ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , democratic party , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 12th March 2020, 05:43 AM   #281
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,250
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
What does that mean? They have the Senate.
It means doing things the right way, giving them a chance to cooperate with you, and if they don't you get them done regardless.

Put legislation forward, and if McConnell (assuming he's still around) doesn't let it hit the Senate floor, put it into place as an executive action. All of it. McConnell don't want a vote, McConnell don't get a vote.

Each year, draft a set of appointee candidates for the Senate's consideration. If they don't get hearings withing a reasonable time limit, they don't get a budget. No promises to be reneged on, no unspoken but mutually-understood mores to be broken in technically-legal betrayals.

I don't think Biden's got the spine for that.

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Maybe I’m just being paranoid, but it’s a sick feeling that’s starting to creep into my otherwise optimistic world view.
Whereas I'm a cynical bastard so I'm wondering why Trump hasn't invaded someone by now. Presidents don't lose elections in wartime.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 12th March 2020 at 05:46 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 05:46 AM   #282
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
It means doing things the right way, giving them a chance to cooperate with you, and if they don't you get them done regardless.

Put legislation forward, and if McConnell (assuming he's still around) doesn't let it hit the Senate floor, put it into place as an executive action.
Don't executive orders have more limited scope than actual laws, though?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 05:47 AM   #283
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,905
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Are we one party or a vanquished foe?
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/st...21453270769664
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 05:47 AM   #284
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,250
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Don't executive orders have more limited scope than actual laws, though?
In theory, yeah. These days? Not so much.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 06:37 AM   #285
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 14,009
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
...A Biden presidency represents homeopathic levels of progress. But it wouldn't be further backsliding into a fascist dystopia, so at least there's that.
Here's hoping the good guys take the senate. But even if they do, it's not going to be a fillibuster proof margin. And it's unlikely to be Manchin proof.

Meaning, a Sanders administration would also represent homeopathic levels of progress.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 06:57 AM   #286
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,534
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Here's hoping the good guys take the senate. But even if they do, it's not going to be a fillibuster proof margin. And it's unlikely to be Manchin proof.

Meaning, a Sanders administration would also represent homeopathic levels of progress.
A democratic senate putting Manchin in a position to bring home significant pork would put him in the Robert C. Byrd zone where he could vote to put Trump's head on a pike as a warning for future generations and still hold that seat until he dies.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 06:57 AM   #287
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Don't executive orders have more limited scope than actual laws, though?
Correct.
In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
Note that EOs are expressions of the President's authority over the employees of the Executive Branch. He can direct them in the execution of their duties, including law enforcement priorities and the like. He cannot create new legal requirements, nor bind the citizenry with new laws. He can't enforce laws that haven't been passed by Congress, nor can he allocate funding except as provided by Congress.

Beelzebuddy's fantasy that Biden could propose a new law, then enact it as an EO, is exactly that: a fantasy.

("Delegated legislation" is a more nuanced topic that can certainly be debated, but probably isn't worth the effort here. If it's an aspect of presidential authority that interests you, feel free to research it and tell us what you find.)

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
In theory, yeah. These days? Not so much.
Name one EO that Trump has signed, that is effectively new legislation.

Name one legislative initiative Biden has promised, that he could conceivably enact via EOs in the face of an obstructionist Congress. Or would you like me to dig one up for you, and we can examine it together?

Last edited by theprestige; 12th March 2020 at 07:08 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 07:16 AM   #288
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 11,419
Overton Window much?
Biden's platform is incredibly progressive, just not as progressive as Sanders'.
It's weird to claim that Biden just wants to return to the Status Quo Ante. And it seems that Biden is moving to the left to woo Sanders' supporters for the general election.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 07:16 AM   #289
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,905
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Name one EO that Trump has signed, that is effectively new legislation.
Executive Order 13767WP comes to mind. In previous administrations, this sort of thing went through the House.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 12th March 2020 at 07:17 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 07:46 AM   #290
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,133
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Quote:
Even if Sanders is sincere about his stated intentions, the problem is the large number of BernieBros that might not listen.

