Cont: 2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part IV

[Segnosaur]

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.

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...orm-plan-targeting-trump-border-policies.html

 

[theprestige]

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.

 

[Suddenly]

Please point to me any time McCain was caught running a fake university scam.

How about being part of the Keating 5?

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

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?

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.

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.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

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.)

 

[Suddenly]

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.

 

[theprestige]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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.

 

[theprestige]

"Bob is correct" is the the short hand for that.

Paradoxically, it turns out that some things can be known.

 

[dudalb]

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.

 

[Solitaire]

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.

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.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

 

[theprestige]

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.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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?

 

[SezMe]

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]

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]

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]

.... 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?