|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 14 2022 13:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Filibuster reform being shot in the head by Sinema is good news for student loan forgiveness. Biden’s agenda is essentially dead. So he’s left with nothing but executive orders right? There’s no more budget reconciliation right?
I would hope that the SC would shoot down any attempt by Biden to cancel student loans. After all, if Congress gave the executive branch the authority to issue loans, but did not explicitly grant the executive the authority to cancel those loans, what is the argument that the president has the power to cancel them? Of course there is the issue of standing - a case could only get to the SC if someone was "injured" by Biden's decision to cancel student loans.
|
On January 14 2022 13:10 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2022 12:56 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2022 12:46 gobbledydook wrote:On January 13 2022 13:30 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2022 12:40 gobbledydook wrote:
I think a key question is how much support should there be for a policy before it should be passed into law?
If 50.1% support and 49.9% reject a proposed policy, should it pass?
Yes? Obviously? Rejecting is a policy, just as much as approving. The options are the old policy and the new policy, and the new policy is more popular. If next month some people start to have second thoughts and now it's 49.9% support and 50.1% reject do you go and repeal it? I hope you understand where I'm going with this. It costs resources to implement change. So, if you are going to make a change, you had better be sure that it won't be reversed too easily or you just end up wasting resources. Implementing public policy is not a waste of resources, it is the intended purpose of those resources. The resources were collected with the express purpose of being used for public policy. It would be more wasteful to collect them and use them for something not supported by the public. Implementing public policy is of course not a waste of public resources. Implementing it and canceling it two months later because public opinion shifted slightly is a waste of public resources.
The filibuster is a very odd thing but I agree that its abolishment would probably result in frequent and radical changes in policy that would not be a good thing. It might not be so bad to have an "undemocratic" upper chamber.
|
On January 14 2022 13:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2022 13:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Filibuster reform being shot in the head by Sinema is good news for student loan forgiveness. Biden’s agenda is essentially dead. So he’s left with nothing but executive orders right? There’s no more budget reconciliation right? I would hope that the SC would shoot down any attempt by Biden to cancel student loans. After all, if Congress gave the executive branch the authority to issue loans, but did not explicitly grant the executive the authority to cancel those loans, what is the argument that the president has the power to cancel them? Of course there is the issue of standing - a case could only get to the SC if someone was "injured" by Biden's decision to cancel student loans.
Biden can likely do all sorts of things with student loans through the department of education. These are loans to the government, serviced through various entities. Its not like he's pulling money out of Wells Fargo or something. He can likely instruct the education secretary to do all sorts of things like wiping out interest, reducing interest to 0.5% or lots of other things. And setting aside your whininess about forgiveness, Biden needs something to not have 2022 be a bloodbath.
If Trump can divert military spending to the border wall, Biden can contrive other similar justifications for doing various things to student loans.
Can you elaborate on what you think the supreme court would do to intervene? Who are you saying is incurring damages and why in the world is the supreme court the one to intervene?
|
On January 14 2022 13:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Filibuster reform being shot in the head by Sinema is good news for student loan forgiveness. Biden’s agenda is essentially dead. So he’s left with nothing but executive orders right? There’s no more budget reconciliation right?
Yep legislating is now done until 2025 look forward to a government shutdown in 2023
|
On January 14 2022 14:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2022 13:10 gobbledydook wrote:On January 14 2022 12:56 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2022 12:46 gobbledydook wrote:On January 13 2022 13:30 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2022 12:40 gobbledydook wrote:
I think a key question is how much support should there be for a policy before it should be passed into law?
If 50.1% support and 49.9% reject a proposed policy, should it pass?