Sanders supporters here like to point out that Sanders ended up campaigning for Clinton in the end, but approximately 1 in 10 of his supporters ended up voting for Trump.
Can we put this ridiculous smear to rest?
Uhhh.... no. Because I have already addressed/debunked your arguments several times before.
Quote:
Hillary supporters voted for McCain at 25% in 2008. 9% of Obama primary voters voted for McCain in the general, riddle me that.
And once again...

Yes, many Hillary supporters voted for McCain than BernieBros voted for Trump.

But here's why you cannot compare the 2 situations:

McCain would have been a competent president. As Obama said (to paraphrase)... "While we differed in matters of policy I never thought that McCain couldn't do the job". So had McCain won the election (due to Hillary supporters switching to McCain), they would still have ended up with someone who knew what they were doing.

On the other hand, any BernieBro who voted for Trump was not just selecting someone with different policies... they were picking someone who was a bigoted con-artist who was totally unsuited for the job. A man who openly talked about using nuclear weapons and engaging in war crimes. A man with little or no grasp of anything relevant to the role of the presidency.

And that's what 1 in 10 BernieBros decided to select... not just someone who had different ideas regarding tax rates or foreign policy, but a man who ended up calling neo-nazis "fine people" and has declared the press "enemy of the people". (I doubt that McCain would have done either of those things.)
Quote:
This whole thing smacks of desperation to avoid the truth that Hillary lost on her own merits. Toxic Bernie bros didn't cost Hillary the election. She was a bad candidate and ran a poor campaign.
There were many reasons Clinton lost... her campaign did make mistakes, but she also had to contend with Russian election interference and an unfavorable electoral college. However, there were more than enough 'BernieBros' who ended up supporting Donald "I'm a racist!" Trump that if it wasn't for those voters Hillary would have won.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 07:49 AM   #291
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,133
Quote:
At least two NHL teams are playing to empty stadiums as well.
If they did that in Florida or Arizona, nobody would notice, since they tend to play in front of largely empty stadiums anyways.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 07:53 AM   #292
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Uhhh.... no. Because I have already addressed/debunked your arguments several times before.

And once again...

Yes, many Hillary supporters voted for McCain than BernieBros voted for Trump.

But here's why you cannot compare the 2 situations:

McCain would have been a competent president. As Obama said (to paraphrase)... "While we differed in matters of policy I never thought that McCain couldn't do the job". So had McCain won the election (due to Hillary supporters switching to McCain), they would still have ended up with someone who knew what they were doing.

On the other hand, any BernieBro who voted for Trump was not just selecting someone with different policies... they were picking someone who was a bigoted con-artist who was totally unsuited for the job. A man who openly talked about using nuclear weapons and engaging in war crimes. A man with little or no grasp of anything relevant to the role of the presidency.

And that's what 1 in 10 BernieBros decided to select... not just someone who had different ideas regarding tax rates or foreign policy, but a man who ended up calling neo-nazis "fine people" and has declared the press "enemy of the people". (I doubt that McCain would have done either of those things.)

There were many reasons Clinton lost... her campaign did make mistakes, but she also had to contend with Russian election interference and an unfavorable electoral college. However, there were more than enough 'BernieBros' who ended up supporting Donald "I'm a racist!" Trump that if it wasn't for those voters Hillary would have won.
This seems like a very convenient dodge. The only standard you can measure Bernie-Bro disloyalty is by some imagined scenario in your head. Only a dastardly Bernie Bro would vote for Trump, Clinton supporters are as pure as the driven snow and would never do such a thing. How many Clinton Pant-Suit nation dead-enders would have crossed the picket line to vote for Trump? More than 10% I suspect, but we'll never know.

The only reason that the historically small number of disloyal primary voters mattered is because HRC was such a weak candidate that the margins were so slim.

Bernie supporters overwhelming supported Clinton after the primary concluded. Bernie himself campaigned hard to her. She lost despite this.

