and middle class. This was the largest expansion of the welfare state in decades and made health care accessible to millions of people.

Then raised taxes again in 2013.

In between they passed a banking regulation act that the right wing is still trying to get repealed, and created a whole new agency to protect consumers from abuses committed by banks and credit card companies.

They also expanded and protected abortion rights and gay rights. Used the DOJ Civil Rights Division to bring lawsuits against abusive police departments. Created DACA. Strengthened environmental protection, including a large regulatory expansion of the applicability of the Clean Water Act.

But yeah, outside of that they don't want anything progressive within their ranks.

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:47 am

Ryan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:20 am Probably like a 2 but the Biden Adminstration could be a 7? The other likely Democratic candidates right now are a <null>, if that's the next question.

This is about where I land without any belief in the second part. Pelosi’s vision seems infinitely more likely than anything approaching Sanders.

Also, this is why actual inspiring candidates matter versus an expectation the public must comply with “Blue No Matter Who”:

Aren't Democratic primaries shattering records all over the place?

And right now -- in 2020 -- they are actively working against progressive platforms.

And not for nothing, you've been to San Francisco, right? Ever seen the Tenderloin District and its sprawling array of homeless people? That's Pelosi's district. The optics are awful when you have a rep worth 9 figures and homelessness is rampant.

So sure. They passed much better bills than Republicans, but they don't seem to want to attack something like that.

A US Congressperson has literally almost zero control over homelessness in their district. Maybe they can get some pork funds earmarked for one project or another, but that's about it. You might as well agree with Trump that Cummings district in Baltimore is (was) a rat infested hellhole.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:13 pmAnd right now -- in 2020 -- they are actively working against progressive platforms.

Dude, what the ever loving fuck.

Is Biden "actively working against" abortion rights? Equal Pay? DACA? Refugee admissions? Civil rights enforcement? The Voting Rights Act? Environmental protection? Gay marriage? Trans rights? Gay and trans employment rights?

No, Biden and most establishment Democrats (like most people in the US) are not supporting democratic socialist economic policies. But the only way to equate that with "progressive" is to completely ignore all those other issues and the millions of people they affect.

And even if we are talking about economic policies, Biden is running on the most progressive policy platform of any major party presidential candidate in US history. His health care proposal alone would benefit millions - and pay for it by raising capital gains taxes paid by the right.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Well in that case, according to Wiki, every mayor going back to 1978 with Dianne Feinstein (and maybe previously, but I stopped there) are all Democratic mayors. And the mayor of that city currently makes $300k a year. Maybe it's cost of living, but still.

Not a good look. You mean to tell me there's nothing that can be done to assist here?

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:26 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:13 pmAnd right now -- in 2020 -- they are actively working against progressive platforms.

Dude, what the ever loving fuck.

Is Biden "actively working against" abortion rights? Equal Pay? DACA? Refugee admissions? Civil rights enforcement? The Voting Rights Act? Environmental protection? Gay marriage? Trans rights? Gay and trans employment rights?

No, Biden and most establishment Democrats (like most people in the US) are not supporting democratic socialist economic policies. But the only way to equate that with "progressive" is to completely ignore all those other issues and the millions of people they affect.

And even if we are talking about economic policies, Biden is running on the most progressive policy platform of any major party presidential candidate in US history. His health care proposal alone would benefit millions - and pay for it by raising capital gains taxes paid by the right.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Establishment. Democrats.

Not Biden specifically.

The establishment hates that AOC exists and the folks she's endorsing.

But I should have said candidates and not necessarily platforms. But in all reality, when you're competition is the Republicans, nearly everything looks progressive.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:26 pm Well in that case, according to Wiki, every mayor going back to 1978 with Dianne Feinstein (and maybe previously, but I stopped there) are all Democratic mayors. And the mayor of that city currently makes $300k a year. Maybe it's cost of living, but still.

Not a good look. You mean to tell me there's nothing that can be done to assist here?

The fundamental problem there is NIMBYism. The spoiled rich "progressive" people in San Francisco do not want any more housing to be built anywhere near them,i.e., anywhere near the City.

About the only thing that can be done is for the state government to pass a law that limits the use of building and zoning laws to stop construction of apartments.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:26 pm Well in that case, according to Wiki, every mayor going back to 1978 with Dianne Feinstein (and maybe previously, but I stopped there) are all Democratic mayors. And the mayor of that city currently makes $300k a year. Maybe it's cost of living, but still.

Not a good look. You mean to tell me there's nothing that can be done to assist here?

Some cities are just always going to have a bigger homeless problem merely because it's easier to be homeless there. You can't be homeless in fucking Nome or Death Valley.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:30 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:26 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:13 pmAnd right now -- in 2020 -- they are actively working against progressive platforms.

Dude, what the ever loving fuck.

Is Biden "actively working against" abortion rights? Equal Pay? DACA? Refugee admissions? Civil rights enforcement? The Voting Rights Act? Environmental protection? Gay marriage? Trans rights? Gay and trans employment rights?

No, Biden and most establishment Democrats (like most people in the US) are not supporting democratic socialist economic policies. But the only way to equate that with "progressive" is to completely ignore all those other issues and the millions of people they affect.

And even if we are talking about economic policies, Biden is running on the most progressive policy platform of any major party presidential candidate in US history. His health care proposal alone would benefit millions - and pay for it by raising capital gains taxes paid by the right.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Establishment. Democrats.

Not Biden specifically.

The establishment hates that AOC exists and the folks she's endorsing.

But I should have said candidates and not necessarily platforms. But in all reality, when you're competition is the Republicans, nearly everything looks progressive.

Your error isn't in saying platforms instead of candidates.