Yes? Obviously? Rejecting is a policy, just as much as approving. The options are the old policy and the new policy, and the new policy is more popular. If next month some people start to have second thoughts and now it's 49.9% support and 50.1% reject do you go and repeal it? I hope you understand where I'm going with this. It costs resources to implement change. So, if you are going to make a change, you had better be sure that it won't be reversed too easily or you just end up wasting resources. Implementing public policy is not a waste of resources, it is the intended purpose of those resources. The resources were collected with the express purpose of being used for public policy. It would be more wasteful to collect them and use them for something not supported by the public. Implementing public policy is of course not a waste of public resources. Implementing it and canceling it two months later because public opinion shifted slightly is a waste of public resources. The filibuster is a very odd thing but I agree that its abolishment would probably result in frequent and radical changes in policy that would not be a good thing. It might not be so bad to have an "undemocratic" upper chamber.
The current state of play in congress is having one side not wanting anything to happen that they don't immediately benefit from and to inflict as much damage onto the country as possible until they control the executive.
By "undemocratic" you are referring to the fact that it is not population based yes? By that measure we are going to be looking at a very undemocratic government in 3 years. I don't know if this country can survive having a government viewed as illegitimate on the basis of the controlling party having less and less of the majority of votes cast. Trump at no point had the support of a majority of the nation, if he is able to regain power and control all the various legs of the governmental stool without a majority of the voting bloc of the country I genuinely fear for our nations future. Christ in heaven the GOP has shown that they won't seat a supreme court appointee that they don't chose. If nothing changes and trump gets into power, as he will if nothing changes, he will be able to have a generational supermajority on the supreme court and control of the entire government without the support of the majority of the nation. Congress hasn't been decided on population lines even remotely for a decade now. The legitimacy of national institutions will be lost and the ones in power will have no reason to hear the calls for reform to this illegitimacy.
|
On January 14 2022 13:10 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2022 12:56 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2022 12:46 gobbledydook wrote:On January 13 2022 13:30 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2022 12:40 gobbledydook wrote:
I think a key question is how much support should there be for a policy before it should be passed into law?
If 50.1% support and 49.9% reject a proposed policy, should it pass?
Yes? Obviously? Rejecting is a policy, just as much as approving. The options are the old policy and the new policy, and the new policy is more popular. If next month some people start to have second thoughts and now it's 49.9% support and 50.1% reject do you go and repeal it? I hope you understand where I'm going with this. It costs resources to implement change. So, if you are going to make a change, you had better be sure that it won't be reversed too easily or you just end up wasting resources. Implementing public policy is not a waste of resources, it is the intended purpose of those resources. The resources were collected with the express purpose of being used for public policy. It would be more wasteful to collect them and use them for something not supported by the public. Implementing public policy is of course not a waste of public resources. Implementing it and canceling it two months later because public opinion shifted slightly is a waste of public resources.
What? "Change" and "restructuring" for the sake of it wrapped in catchy words is a very common political tool all over the spectrum. Even Brexit falls into this category. It is a lot easier to find failures wasting public money than successes.
|
On January 14 2022 13:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2022 13:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Filibuster reform being shot in the head by Sinema is good news for student loan forgiveness. Biden’s agenda is essentially dead. So he’s left with nothing but executive orders right? There’s no more budget reconciliation right? I would hope that the SC would shoot down any attempt by Biden to cancel student loans. After all, if Congress gave the executive branch the authority to issue loans, but did not explicitly grant the executive the authority to cancel those loans, what is the argument that the president has the power to cancel them? Of course there is the issue of standing - a case could only get to the SC if someone was "injured" by Biden's decision to cancel student loans. If the Executive can suspend student loans then at the very least Biden can suspend them for a time period that is effectively cancelling them without explicitly doing so.