If anything, blaming Bernie supporters for knifing Clinton in the back and costing the election, when it is objectively false, is only going to alienate them further from the party. No one likes being made into a scapegoat, especially when it's to launder the many failures of the HRC campaign.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 12th March 2020 at 07:57 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 07:54 AM   #293
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,133
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Quote:
Yup, if the GOP hold the senate it will be difficult for President Biden to get legislation passed.

But then, given the fact that Trump has been running things by executive order, Biden is probably smart enough to know he could do the same.
Smart enough to do the president's actual job, you mean?

It's not actually the president's job to get legislation passed. There's a whole branch of government for that, and it's not called the Executive.
Please don't bob the thread.

I think most people here understand the different roles in the American political system, and that the President does not directly enact legislation.

But, Presidents can and do influence the process, by either using the presidency as a bully pulpit, or through direct interactions with congress critters. (For example, Obamacare. Or more recently, negotiations between the white house and Pelosi regarding the economy and COVID-19).

And at the end of the day, the president does have veto power, to at least block legislation that they find contrary to their preferred policy goals.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 08:00 AM   #294
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,133
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Quote:
Yes, many Hillary supporters voted for McCain than BernieBros voted for Trump.

But here's why you cannot compare the 2 situations:

McCain would have been a competent president.
...
On the other hand, any BernieBro who voted for Trump was not just selecting someone with different policies... they were picking someone who was a bigoted con-artist who was totally unsuited for the job.
This seems like a very convenient dodge. The only standard you can measure Bernie-Bro disloyalty is by some imagined scenario in your head.
Please point to me any time McCain was caught running a fake university scam.

Please point to me the time when McCain spoke in favor of using nuclear weapons and torture.

Please point to me the time when McCain labeled Mexicans 'rapists'.

Then perhaps you can claim equivalency.
Quote:
The only reason that the historically small number of disloyal primary voters mattered is because HRC was such a weak candidate that the margins were so slim.
The slim margins do not absolve the 1 in 10 BernieBros for switching their votes from Sanders to Trump. Nor do they absolve Sanders himself, who could have done a better job at preventing the schism.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 08:02 AM   #295
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Please point to me any time McCain was caught running a fake university scam.

Please point to me the time when McCain spoke in favor of using nuclear weapons and torture.

Please point to me the time when McCain labeled Mexicans 'rapists'.

Then perhaps you can claim equivalency.

The slim margins do not absolve the 1 in 10 BernieBros for switching their votes from Sanders to Trump. Nor do they absolve Sanders himself, who could have done a better job at preventing the schism.
Do you think HRC supporters would have supported Bernie at higher levels than Bernie supporters went for Clinton?

The Bernie coalition is probably the most reliably anti-Trump cross section of people in the country.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 08:03 AM   #296
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Executive Order 13767WP comes to mind. In previous administrations, this sort of thing went through the House.
I would debate this one. The EO relates to the execution of border enforcement duties. This is well within the authority and responsibility of the Executive branch.

It's debatable whether the president needs Congress to pass a law authorizing the erection of obstacles on the border, or whether it's something the Executive can do as necessary to fulfill their national security responsibilities.

Certainly Congress could pass a law saying all such construction requires Congressional approval. Then we'd see if it got challenged, and what the court say. The line between Executive and Legislative authority is fuzzy in places*. Disputes over what exactly falls on which side of the line, in those gray areas, is not the same as Beelzebuddy's fantasy that the President can simply create new laws out of whole cloth, and supersede the well-established authority of Congress.

And note one very important aspect of this EO: It doesn't provide funding for execution. That's something only Congress can do. Without the assent of the Legislative branch, the EO is effectively DOA. Which is my point.

Now, other than the fact that it's a fantasy, Beelzebuddy's prescription for Biden doesn't bother me. In my opinion, the President should do his job to the limit provided by the Constitution and the law. Including Executive Orders. Including EOs that pressure Congress to act.

