Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Maji

Biden Policy Agenda Thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It's all straightforward.   It's all logical.  The EC stopped populism this election,

The EC handed the presidency to a populist in 2016. Biden won the EC this election, but Biden comfortably won the popular vote. And while Biden's EC win seems comfortable on first glance, Biden narrowly won the tipping-point state. A slightly better performance from Trump would've resulted in reelection (with Biden comfortably winning popular vote).

If your position is so "straightforward" and "logical," why does recent evidence contradict it? Maybe I'm wrong, but my hunch is that you're more scared of left-wing populism than right-wing populism. That fear guides your positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maji said:

The EC handed the presidency to a populist in 2016. Biden won the EC this election, but Biden comfortably won the popular vote. And while Biden's EC win seems comfortable on first glance, Biden narrowly won the tipping-point state. A slightly better performance from Trump would've resulted in reelection (while again losing the popular vote).

If it's so "straightforward" and logical, why does recent evidence contradict that? Maybe I'm wrong, but my hunch is that you're more scared of left-wing populism than right-wing populism. That fear guides your positions.

No, biden won comfortably in the swing states.  They only appeared close at first but were far wider margins than in 2016.

The problem is you are not concerned with populism at all.  You seem to care about what would give the left the most power the fastest.  You even said as much with your "the left would use the end of the filibuster to their advantage the right would not" speil.

You love populism.  You adore it.  You promote positions that would make it the guaranteed future.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

They only appeared close at first but were far wider margins than in 2016.

The margins were still close. Arizona and Georgia were decided by what, a combined 40,000 votes? Biden only won Wisconsin by ~20,000 votes

14 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You even said as much with your "the left would use the end of the filibuster to their advantage the right would not" speil.

That's my suspicion with the current batch of GOP Senators. I suspect that many of them care more about traditional business values. Chamber of Commerce conservatism. The reason they wouldn't fundamentally change the country is that doing so would be unpopular with the electorate. The GOP won't eliminate social security when they know it's a losing position at the polling place.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. But that's fine. As I wrote, there are multiple safeguards. The Legislative Branch and the Executive branch must be on the same page. Likewise, the Judicial Branch can prevent unconstitutional legislation. Stacking the SCOTUS is the remaining weakness. Let's do something about that

14 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You promote positions that would make it the guaranteed future.  

Two can play that game. "You promote positions that resulted in an illiberal narcissists election."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maji said:

The margins were still close. Arizona and Georgia were decided by what, a combined 40,000 votes? Biden only won Wisconsin by ~20,000 votes

That's my suspicion with the current batch of GOP Senators. I suspect that many of them care more about traditional business values. Chamber of Commerce conservatism. The reason they wouldn't fundamentally change the country is that doing so would be unpopular with the electorate. The GOP won't eliminate social security when they know it's a losing position at the polling place.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. But that's fine. As I wrote, there are multiple safeguards. The Legislative Branch and the Executive branch must be on the same page. Likewise, the Judicial Branch can prevent unconstitutional legislation. Stacking the SCOTUS is the remaining weakness. Let's do something about that

Two can play that game. "You promote positions that resulted in an illiberal narcissists election."

 

Logical fallacy.  If a popular vote campaign was ran, Trump very well might have won as well.  

The legislative branch and the executive branch being on the same page is NOT, capital NOT a goal we should strive for.  Sometimes they will be, sometimes they will not be.  This idea of yours is dangerous and...populist.  This is more populist rhetoric from you.

Fact is you decry populism but support changes that facilitate it.

Makes you seem really teams and shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

If a popular vote campaign was ran, Trump very well might have won as well.  

I'd bet against that. To win a popular vote, Trump would need to ditch elements of his right-wing populism. Even if that worked (doubtful), isn't that moderating impact a good thing?

9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The legislative branch and the executive branch being on the same page is NOT, capital NOT a goal we should strive for.

You misread my post. I didn't write that it was. I was using that as an example of our separation of powers/ safeguards. I was writing about the necessary conditions for radical legislation to get through.

9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

This idea of yours is dangerous and...populist.  This is more populist rhetoric from you.

Nah. It's not even an idea of mine. You're twisting things to make your argument look better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maji said:

I'd bet against that. To win a popular vote, Trump would need to ditch elements of his right-wing populism. Even if that worked (doubtful), isn't that moderating impact a good thing?

You misread my post. I didn't write that it was. I was using that as an example of our Separation of powers/ safeguards. I was writing about the necessary conditions for radical legislation to get through.

Nah. It's not even an idea of mine.

 

Oh no the popular vote simply came down to california.  That was it.  Outside that state Trump dominated the popular vote.  There was no money spent in California for the GOP.  If that became a target he could have easily made up a few million votes and could have made up a few more elsewhere.  You can not say what would have happened if the rules were different as those rules were not played by.

You love populism.  You love and endorse policies that facilitate it and by your own admission have stated it is because you think the left would be able to better capitalize.

So spare me your "fear of populism" sack of shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

There was no money spent in California for the GOP. 

On the national level. They did spend on congressional races.

Likewise, Democrats didn't pour resources into California (presidential election). By the same token, Biden could've won more votes there.

10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You love populism.  You love and endorse policies that facilitate it and by your own admission have stated it is because you think the left would be able to better capitalize.

"You love right-wing populism. You love and endorse policies that led to the Capitol storming!"

These contortions are ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Maji said:

On the national level. They did spend on congressional races.

Likewise, Democrats didn't pour resources into California (presidential election). By the same token, Biden could've won more votes there.

"You love right-wing populism. You love and endorse policies that led to the Capitol storming!"

These contortions are ridiculous.

No they are not.

I am very outspoken against populism and things that lead to it.  You are not.  That simple.  Which policy did I endorse that lead to the storming of the capital?

You endorse and love policies that enable populism.  Popular vote, removing the filibuster.  You are on record for supporting shit just because you believe it would help your team.  You don't care about populism.  That is a facade cleary as evidenced in this thread and others.  You wet your panties over the idea of populism and advocate strongly to make it the norm.

It is pretty clear where you stand.  You love and endorse populism if you think it helps democrats, otherwise you pretend to be against it.  You even said so.  

Fascist.  (Happy TM)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

am very outspoken against populism and things that lead to it.  You are not. 

That's funny, because I've seen you downplay the threats of Trumpism multiple times

10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You are on record for supporting shit just because you believe it would help your team.

Wrong. I don't support ending the filibuster to "help my team." I support scrapping it regardless of Senate control. That stands even if the GOP is more ruthless with it than I suspect.

The Senate already has counter-majoritarian potential. They Senate doesn't need a safeguard when the Senate already is a safeguard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maji said:

That's funny, because I've seen you downplay the threats of Trumpism multiple times

Wrong. I don't support ending the filibuster to "help my team." I support scrapping it regardless of Senate control. That stands even if the GOP is more ruthless with it than I suspect.

The Senate already has counter-majoritarian potential. They Senate doesn't need a safeguard when the Senate already is a safeguard.

Dude you specifically said you thought democrats would make the end of the filibuster a lynch point in promoting their agenda at a rapid pace and the GOP would not.

With those words in mind it is clear as day why you support it.  You think it would help your team.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people see the danger in populism and a populist president pressuring a slim majority to pass legislation they support, or else.  Others support populism and think that is an ok trade.

  It is clear which group you fall in @Maji.  Populism is your friend,  you love it.  You promote changes that facilitate and give more power to it.

You are the ultimate populist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Dude you specifically said you thought democrats would make the end of the filibuster a lynch point in promoting their agenda at a rapid pace and the GOP would not.

That wasn't my reason for supporting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...