|
On January 14 2022 14:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2022 13:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 14 2022 13:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Filibuster reform being shot in the head by Sinema is good news for student loan forgiveness. Biden’s agenda is essentially dead. So he’s left with nothing but executive orders right? There’s no more budget reconciliation right? I would hope that the SC would shoot down any attempt by Biden to cancel student loans. After all, if Congress gave the executive branch the authority to issue loans, but did not explicitly grant the executive the authority to cancel those loans, what is the argument that the president has the power to cancel them? Of course there is the issue of standing - a case could only get to the SC if someone was "injured" by Biden's decision to cancel student loans. Biden can likely do all sorts of things with student loans through the department of education. These are loans to the government, serviced through various entities. Its not like he's pulling money out of Wells Fargo or something. He can likely instruct the education secretary to do all sorts of things like wiping out interest, reducing interest to 0.5% or lots of other things. And setting aside your whininess about forgiveness, Biden needs something to not have 2022 be a bloodbath. If Trump can divert military spending to the border wall, Biden can contrive other similar justifications for doing various things to student loans. Can you elaborate on what you think the supreme court would do to intervene? Who are you saying is incurring damages and why in the world is the supreme court the one to intervene?
As for interest and things like that, yeah I don't know enough about the relevant laws to say. As for cancellation or effective cancellation (to Gorsameth's point), that would be the opposite of "faithful execution" of Congress's laws.
The SC would only take a case (appealed from the lower courts ofc) if someone had standing. That I'm not sure about but maybe people who had their loans canceled but didn't want them canceled could allege injury.
|
On January 15 2022 04:31 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2022 14:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2022 13:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 14 2022 13:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Filibuster reform being shot in the head by Sinema is good news for student loan forgiveness. Biden’s agenda is essentially dead. So he’s left with nothing but executive orders right? There’s no more budget reconciliation right? I would hope that the SC would shoot down any attempt by Biden to cancel student loans. After all, if Congress gave the executive branch the authority to issue loans, but did not explicitly grant the executive the authority to cancel those loans, what is the argument that the president has the power to cancel them? Of course there is the issue of standing - a case could only get to the SC if someone was "injured" by Biden's decision to cancel student loans. Biden can likely do all sorts of things with student loans through the department of education. These are loans to the government, serviced through various entities. Its not like he's pulling money out of Wells Fargo or something. He can likely instruct the education secretary to do all sorts of things like wiping out interest, reducing interest to 0.5% or lots of other things. And setting aside your whininess about forgiveness, Biden needs something to not have 2022 be a bloodbath. If Trump can divert military spending to the border wall, Biden can contrive other similar justifications for doing various things to student loans. Can you elaborate on what you think the supreme court would do to intervene? Who are you saying is incurring damages and why in the world is the supreme court the one to intervene? As for interest and things like that, yeah I don't know enough about the relevant laws to say. As for cancellation or effective cancellation (to Gorsameth's point), that would be the opposite of "faithful execution" of Congress's laws. The SC would only take a case (appealed from the lower courts ofc) if someone had standing. That I'm not sure about but maybe people who had their loans canceled but didn't want them canceled could allege injury.
So you’re saying you hope someone tries to convince the Supreme Court they incurred damages by having debt forgiven?
|
On January 15 2022 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2022 04:31 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 14 2022 14:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2022 13:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 14 2022 13:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Filibuster reform being shot in the head by Sinema is good news for student loan forgiveness. Biden’s agenda is essentially dead. So he’s left with nothing but executive orders right? There’s no more budget reconciliation right? I would hope that the SC would shoot down any attempt by Biden to cancel student loans. After all, if Congress gave the executive branch the authority to issue loans, but did not explicitly grant the executive the authority to cancel those loans, what is the argument that the president has the power to cancel them? Of course there is the issue of standing - a case could only get to the SC if someone was "injured" by Biden's decision to cancel student loans. Biden can likely do all sorts of things with student loans through the department of education. These are loans to the government, serviced through various entities. Its not like he's pulling money out of Wells Fargo or something. He can likely instruct the education secretary to do all sorts of things like wiping out interest, reducing interest to 0.5% or lots of other things. And setting aside your whininess about forgiveness, Biden needs something to not have 2022 be a bloodbath. If Trump can divert military spending to the border wall, Biden can contrive other similar justifications for doing various things to student loans. Can you elaborate on what you think the supreme court would do to intervene? Who are you saying is incurring damages and why in the world is the supreme court the one to intervene? As for interest and things like that, yeah I don't know enough about the relevant laws to say. As for cancellation or effective cancellation (to Gorsameth's point), that would be the opposite of "faithful execution" of Congress's laws. The SC would only take a case (appealed from the lower courts ofc) if someone had standing. That I'm not sure about but maybe people who had their loans canceled but didn't want them canceled could allege injury. So you’re saying you hope someone tries to convince the Supreme Court they incurred damages by having debt forgiven?