If Biden wants to "legislate" by EO, by all means he should do it. As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty much his job. And if he pushes the limits, he'll run into the same judicial and legislative checks that Trump has done. If he assents to those proper checks on Presidential power (as Trump has done), then there's no problem. It's a fantasy, but a harmless fantasy.

---
*Congress has made things even fuzzier over the years, by delegating some Congressional authority to the Executive for expediency. But they can revoke this delegation and resume their full legislative powers in those areas any time they want.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 08:18 AM   #297
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,133
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Do you think HRC supporters would have supported Bernie at higher levels than Bernie supporters went for Clinton?
I have no idea. Although I kind of find it a bit hypocritical for you to complain about me having "imagined scenarios" earlier on, and then asking about another completely imagined scenario.

Here's the thing... I recognize that a politician does not have direct control over all their supporters. I recognize that Sanders cannot dictate what each and every one of his followers do in the general election. I can only criticize him for what he actually does.

And that is the problem... he could have dropped out of the race weeks earlier in 2016 (when he was trailing in delegates and didn't have any real hope of winning). He should drop out now (since he's trailing badly in delegates and in most polls for remaining states). If he drops out early (when he hasn't numerically been eliminated but has no real chance of winning), then its respectable... he's done what was for the best of the Democratic party (for which he's trying to become their nominee) and for the country. And if some of his supporters end up voting for Trump? Well, at least Sanders tried. Its his foolishness of sticking in the race that is the problem.
Quote:
The Bernie coalition is probably the most reliably anti-Trump cross section of people in the country.
First of all, I think black voters (especially black women) were much more reliable anti-Trump voters than Sanders supporters.

Secondly, keep in mind that many BernieBros switched from the Democrats to the Greens (or didn't vote in the general election at all). While you might consider those voters "anti-Trump", their little protest votes are not as useful as if they had actually voted Democrat in the general election.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 08:25 AM   #298
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,133
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Quote:
But then, given the fact that Trump has been running things by executive order, Biden is probably smart enough to know he could do the same.
That's Sander's solution.
So in other words Sanders' "solution" is try to use executive orders, which:
1) can easily be undone by any future republican president. (Witness the way Trump has undone many of Obama's executive orders.)
2) would make it impossible to enact many of his signature policies (such as BernieCare) since those changes cannot be enacted without congress.

Can you see the problems here?
Quote:
As soon as Biden wins the election the GOP are going to start moping and whining about bipartisanship, crying big crocodile tears at the mean ol' Democrats trying to get stuff done without them. And Biden, drawing on his decades of experience working across the aisle, will water down his own proposals to nothing if it means getting them on board...
You are making some mighty-big assumptions there.
- That Biden wouldn't actually use executive orders to at least reverse the worst of Trump's actions
- That he would accept watered-down "do nothing" legislation.

Sounds to me like baseless smears.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 08:27 AM   #299
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
So in other words Sanders' "solution" is try to use executive orders, which:
1) can easily be undone by any future republican president. (Witness the way Trump has undone many of Obama's executive orders.)
2) would make it impossible to enact many of his signature policies (such as BernieCare) since those changes cannot be enacted without congress.

Can you see the problems here?

You are making some mighty-big assumptions there.
- That Biden wouldn't actually use executive orders to at least reverse the worst of Trump's actions
- That he would accept watered-down "do nothing" legislation.

Sounds to me like baseless smears.
I think it's very unclear what Biden's issues are. Does anyone know what he wants to accomplish as president beyond beating Trump and beating Bernie?

I think he probably ends the worst excesses at the border, but I don't see him being a firm advocate for ending the ongoing problem of family separation of the kind that happened under Obama.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 08:46 AM   #300
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Please don't bob the thread.

I think most people here understand the different roles in the American political system, and that the President does not directly enact legislation.

But, Presidents can and do influence the process, by either using the presidency as a bully pulpit, or through direct interactions with congress critters. (For example, Obamacare. Or more recently, negotiations between the white house and Pelosi regarding the economy and COVID-19).

