|
Cicero posted:I don't get going from Senator to Secretary being seen as a promotion. Seems like a sidegrade to me. Clinton left the Senate and joined Obama's cabinet specifically to set up her future run. You can make a lot more news as the lone voice in an important cabinet post than you can as 1 of 100 senators. And if the Senate is going to be held by the GOP then being a Dem Senator is arguably pointless anyways.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, and given that Prop 22 just passed in her (and my!) state, backed to the hilt by Big Tech, I'm...not optimistic about what that portends for replicating that horrific law throughout the country. Funny you should mention that! https://twitter.com/ceodonovan/status/1326270596670386176?s=20 Prop 22s all around!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:dial down the preemptive fantasies about how much the libs will suck in various ludicrous ways Yeah, people need to tone it down. Sure, we have all of recorded history to hold against them, but we can't know what the libs will do in the future. Maybe this is finally the day Charlie Brown finally kicks that football. Gotta stay optimistic! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
I think both Warren and Sanders should stay in the Senate rather than being token show pieces that are shut out of any actual decision-making. I'd prefer if they were recommending people as opposed to getting the pick themselves. But realistically, we all know we aren't getting a leftist firebrand as Labor Secretary or anything. At best we'll get someone who wrote some vaguely progressive papers during their tenure at one of the approved Democratic think tanks. And even if we get that much, they'll be unable to implement any of the milquetoast policies their white papers called for because Uber and Amazon need slave labor to squeeze out any profit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
Fracking polled in the negatives in Pennsylvania until Biden started pledging his undying love for it and flipped the opinion of 15% of Dems overnight. The idea that you have to run on bad policy to win is an unsupported, unverifiable myth. The choice didn't have to be fracking or Trump. But Biden decided that was the choice he was going to give you, because he cares more about his donors' bank accounts than your not dying in hellfire and you should be angry about that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Klain confirmed as the Chief of Staff: https://twitter.com/shearm/status/1326683721379028993?s=20
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Do you not consider stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia as a good thing? Or do you not think he'll follow through on that? I think he'll follow through if he can find someone else willing to buy the weapons. I also think so long as the Saudis make the right comments and pretend to pull back from Yemen he'll gladly resume sales, probably with some unenforceable condition about not using the missiles we sell them on civilians. I guess he could surprise me and go hard on isolating the Saudis as punishment for their last four years of brutal debauchery, but I'd be willing to bet the people in Biden's orbit still view the House of Saud as an important tool for containing the Shia menace. Ultimately I'd expect some token rhetoric that is quickly appeased by kind words and a few public actions. The Saudis will say they are very sorry and agree to let women wear thinner veils on particularly hot days, it will be hailed as a great day for feminism in the Middle East, and the missiles will flow once more.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 06:24
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Yea, optimistically I'm hoping Biden actually follows through on his "reassessing our relationship with Saudi Arabia" comment. But as long as he at least stops loving selling weapons and stops the US's active support of Saudi Arabia's intervention in Yemen, I'll take it. At least we won't have coziness between Kushner and MBS anymore. What makes me most doubtful is that Obama was the one who started our involvement in Yemen, but as always I would love to be surprised.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 06:37
|
|
|
So it looks like Biden is planning to do some good things with immigration, such as ending the Muslim ban and restoring protections for Dreamers. But we're already seeing the signs that, for the most part, everything old is new again with immigration:quote:Biden named Cecilia Munoz, President Barack Obama’s top immigration adviser, to his transition team, which some interpreted as signaling a more moderate tack. Oh that name is familiar... https://twitter.com/axcomrade/status/1326764010725896201?s=20 https://twitter.com/axcomrade/status/1326767953543565313?s=20 And the article goes on to tell us what we can expect from Biden: quote:Biden is expected to return to criteria similar to what Obama adopted toward the end of his tenure, largely limiting deportations to people with serious criminal records in the United States. Ah, the old myth that you have 400,000 serious criminals who need to be rounded up and shoved out of the country every year. A fine start, but what else? quote:Biden wants to get rid of policies that have been “detrimental” to seeking asylum — such as the policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court — but he is expected to move cautiously to avoid triggering more arrivals. quote:Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School, thinks Biden will move cautiously on asylum to avoid setting off a new wave of arrivals and says other changes will face “procedural and practical problems.” Lots of this language. We're going to do wonderful things, honest, but we have to "move cautiously," "take time," and we need commissions, reviews, and studies first. Goodness, we wouldn't want to take too many bold, immediate actions! And this assumes they don't just sweep it all under the rug and give themselves an out to continue with mass deportations indefinitely: quote:At least initially, Biden may keep in place a Trump administration order that authorizes Customs and Border Protection to quickly expel any migrant as a public health measure during the COVID-19 pandemic. If they maintain this rule then removing the Muslim ban is largely symbolic, they'll just be forcing every refugee and migrant back across the border for specious "health concerns." Guess we'll see how committed Biden actually is to making any real changes here, but it looks like we're, at best, going to get a retread of the Obama years, but this time the Republicans are starting from a stronger position than 2009 so Biden will have way more room to shrug and gesture at Congress when he fails to fix the problems. I dunno about the rest of you but my excitement is reaching a fever pitch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
The 2020 results where the Democrats lost ground in the House, likely failed to take the Senate, and got trounced in state races nationwide is your evidence that Biden was a great candidate that ran a great campaign. "Well Bernie would have done worse!" is obviously your followup but I reiterate that there is zero data that suggests running on unpopular policy and constantly demeaning your own voting base is the slam dunk winning recipe for electoral success. Bernie would have outperformed Joe by offering to help people and not constantly shouting at detractors that they should vote for Trump instead. Biden drat near gave this election away because he's defensive over his death camps when he should have been pledging to shut them down. Instead he told activists to go vote for Trump and a whole bunch of minority voters called his bluff and made what should have been a walk in the park a nailbiter.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 20:34
|
|