Might not be the craziest standing argument that has ever worked. Another possibility is the companies involved with the loans, such as loan servicers.
|
Where does Biden’s presidency go from here? I am 100% sure there are general conversations about how polling is going and what it means for upcoming elections in the White House. Biden and his team are surely aware the amount of failure combined with polling is a deal breaker and could spell disaster for midterms. And if midterms go how we all expect, what then?
In my ideal world, Biden takes a few plays out of trump’s strategies and does some creative executive power stuff with the military budget and just rules through executive orders. Modern day politics is basically just marketing and personality. People want to see Biden fight. If Biden doesn’t fight, he will be defeated by a fighter.
|
Dems are still trying to politic through decorum and that shit went out the window. They either need to just ram policies through and deal with the fallout later, or just prepare to lose the midterms and the rest a few years after. The point of trying to be nice in politics with this current crop of Rs is not going to work. They also need to find a way to get rid of Sinema and Manchin or curb their power to derail their policies. That is probably the single most important thing moving forward.
|
On January 17 2022 11:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Dems are still trying to politic through decorum and that shit went out the window. They either need to just ram policies through and deal with the fallout later, or just prepare to lose the midterms and the rest a few years after. The point of trying to be nice in politics with this current crop of Rs is not going to work. They also need to find a way to get rid of Sinema and Manchin or curb their power to derail their policies. That is probably the single most important thing moving forward.
I think we're at a point where Biden needs to be saying "ok, so what can I do without the senate? I'll just do as much of that stuff as possible". He needs to build a story about why someone should vote for democrats in midterms. Right now there really just isn't a good list of reasons at the moment. Biden can do a lot with executive orders. And he needs to build a better persona. EOs are good for that.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I am inclined to think that Biden is a president who will make good on his promise to his core constituency - the wealthy donors: nothing will fundamentally change. Although that might not be a popular position overall, it is to group that matters. Biden has shown no signs that he intends to be the "progressive who will fight against the odds to make change happen," which makes all the theorizing about how he could do so completely irrelevant. The Sick Man of the White House is tasked with maintaining the status quo, and he is doing just that.
I suppose the most interesting hypothetical to me personally is what would happen if he dies in office. Because I don't question what will happen if he stays in office.
|
On January 17 2022 13:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2022 11:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Dems are still trying to politic through decorum and that shit went out the window. They either need to just ram policies through and deal with the fallout later, or just prepare to lose the midterms and the rest a few years after. The point of trying to be nice in politics with this current crop of Rs is not going to work. They also need to find a way to get rid of Sinema and Manchin or curb their power to derail their policies. That is probably the single most important thing moving forward. I think we're at a point where Biden needs to be saying "ok, so what can I do without the senate? I'll just do as much of that stuff as possible". He needs to build a story about why someone should vote for democrats in midterms. Right now there really just isn't a good list of reasons at the moment. Biden can do a lot with executive orders. And he needs to build a better persona. EOs are good for that.