And at the end of the day, the president does have veto power, to at least block legislation that they find contrary to their preferred policy goals.
Yes.

However. Even if Congress entertains no new legislation during his term, it would not affect at all the president's ability to do his actual job. The president could not take to the bully pulpit once in four years, without being derelict in his constitutional duties. That said, if Biden wants to use the celebrity power and media spotlight of the presidency to try to influence legislative outcomes, I think that's fine. If Biden wants to use his political influence and network to encourage Congress to pass the laws he wants, I think that's fine too.

But Beelzebuddy isn't talking about that. He's fantasizing that if Biden's celebrity appeal and political network don't cut it, he should just legislate by EO. So I think Beelzebuddy, at least, doesn't really understand the role of the Executive branch. And I think that a lot of people, over the years, have formed the mistaken impression that the reason you elect a president is to get laws passed*. I think this is a harmful meme, that causes a lot of misplaced frustration, due to a basic misunderstanding about what to expect from each branch of government.

---
*Which is a stupid idea when you think about it. The power of the president to pass laws is nothing more than the power of his influence as a celebrity. A president who wins in a landslide certainly enjoys enough public support to motivate Congress to implement his agenda. But a president who barely captures half of the electorate isn't going to be able to drum up enough public support to force Congress to do anything it doesn't already want to do.

Last edited by theprestige; 12th March 2020 at 09:00 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 08:51 AM   #301
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,133
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think it's very unclear what Biden's issues are. Does anyone know what he wants to accomplish as president beyond beating Trump and beating Bernie?
Ummm... if you look around, you can easily find what his policies are.

He wants to:
- Abolish capital punishment
- increase the minimum wage
- Give 2 years free college
- Reduce carbon emissions (including supporting nuclear power)
- Implement background checks for firearms
- Expand health care coverage (via the ACA), including free access to Medicaid in certain states that didn't originally sign in to it
- Increased capital gains/corporate taxes
- End the border wall
- Increase foreign aid

Everything there is an improvement over what is currently in place. (It may not be as radical as Sanders' plans, but you don't have to totally destroy what exists in order to get something better.)

I also figure he'll probably nominate judges who are actually, you know, competent.

Anyone who thinks "Biden is just like the republicans" has such a skewed view of American politics that they lack all perspective.
Quote:
I think he probably ends the worst excesses at the border, but I don't see him being a firm advocate for ending the ongoing problem of family separation of the kind that happened under Obama.
Keep in mind that while there were occasional family separations under Obama, they were much more limited in scope, and only applied in certain circumstances (such as when there were questions about the family relationship between the children and adults).

The 'Zero-tolerance' policy enacted by Trump (that has caused the number for separations to increase) was new, and Biden's platform include reversing that policy.

Any suggestion that "He will do things that Trump is doing" seems to be based on your preconceived notions that anyone who is not Sanders is somehow "all the same".

https://time.com/5612868/trump-obama-family-separation/
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/11/joe-...-policies.html
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 09:14 AM   #302
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Ummm... if you look around, you can easily find what his policies are.

He wants to:
- Abolish capital punishment
- increase the minimum wage
- Give 2 years free college
- Reduce carbon emissions (including supporting nuclear power)
- Implement background checks for firearms
- Expand health care coverage (via the ACA), including free access to Medicaid in certain states that didn't originally sign in to it
- Increased capital gains/corporate taxes
- End the border wall
- Increase foreign aid
I thought it might be fun to examine this list in the context of the fantasy of legislating by Executive Order:

- Abolish capital punishment
Can't be done by EO. He could direct federal prosecutors not to seek capital sentencing. He could also direct federal prisons not to implement such sentences. It would be interesting if the Judiciary argued that the Executive is bound to carry out the sentences legislated by Congress. That's about it. He couldn't abolish it. Couldn't stop the states from having it.
- increase the minimum wage
Probably the best he could do is increase the base pay rates for federal employees under his authority. But maybe Congress controls that; I don't know offhand. He couldn't actually raise the minimum wage as such, nor compel employers to pay such wages.
- Give 2 years free college
That would almost certainly require Congressional approval for funding. He certainly couldn't compel colleges to provide this, via EO.
- Reduce carbon emissions (including supporting nuclear power)
He can probably direct emissions reductions, including new regulations, within the authority he has under laws already passed. He couldn't compel emitters to reduce, beyond what's already mandated by law.
- Implement background checks for firearms
Can't be compelled by EO. Needs a law.
- Expand health care coverage (via the ACA), including free access to Medicaid in certain states that didn't originally sign in to it
Assuming it's within the scope of the ACA, sure. Beyond that, he'd need new laws. Especially if he wants to compel states to sign on to free access to Medicaid (unless I misunderstand this one).
- Increased capital gains/corporate taxes
Needs a law. Impossible to do with an EO. Best he could do is improve enforcement of existing tax law. Assuming Congress authorizes the budget for it.
- End the border wall
That's one thing he could do, consistent with Trump's use of presidential authority to build the wall in the first place.
- Increase foreign aid
Needs a law. Can't be done by EO.

So much for the fantasy.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 09:17 AM   #303
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,534
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Please point to me any time McCain was caught running a fake university scam.
How about being part of the Keating 5?
Quote:

Please point to me the time when McCain spoke in favor of using nuclear weapons and torture.
Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran

Compromised to allow CIA to continue torture
Quote:

Please point to me the time when McCain labeled Mexicans 'rapists'.
Or when he opposed MLK day and upheld a Bush veto of civil rights legislation?
Quote:

Then perhaps you can claim equivalency.
Not to mention what happens when you take all those Obama judges and replace them with McCain judges. Or any of Obama's executive orders. I'm sure the thousands that likely die when the ACA/Medicaid expansion doesn't happen are just fine as well.
Quote:

The slim margins do not absolve the 1 in 10 BernieBros for switching their votes from Sanders to Trump. Nor do they absolve Sanders himself, who could have done a better job at preventing the schism.
As to Democrats, more like 1 in 20.

Over half of the Sanders to Trump voters didn't identify as Democrats. So "switching" is at best misleading. Open primaries, people holding Democratic ballots because they live in a local area where that is the only party, etc.

This whole line of argument also ignores that Obama was a far better candidate than was Clinton.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 09:27 AM   #304
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,665
Question

Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
How about being part of the Keating 5?
Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran

Compromised to allow CIA to continue tortureOr when he opposed MLK day and upheld a Bush veto of civil rights legislation? Not to mention what happens when you take all those Obama judges and replace them with McCain judges. Or any of Obama's executive orders. I'm sure the thousands that likely die when the ACA/Medicaid expansion doesn't happen are just fine as well.

As to Democrats, more like 1 in 20.

Over half of the Sanders to Trump voters didn't identify as Democrats. So "switching" is at best misleading. Open primaries, people holding Democratic ballots because they live in a local area where that is the only party, etc.

This whole line of argument also ignores that Obama was a far better candidate than was Clinton.
I count 4 examples and only one that is partially true.

Especially Keating 5. He was cleared of wrong doing.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 09:27 AM   #305
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,133
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Quote:
I think it's very unclear what Biden's issues are. Does anyone know what he wants to accomplish as president beyond beating Trump and beating Bernie?
Quote:
Ummm... if you look around, you can easily find what his policies are.
I thought it might be fun to examine this list in the context of the fantasy of legislating by Executive Order:
Umm.... first of all your original question is what Biden "Wants to accomplish". You never asked "what could he could actually accomplish.

Secondly. I have no doubt that Biden would have significant problem getting Congress to agree with many of his plans (especially if the Republicans hold the senate). But then, Sanders would be in the same boat, so criticizing Biden over the issue and not Sanders seems a bit hypocritical.

(And I know many Sanders supporters have the fantasy that "If you ask for a lot it means the other side will compromise more". That doesn't work in reality.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 09:30 AM   #306
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,534
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post

So much for the fantasy.
In a sane world, maybe. There are so many places where Congress left the door open for a bad faith executive to do pretty much anything.

