politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I keep seeing this but I'm not sure what you all want ..
Dude is ticking a ton of boxes. Sure we're not living in a socialist utopia with universal basic income, etc but it's been 3 years
Edit: with a republican congress no less
They don't like Joe Biden because he doesn't pick losing fights on principle, in general, and because they don't want to admit that the primary process on the left actually does select for the strongest candidates.
I get it. I feel the same way at least emotionally. But $1.3 trillion dollars towards climate change and what is almost certainly the most important climate bill ever passed in the world so far is really hard to argue with.
I would like him to stand up and advocate for court reform. We need to strike while the iron is hot and people are seeing the Supreme Court for the corrupt political institution it always has been. He's backed down with very little fight on a couple of the things they've pulled lately when the Trump Administration would have just kept hammering on passing the exact same laws with tiny changes until they accept it. For example, the opinion on that student loan relief case made this incredibly idiotic argument about how the HEROES Act doesn't give permission for partial waivers because it only allows a modification or a full waiver and the partial waiver apparently doesn't count as either of those. I think you should have just come back and said well all right then, full waiver and total jubilee. That probably would also have been struck down but it would have really shown how vapid and hypocritical the court was.
The word neoliberal has basically lost most meaning. But everything they accuse Joe Biden of being are things that describe Joe Manchin. The guy who singularly keeps killing Progressive legislation put forward by the Biden administration.
Does it tho?
The 2016 general election was a contest between candidates with historically low favorables It took just 27.2% of eligible voters (in the right places) to put Trump in the White House Clinton underperformed Obama, while Trump over-performed Romney
If 'Did not vote' had been a candidate in the 2016 general, it would have won in a landslide https://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/
If "did not vote" were a candidate in ANY modern US election it would win. The 2016 and 2020 elections both had historically high turnouts.
What is your counterfactual? Would Bernie have been able to get more votes than Biden, then follow it up by passing as much impactful legislation (e.g., the IRA) as Biden did? We can't really know, but I am extraordinarily confident the answer is 'no'. He'd be labeled a full commie by the likes of every GOP + Manchin/Sinema and fully blocked from doing anything, even appointing cabinet members.
2016's turnout was 55% of eligible voters. That's not historically high. Clinton underperformed Obama in total votes received.
2020's turnout was historically high- it's tough to say whether that was all anti-Trump energy (in which a ham sandwich with a (D) next to its name could have won, or if it was all pro-Biden energy that no other Democrat could have received (but TBH, I kinda suspect it's more the former than the latter)
Probably not, given that centrists seem to prefer kneecapping progressives to supporting them.
As for things we "can't really know", we do know 100% that Clinton didn't win in 2016, and that resulted in flipping SCOTUS rightward for a generation, the overturn of Roe, it meant that we'd have the pandemic under leadership that just wanted people to pretend it wasn't there and sacrifice themselves for the economy, it was a terrible shit-show and the biggest thing we all got was ballooning debt so the billionaires could get their tax cuts and American foreign policy experienced setbacks from which it may never recover.
So was Biden. So was Obama. So was FDR. So was Kennedy. So was LBJ. They've called every Democrat to the left of Hoover a communist since Woodrow Wilson's administration. This "oh no, we have to nominate people that republicans will accept or they'll call us names" nonsense is quite possibly the worst sort of preemptive-surrender politics imaginable and I imagine it has something to do with why young people don't vote
Counterfactuals. You can't ignore counterfactuals.
The counterfactual to Biden is even less successful progressivism than we got. You yourself agreed with this and it is the most salient point.
You can and should demand more. You can and should advocate for change far beyond this. But my original points stand. By the time we reached the general election, Biden had proven he was the candidate to vote for to cause the most positive change possible. There was not a better way to spend your vote.
That's all well and nice, but it wasn't republicans holding up far more aggressive and progressive legislation. It was Sinema, Manchin, and the other "centrists" who at least are smart enough to see the GOP for the totally evil lunatics they are, even if their politics really isn't much better.
Young people getting out and voting is WHY Biden won. He didn't win in spite of them.
Yes, young people showing up tipped it that way. It worked out better for Biden than it did for Clinton and I'm really glad about that.
But did they show up because Biden earned their vote, or because a ham sandwich vs. Trump would have got their vote?
Certainly in the general he was vastly preferable to Trump, but was he really a better choice in the primary than, say, Sanders or Warren or Buttigieg? I see a lot of confident assertions and untestable claims about that, but I suspect we'd all do well to consider the Democratic primaries as first and foremost a money contest, as secondly a process by which the money people signal to the voters which candidates they will support or tolerate- and in which whoever designates "the candidates that can win" has leverage to get voters to give up on what they might really want in order to get someone who "can win". In other words, are the primaries really a way of getting to know the will of the people, or are they a means of pressuring a critical mass of people to vote a way the donors will accept and then presenting that as the genuine will of the people?
There's a certain begging-of-the-question involved when we use confident claims about who "can win" to influence the way people vote. After all,
I'm not really sure what to say.
To me, the best evidence of a candidate's ability to get the most votes is their ability to get the most votes. And their ability to get the most votes from voters seems to be pretty damn predictive of their ability to get the most votes from members of congress.