Every EO he signs off on will be challenged in courts and halted. That's a given. I really don't see him or these spineless dems getting anything done unless they grow one. The people following after for potential presidency bids are lackluster as welll. So I honestly don't know what they can do or how to garner any kind of excitement. Student Loans and UBI are probably the biggest things they could do and we all know that'll never happen.
|
Russian Federation102 Posts
Sorry if off topic from current discussion but I wish American would wake up and realize one thing.. It never really matter how the politician is. It matters only little who is in office. it is a distraction and not much change year to year. Some of you may think so because of media and news, but look at your life only. what has really change? nothing. i moved here a few years ago to work at a graduate school and I have noticed you all seem to really care who is in office.
No politician has your best interest and the sooner you will realize this the sooner you will realize who really is to blame. I used to like Trump, imagine me I thought he would actually make a change, but he did nothing he said he would. America did not even get the meme wall. So, one or two year into Trump presidency, I thought man fuck you. Anyway let's not focus on Trump here, I want many of you to ignore this post, read it, digest it, but ignore, because it is what I consider to be the truth.
Funny how many of us can agree politicians are all garbage but we never actually believe it. I think some of them go in with good intentions, sure, but then once they're inside, what the fuck happens? Anyway, again please do not reply just digest this I hope it has an effect on your outlook because I think America (and much of the west too, I mean look at the UK) really needs to realize this.
|
United States42778 Posts
That is the worst possible take.
Trump harmed a shitton of people and was stopped from harming even more by the narrowest of margins (fucking deathbed McCain blocked the repeal of the ACA). The fact that you can’t tell the difference between before Trump and after Trump doesn’t mean that they’re all the same, it means you’re not very observant.
If I couldn’t tell the difference between chocolate syrup and diarrhea you wouldn’t want me pouring one over your ice cream and telling you that it’s all basically the same.
|
On January 18 2022 01:30 KwarK wrote:
If I couldn’t tell the difference between chocolate syrup and diarrhea you wouldn’t want me pouring one over your ice cream and telling you that it’s all basically the same.
Hey, don't knock diarrhea ice cream till you've tried it.
|
On January 18 2022 01:25 confusedzerg wrote:Sorry if off topic from current discussion but I wish American would wake up and realize one thing.. It never really matter how the politician is. It matters only little who is in office. it is a distraction and not much change year to year. Some of you may think so because of media and news, but look at your life only. what has really change? nothing. i moved here a few years ago to work at a graduate school and I have noticed you all seem to really care who is in office. No politician has your best interest and the sooner you will realize this the sooner you will realize who really is to blame. I used to like Trump, imagine me I thought he would actually make a change, but he did nothing he said he would. America did not even get the meme wall. So, one or two year into Trump presidency, I thought man fuck you. Anyway let's not focus on Trump here, I want many of you to ignore this post, read it, digest it, but ignore, because it is what I consider to be the truth. Funny how many of us can agree politicians are all garbage but we never actually believe it. I think some of them go in with good intentions, sure, but then once they're inside, what the fuck happens? Anyway, again please do not reply just digest this I hope it has an effect on your outlook because I think America (and much of the west too, I mean look at the UK) really needs to realize this.
I don't know why you keep urging such a cynical, nihilistic outlook. Yes, there are charlatans and liars in government, but we have literally millions of government workers, many of whom are doing important and beneficial work. We tend to focus only on the problems in this thread, but there's a ton of good stuff our government is doing that we just take for granted. For example NASA, USPS, FDA, EPA, not to mention all the stuff at state level. "Everyone is lying and corrupt" is a lazy, destructive idea that perpetuates the spread of apathy and people falling prey to extremist demagoguery.
|
What practically all US politicians are, is capitalist. Capitalism is inextricably destructive and exploitative. Democrats and Republicans have different perspectives about how to best maintain that destructive exploitation so their prescriptions to preserve it vary from (and among) each other.
What you don't see in US politics at any functional level is US politicians in opposition to capitalism because of the inescapably destructive exploitation and oppression required to maintain it.
So no, they aren't all the same, but they are (practically) all capitalists and committed to perpetuating the destructive exploitation and oppression it runs on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