All of this is on the table if he has imagination and no respect for norms. Just declare a few national emergencies for the federal stuff, and then mess with state funds if they don't fall in line. There is also GOP style brinksmanship where he threatens all sorts of creative executive actions towards congresspeople who annoy him.

The real problem isn't Congress. It would be a court system full of sleeper Trump agents that would probably sabotage these things even if they were legal. Even then, an executive could get into "Judge Roberts made his decision, now let him enforce it" mode.

He doesn't seem the type for this.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 09:38 AM   #307
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Umm.... first of all your original question is what Biden "Wants to accomplish". You never asked "what could he could actually accomplish.
No. My original question is, can the President (Trump, Biden, or any other) legislate by EO, as Beelzebuddy fantasizes?

When I first posed the question, I even suggested examining Biden's actual platform, and seeing if any of it works the way Beelzebuddy suggests. This I have now done.

Quote:
Secondly. I have no doubt that Biden would have significant problem getting Congress to agree with many of his plans (especially if the Republicans hold the senate). But then, Sanders would be in the same boat, so criticizing Biden over the issue and not Sanders seems a bit hypocritical.
(And I know many Sanders supporters have the fantasy that "If you ask for a lot it means the other side will compromise more". That doesn't work in reality.)
I agree with all of this. I'm not criticizing Biden for being limited by the nature of the office. Maybe somebody else is, and this point is directed at them?

My point is simply that Beelzebuddy is wrong: The limitations of the office can't be overcome by Executive Order. Trump isn't doing it, and Biden wouldn't be able to do it either.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 09:40 AM   #308
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
In a sane world, maybe. There are so many places where Congress left the door open for a bad faith executive to do pretty much anything. <snip>
Now you're fantasizing about Biden doing stuff even Trump hasn't tried to do.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 10:49 AM   #309
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Please don't bob the thread.
Bob's body of work is predicated on a known-nothing principle, where nothing useful can be known, and a wilful ignorance is the only proper epistemology.

Don't confuse my requests for clarification and specificity for attempts to deny all knowledge and useful thought. As you can see, I have concrete arguments which I am happy to develop, that lead to conclusions. You might agree or disagree with the conclusions and the reasoning behind them, but I am not simply denying that any useful conclusion can be reached. If you don't want to engage with my arguments, fine. But don't pretend they're un-engageable.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 10:52 AM   #310
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,665
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Bob's body of work is predicated on a known-nothing principle, where nothing useful can be known, and a wilful ignorance is the only proper epistemology.
"Bob is correct" is the the short hand for that.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 10:54 AM   #311
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
"Bob is correct" is the the short hand for that.
Paradoxically, it turns out that some things can be known.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 11:10 AM   #312
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 47,863
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Overton Window much?
Biden's platform is incredibly progressive, just not as progressive as Sanders'.
It's weird to claim that Biden just wants to return to the Status Quo Ante. And it seems that Biden is moving to the left to woo Sanders' supporters for the general election.
It's all about style. Biden does not indulge in the kind of 60's radical rhetoric that Bernie does. And it's Bernie style that his followers like.
Of course it alienates just about everybody else, but the Berniebros love the rhetoric.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 11:19 AM   #313
Solitaire
Neoclinus blanchardi
 
Solitaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,314
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
First of all, I think black voters (especially black women) were much
more reliable anti-Trump voters than Sanders supporters.

Secondly, keep in mind that many BernieBros switched from the Democrats to
the Greens (or didn't vote in the general election at all). While you might
consider those voters "anti-Trump", their little protest votes are not as useful
as if they had actually voted Democrat in the general election.

I think I've found evidence for this position.


Quote:
The Bernie Voters Who Defected To Trump by Jeff Stein


... But they were also older and whiter [than the average Bernie voter in the
primary], and also less liberal. Of the ones that switched to Trump, only about
25 percent also voted for a Democratic candidate for Congress. And we do have
a little bit about what they did in 2012 — it looks like they were split roughly
evenly, 50-50, between Obama and Romney. So these appear to be people
who are trending out of the Democratic Party.

