The Biden Administration - the first 1,500 days

You want to see him as the guy holding his friend back from a fight, but what he’s actually doing is holding his “friend” still while they are being punched in the face.

Election laws are being changed in states all over the country without a single democratic vote, why should the democrats be expected to trust the next election?

The republicans will certainly gain control if they are allowed to interfere with elections as they are plainly trying to do. The laws that he is blocking from being implemented prevent people from being disenfranchised.

What is to stop the republicans from getting rid of the filibuster themselves?

They have explicitly stated that due to the former president’s actions, they do not trust us now.

And who blew up those rules?

See, this is what engaging with @Sam_Stone looks like to me…except that those who attempt to be rational are doing it to themselves. Just sayin’.

On a lighter note:

That’s because those weren’t treaties, but executive orders by Obama. The weakness of doing things by executive order is that the next President can simply undo them by executive order. That’s a shitty way to run a country whether it’s done by Obama, Trump or Biden.

If those had been run through the process of getting congressional approval, it would take a 60 seat majority to undo them. Instead we get the farce we have now, where every successive President simply undoes what the last President did. Trump did it to Obama, and Biden did it to Trump. In the meantime, foreign powers and businesses have no assurance that any deal they make with America in this way will survive more than four yeara.

A) That’s an issue for the Democrats in those states.

B) Electoral corruption by rulemaking is a good reason why you don’t want to federalize the election rules. At least there are 50 states, with Dems controlling some and Republicans others. Whichever party federalizes the election rules, if it’s not done in a bipartisan fashion, will be seen as corrupt and illegitimate if the election doesn’t go their opponent’s way. It happens in state elections too, but they are more isolated. Federal election laws pushed through without Republicans will turn the next election into a national disaster.

Yes, and that’s the fault of a congress that refuses to do its job. Stuff still needs to get done, decisions still need to be made, even if the republicans are obstructing the work of congress.

So, if you think it’s a shitty way to get things done, then you should be blaming the republicans in congress for making that they only way to get things done, not those who had to deal with them.

The problem is is that they were proposed to congress, but congress refused to act. It wasn’t even that they wouldn’t be able to muster the votes, it’s that McConnell alone refused to even allow them to come up for a vote.

The former is true, the latter, not so much. Trump undid things that Obama did out of spite, specifically wanting to undo it because Obama did it. There are some things that Biden has changed from the previous administration that were harmful to our country and our allies, but by no means did he or will he reverse everything that Trump as Trump tried to do with Obama.

You are correct. As long as republicans continue to fight against the idea of governance and diplomacy, other nations are right to fear them getting into power again.

Except that the effect of those actions spill out into other states as well. If democratic voters are disenfranchised in Michigan, and Michigan puts the next republican presidential candidate into office, then that’s an issue for all of us.

One party has straight up admitted that they want fewer people to be able to vote, that they don’t believe in democracy, it’s hard to have a bipartisan agreement when one is dead set against the very principle that the other is trying to protect.

It’s probable that the republicans will repeat their false cries that they had in 2020 of corruption and illegitimacy if they lose again, no matter the circumstances.

No federal election laws to stop states from disenfranchising their voters will ensure that the next election is corrupt, illegitimate, and a disaster that ends democracy.

The consequences here are quite clear, the only question is which side you are on.

How willing were Republicans in Congress to ratify treaties or vote for any legislation proposed by Obama? Actually when was the last time the US Senate ratified any treaty whatsoever?

I’m not sure that Sam Stone was talking about ratifying treaties. In some ways, it seemed as though he was implying that, but he claimed that there was only a 60 vote hurdle to rescind something made through congress, and I assume that he knows that a treaty requires a two thirds majority.

Maybe he simply doesn’t know how the senate actually works, but I can’t see how that could be the case since he claims to have useful input into the process.