It's using the word "progressive" to mean "democratic socialist economic policies" and completely disregard the issues that affect millions of women, minorities, gays, immigrants, refugees, etc. The practical differences between Democratic and Republican policies on these people's lives completely dwarfs the practical difference between Democratic economic policies and Democratic Socialist economic policies.

brian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:33 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:26 pm Well in that case, according to Wiki, every mayor going back to 1978 with Dianne Feinstein (and maybe previously, but I stopped there) are all Democratic mayors. And the mayor of that city currently makes $300k a year. Maybe it's cost of living, but still.

Not a good look. You mean to tell me there's nothing that can be done to assist here?

Some cities are just always going to have a bigger homeless problem merely because it's easier to be homeless there. You can't be homeless in fucking Nome or Death Valley.

Well, not for long enough to be a problem, anyway.

Steve, is it possible that what you internally consider to be progressive isn’t in line with actual definitional progressive policy?

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:13 pm Steve, is it possible that what you internally consider to be progressive isn’t in line with actual definitional progressive policy?

Is there a definition of progressive that excludes abortion rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, minority rights, refugee rights, immigrant rights, environmental protection, and a massive tax-the-rich-to-provide-health-care-to-millions-of-poor-and-middle-class program?

There’s certainly a definition of progressive that doesn’t encompass allowing more people to buy insurance while still leaving others completely uninsured and millions who are insured unable to use unless in an emergency due to cost. You’re conflating better than Reagan with actual progressive policy.

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:52 pm There’s certainly a definition of progressive that doesn’t encompass allowing more people to buy insurance while still leaving others completely uninsured and millions who are insured unable to use unless in an emergency due to cost. You’re conflating better than Reagan with actual progressive policy.

So a candidate's position and policies on abortion, equal pay, LGBTQ rights, minority rights, refugee rights, immigrant rights, environmental protection are not relevant in determining whether someone is progressive? Or the fact that they were involved in the greatest expansion of the welfare state in half a century?

Anyway, didn't you suggest once that there could be questions about Elizabeth Warren's progressive bona fides? I'm thinking that if someone is misunderstanding what progressive means, it's you.

I assure you it’s not. Someone who “lives and breathes capitalism” or whatever her quote was isn’t progressive. You can be progressive on some issues, which is more or less the best we’ve done to date, but you can’t look at her and then actual far left policies and think “these are basically the same”.

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:29 pm I assure you it’s not. Someone who “lives and breathes capitalism” or whatever her quote was isn’t progressive. You can be progressive on some issues, which is more or less the best we’ve done to date, but you can’t look at her and then actual far left policies and think “these are basically the same”.

Since when does progressive mean "far left" (and again, only on economic issues with no regard for anything else)?

I think that's the problem - if you're saying that progressive and capitalist cannot overlap, then aren't you even going beyond democratic socialist? Has Bernie Sanders pledged to eliminate capitalism somewhere?

I mean, I guess we can all define words however we want, but I have never heard progressive being defined the way you think it's defined.

You keep making the “on economic policies” distinction but it’s not valid here. Left-center, liberal, whatever Hillary/Biden types are all in agreement (now) on social issues so there’s no need to debate. They aren’t left of progressives on anything there, they just don’t fight it like they do economic issues, which is why I’m harping on that. If you view health care through a lens of balancing industry needs and the public’s needs, you aren’t progressive. If you are “capitalist to (your) bones”, you aren’t progressive, even if you’re left of a good majority of your elected party. If more elections go the AOC / Omar direction, you’ll see Warren types stop being near the outer edge even if they don’t change a thing.

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:24 pm You keep making the “on economic policies” distinction but it’s not valid here. Left-center, liberal, whatever Hillary/Biden types are all in agreement (now) on social issues so there’s no need to debate. They aren’t left of progressives on anything there, they just don’t fight it like they do economic issues, which is why I’m harping on that. If you view health care through a lens of balancing industry needs and the public’s needs, you aren’t progressive. If you are “capitalist to (your) bones”, you aren’t progressive, even if you’re left of a good majority of your elected party. If more elections go the AOC / Omar direction, you’ll see Warren types stop being near the outer edge even if they don’t change a thing.

Hm. I guess I understand what you're saying.

I still think ignoring social issues because everyone on the left agrees with each other leads to a warped perspective. You're basically ignoring the range of opinion of the country as a whole in favor of the range of opinion of people on the left end of the spectrum.

But anyway, if you don't think the word "progressive" is the right one, what term would you use to describe positions on these social issues that are the polar opposite from what Republicans/conservatives advocate? If "trans folks should be allowed to serve in the military" isn't a progressive position, what is it?

That’s a progressive stance, but the “social liberal, fiscal conservative” has been getting those right earlier and earlier for decades now. Just getting the social stuff right can’t define someone given how much economic decisions directly determine social progress.

For example, you could fully support legislation recognizing fully equal rights for LGBTQ, including military service for transgender people, but if reassignment procedures are still economically prohibitive and you’ve decided M4A isn’t realistic, how much are you really helping?

brian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:42 am All he has to say is "it's a bad look for an incoming president to investigate the previous president as was shown by President Trump's numerous abuses of power to try and find wrongdoing by my administration with President Obama. However, I am appointing an independent counsel to investigate many serious alleged violations of the Constitution by the previous administration and will abide by whatever the independent counsel's office decides. This is the last time I will comment on President Trump and possible wrongdoing."

Then get to fucking work fixing shit.

Can this go in some golden suggestion box somewhere?

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:26 pm Biden is running on the most progressive policy platform of any major party presidential candidate in US history.

Not to be a prick, but without optics sure, but previous candidates didn't have the history to stand on. I'd put both Roosevelts ahead of Biden,

I found this amusing. Vote for Green!