Of those Bernie voters who supported Trump in the general election,
the average age was 52. Those who stuck with Clinton were an average
age of 45, and of those who broke for a third party, the average age was 44.
Of those that didn’t vote, their average age was 35 — these were the ones
that got activated by Bernie, and then dropped back out when he didn't win.
It’s worth noting that very few of the primary voters stayed home. People
who vote in primaries are highly engaged in politics — they’re not people
who come in and out of the electorate.

I also looked at how the Bernie-Trump voters identify themselves on
the ideological scale, and very few say that they're liberal. Only about
17 to 18 percent say that they're liberal, in any kind of way, shape,
or form, though they voted for Sanders. By contrast, about 45 percent
of these Bernie-Trump voters say they're ‘middle of the road’ — basically,
a lot of them see themselves as “moderates.” Meanwhile, another 35 percent
of them are claiming to be either somewhat conservative or very conservative.
I think what this starts to suggest to me is that these are old holdovers from
the Democratic Party that are conservative on race issues. And while Bernie
wasn't campaigning on that kind of thing, Clinton was much more forthright
about courting the votes of minorities — and maybe that offended them,
and then eventually pushed them out and toward Trump.

I suspect Trump strategy involves finding many more time of these old
white voters in the Democratic Party, surely Sanders only has a small subset
of them, and convincing them to vote for him this time around.
__________________
Be very careful what you put in your head, because you will never get it out again. — Phineas Gage
Solitaire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 11:32 AM   #314
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Any suggestion that "He will do things that Trump is doing" seems to be based on your preconceived notions that anyone who is not Sanders is somehow "all the same".
I don't think Biden is the same as Trump. I just think his proposals, even if they are successful, are not enough to meet the moment.

A Biden administration is much preferable than a Trump administration, but it's still one that is tiptoeing from disaster. This country needs radical reform, and Joe isn't going to get it.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 11:46 AM   #315
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I don't think Biden is the same as Trump. I just think his proposals, even if they are successful, are not enough to meet the moment.

A Biden administration is much preferable than a Trump administration, but it's still one that is tiptoeing from disaster. This country needs radical reform, and Joe isn't going to get it.
A Sanders administration wouldn't get radical reform either, even if the Democrats took the Senate. He would need both broad public support for his radical proposals (which he doesn't have) and/or a majority in both the Senate and the House for his radical proposals (which isn't the case now and is unlikely to be the case after November).

If you're going Sanders or Bust because you are holding out for radical reform, then you're Busted even if you do elect Sanders. I could see Democrats electing Sanders on an "anyone but Trump" basis. But that doesn't mean they actually want his brand of radicalism to move forward.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 02:30 PM   #316
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,665
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I don't think Biden is the same as Trump. I just think his proposals, even if they are successful, are not enough to meet the moment.

A Biden administration is much preferable than a Trump administration, but it's still one that is tiptoeing from disaster. This country needs radical reform, and Joe isn't going to get it.
What is this moment that needs to be met?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 06:25 PM   #317
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,790
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And no, while I would appreciate it if all the Dems stayed home this time, <snip>
Really? You want a second term for Trump? If true, then I have badly assessed your political views.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 06:31 PM   #318
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,790
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
My comments are basically my own opinions, and I doubt anyone is going to change their opinions based on anything I say.
Well, *I* cling to your every word as if they were a life raft in a Category 19 hurricane.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 06:36 PM   #319
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,790
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's not actually the president's job to get legislation passed.
Of course it is. Sheeeeeesh. If the president wants to enact his agenda - as all do - then he's got to jawbone, entreat, and bargain with the Congress to get done what he can. After all, the president is the #1 politician.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2020, 06:45 PM   #320
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,790
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
.... nor can he allocate funding except as provided by Congress.
Would the number of billions of dollars Trump has taken from the military without congressional approval to build his stupid wall change your opinion?
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.