I mean, I personally voted for Buttigieg and would've personally preferred Sanders or Warren. But I am also genuinely surprised at how much positive legislation Biden has gotten passed, especially the IRA, and am pretty dubious anyone else could've built that much consensus to do the same. Not to mention that I'm pretty disappointed in Buttigieg's lack of massive change in the DOT so far, as much as I know it is an ultra-conservative and hard to change department..
The rest of your complaint here is just that you don't like the way US politics works. Yeah, join the club. National popular vote and more ranked choice voting is probably the best first step to reform, but even they have serious drawbacks.
this seems to imply that the democrat party is left, but it is not.
He's also yet to declassify weed even though he carrot on a sticked it leading into the general and then again before primaries. He could do it any time and has not.
If Biden were to make any such change to Marijuana scheduling by executive order, the next president would just undo it the same way. Worse still, the GOP would use such a move as a talking point that Biden is soft on crime and trying to get their kids on drugs, which the GOP base would eat up.
In fact, though, the Biden administration actually is making progress on this front. Some time ago, they requested that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study whether or not Marijuana should be rescheduled. Just a few days ago, HHS sent their recommendation to the DEA to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug. The DEA has sole authority on drug scheduling.
So then whats the next step after this recommendation?
Demand everyone be satisfied with it and coast on it for at least 15 years.
Good point, forgot that. At least the states (the good ones) have taken on that mantle
They love dangling that carrot stick before elections. Only for it to ripped right back election day and tucked away for the next election
living wage would be cool
Tell it to the Midwestern white women.
The men, too, but let's be real they're a lost cause unless Hell freezes over and the Dems nominate someone with a gun collection.
these are the lowest fucking bars imaginable
try the following:
in regards to ticking boxes, if someone ticks every single box I've outlined here, I'll think about calling them a centrist instead of a rightist
I mean... Yes? I agree with you 100%
But who was ever going to achieve this? I voted for bernie in the primary in 2016 but he was never ever going to make it, and he knew it too. But because of him, progressive ideas remain in the public discourse, to the point where Biden incorporates many of those ideas in his campaign still
Biden inherited a republican led senate and now a republican led house. If he tried more, you'd all be crowing about how he's just screaming into the void and pointing out how much more he is failing to achieve. Let's take the wins as easy as they may be, pray to all the gods that ever existed we're not living with the alternative, and not let perfect be the enemy of good
Sounds like you could be on the verge of a breakthrough.
this just hurts to read friend, please, want better for yourself. We deserve more. Don't settle for the pathetic Biden offering, you and I deserve so much more than these crumbs.
Ok, I agree, we do!
I'm curious... Can you sketch a realistic road map for me where we exist in 2023 with more than crumbs? I'm genuinely interested
The future is wide open but I'd say we're doing the best we can possibly hope for given the last 8 years.
The collapse of the US empire is the best you can hope for.
Aren’t you satisfied by the reduced price of ten drugs????
I don't think you're giving it enough credit. Those are in fact very important drugs that many seniors take. It will save seniors and the government billions of dollars that can be spent elsewhere or reduce the deficit. It stretches fixed income further than before. Is it going to fix everything? No, but it's a great step in the right direction.
Of course it’s great that the prices for these drugs are reduced. But I’m not satisfied with reduction of drug prices. I’ll be satisfied when there’s actual headway on making all healthcare accessible and guaranteed to all people as a basic human right. Until then I will continue to be a fucking prick about reduced drug prices.
I guess it's the difference between progressive change and radical change. I'm satisfied seeing progressive change more often. But keep fighting for your end goal.
Oh my God you are telling me Biden is going to do something that directly helps pretty much only the older generations in America?
Wow that doesn't sound like him at all and really shows that he's come around on being what truly can be called progressive
Really simple. Pay close attention.
Now as for some of your points.
"Dude is ticking a ton of boxes. Sure we’re not living in a socialist utopia with universal basic income, etc but it’s been 3 years"
He also ticks a lot of boxes that makes him a glorified 80s republican. All of the stuff I mentioned requires no act of congress and he has more than enough political capital to do. And even if he did all of this, he still wouldn't be all that progressive. I really wish you neoliberal would stop with this nonsense.
Spot on.
I wasn't a fan of how Biden quashed the railroad strike, and his response to the Maui wildfire was lackluster.
I want someone who fights like hell for my interests, not a goddamn third way triangulator.
No more hugs.
On just one of those, because imo climate is the biggest problem right now, I think there is tons more he needs to do. We are to the point where a climate emergency needs to be instated and drastic measures need to be taken. Im talking no oversight emergencies power and regulations to industry.
We all work in different industries and could run off tons of idea per industry that could reduce emissions. Heres what could be done for tech, for example.
Mandated long 10 year support cycles on consumer goods, reparability, phasing into RISC based architectures to reduce energy consumption with a governmentally backed x86 compatibility layer funded by tax dollars to insure compatibility.
Reduce server loads by banning digital ads and tracking protocols, as well as creating site standards that reduce bloat.
Heck, incentives for work from home would drastically cut our vehicle emissions.
Im sure we all could do what I did for every single industry with even greater depth. We need a no oversight emergency commision to do just that and insights it.
This man has made his career out of destroying the lives of poor minorities. He's a mass murdering mysoginist white supremacist to the bone. Fucking yank politics is a shitshow.