Looks like two years ago: Treaty Document 116-1 - Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of North Macedonia | | Library of Congress

We already have a gold standard comparison for how this worked out from 1965. State level laws gave us Jim Crow, federal intervention gave us the voting rights act. Now you may disagree, but I think that that act was a good and necessary thing. Sure it upset a large number of people but it made elections more fair and less corrupt.

We are now being confronted with Jim Crow 2.0. It not coincidence that all of these revisions of election laws happened after the Supreme court struck down important provisions of that act. To confront Jim Crow 2.0 we need the voting rights act 2.0.

To be fair here, the voting rights act of 1965 had a decent amount of bipartisan support, and @Sam_Stone is not saying that he’s against a voting rights act, he’s just saying that he’s against one that republicans will refuse to vote for.

What he misses is that the democrats of 1965 were not nearly as unified in their obstruction to progress as the republicans are today. It’s not the fault of democrats they no republicans will sign onto a bill, it’s the fault of republicans refusing to act in their roles of governance of the nation.

The republicans don’t want democracy, in a democracy, they stand to lose.

The only reason the voting rights act had bi partisan support was that since this was pre-Southern strategy, the two main parties hadn’t yet fully divided on the issues of race. But there was definitely a pro segregationist and anti-segregationist branches of congress. Was the civil rights act unfair because no members of the States’ Rights Democratic Party (aka the Dixiecrats) voted for it?

If you are asking me, then no, it wasn’t. As I said, the democrats were not as unified as the republicans are today. You had a pretty massive schism between the dixiecrats and the northern democrats.

The republicans picked up the dixiecrats by promising to fight for racism and disenfranchisement of minorities, and they are at least following through on that campaign promise.

The republicans currently are reflecting the authoritarian regime that they are bringing in. There may be individual republicans who would cross the aisle, but they are terrified of sticking their heads up, for fear that they are chopped off. Any republican who votes for the voting rights bill will have the entire republican apparatus against them in their next primary.

If you are asking @Sam_Stone, well, I can’t answer for him definitively, but he seems to think that if no republican will buck their party’s commandments and vote for the bill, that means that the bill itself is partisan and corrupt.

I think I was just asking rhetorically. Mostly directed at Sam. You and I are pretty much on the same page.

More good news:

They’ll actually be able to pass good policy – in particular, good policy that would outlaw the Republican-controlled state attempts to override democracy (see the recent Texas bill, which would have given judges the power to overturn elections even if there’s no evidence of significant fraud).

This already happened. The party of Trump doesn’t trust any election in which Trump loses. There’s nothing the Democrats can do about this aside from losing. These beliefs have nothing to do with facts and reality.

All of this has already happened. There’s one party that lives in reality and one party that doesn’t – when the latter party (the party of Trump, quite obviously) gets power, they’re going to be nuts. There’s nothing the Democrats can do about nutty behavior by nutty people except try and pass good policy, protect voting rights, and win elections.

If the party of Trump wins another election, they’ll try (again) to make sure that every election is rigged in their favor. We know this because they’ve already tried, and they’re still trying. With no evidence, they’re still trying to overturn in Arizona, PA, WI, etc.

Joe Manchin during his decade as a senator ended up falling in line with the party when it matters. The idea that he is now kingmaker has gone to his head whereby he is delaying the Biden legislative agenda for no reason other than a thirst for bipartisanship that is not forthcoming. Biden himself has spent the last six weeks trying to negotiate with a group of Senate Republicans and cutting down the cost of his infrastructure plan and they were still miles away from a middle ground. He basically declared at a point that no more concessions would be made from his end and it was the Republican’s turn. Their offer: $250 billion which is just $50 billion more than the bill that Trump and the Republican congress failed to pass in 2018. Biden rejected that offer and called off talks in the last week.

Bipartisanship requires both sides to play ball. If Manchin can’t get a single Republican to move an inch why the hell should the entire Democratic Party have to?

Everyone? That’s funny.

What’s the story??