All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Jack Dracula]

Minor disappointment in what I've seen out of Biden thus far...

While he is apparently addressing aid to Central America?

It's still apparently "Business As Usual..." as far as even saying out loud that the instability from the Rio Grande South is largely driven by internal U.S. policy.

In the year 2021, and it isn't even being said. Never mind actually addressed in any serious fashion.

Not much of a surprise, but still a downer.

All that said, doesn't rule out that it could be in the cards.

I'm trying to figure out how it could be that this isn't a joke.

[numberthirty]

...

How about you let him unpack his bags. Jesus Christ, it hasn't even been 12 hours yet.

Again, while I can see sort of see what you are saying?

That's how hanging everything from Mexico South out to dry has happened a bunch of times in my lifetime.

It's probably time to get serious about, at the very least, not being a large part of the problem for the countries that I mentioned.

Honestly, it's past time.

[Joker]

Minor disappointment in what I've seen out of Biden thus far...

I mean, come on.

[numberthirty]

I mean, come on.

If you're going to point out that aid is needed while you ignore the entire "Why?..."

It disappoints me.

I get that it probably does not disappoint most Americans.

[AnakinFlair]

So Rachel Maddow just dropped this chestnut:

When the Capital Police called on the Army to send reinforcements during the sacking of the Capital, and the Army refused to send in the National Guard, one of the senior officers on the call was General Charles Flynn. If that last name sounds familiar, that's because he's the brother of disgraced former General Michael Flynn.

[Jack Dracula]

So Rachel Maddow just dropped this chestnut:

When the Capital Police called on the Army to send reinforcements during the sacking of the Capital, and the Army refused to send in the National Guard, one of the senior officers on the call was General Charles Flynn. If that last name sounds familiar, that's because he's the brother of disgraced former General Michael Flynn.

I've heard they kept the Police on the line, yanking their chain for a half-hour before turning them down.

[Steel Inquisitor]

It's not about personal ambition in a career sense, but ambition for the sake of a cause.

Except you say the ambition like it's driving her like Hillary when it's not. I see this ambition more from her followers than AOC herself.

No he doesn't.

Bernie's an old controversial outsider who was going to primary a Democratic president.

Good. Saints don't get to be Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Then why is he described in those terms?

Politics is a mix of "who you are" and "who the voters want you to be" and what chances are there. The Democratic Party didn't want Biden as President in 2016 when he refused to enter the race, nor again in 2007, or 1987. They did want him in 2020.

Missing the third part of the equation: what a politician's ambitions are for themselves. She's not going to run for president if she doesn't want to. But Biden had to want to run for president, he did that twice before and lost, and getting into the race.

The Democratic Party absolutely wanted Obama as President in 2007.

Many people did, not the whole party.

AOC already has a pretty high profile as one of the most famous members of the Democratic party, and the second most famous House Democrat after the Speaker herself.

She's one of the top fundraisers of any members of the house (both parties) and one of 4 Democrats (alongside Pelosi, Schiff, Katie Porter) https://www.opensecrets.org/election...raising-totals

So her profile is very high already.

I didn't say she wasn't, but if you think that's all it takes to unseat Schumer or Pelosi you're underestimating how popular those two are with their constituents. This is something she's never done before. I'd be wary off her winning against Cuomo and I hate Cuomo.

[numberthirty]

...

Then why is he described in those terms?

...

While the entire thing isn't usually worth even entertaining...

Take a minute.

Ask yourself who is doing the "Describing In Those Terms..."

Oughta get pretty clear right around then.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Except you say the ambition like it's driving her like Hillary when it's not. I see this ambition more from her followers than AOC herself.

First things first...

I do not consider ambition to be a negative trait or a critical trait. Ambition is needed in anything in life, be it politics or arts or any such thing.

Nobody gets into politics, leave alone becoming famous in politics, without ambition. Bernie Sanders is ambitious, so is AOC.

Bernie's an old controversial outsider who was going to primary a Democratic president.

First of all, primarying a sitting incumbent of your party has a common history. Ed Kennedy did it to Jimmy Carter in the '70s, and that's the "Lion of the Senate".

Bernie only talked about it, but decided once he saw how immensely popular Obama was.

Then why is he described in those terms?

Not by me he isn't.

I didn't say she wasn't, but if you think that's all it takes to unseat Schumer or Pelosi you're underestimating how popular those two are with their constituents.

And I am saying AOC is aware of that, and that's why she wouldn't do it.

This is something she's never done before.

Her win over Crowley, a high ranking member of the House Leadership was a major upset at the time. And considered shocking.

I'd be wary off her winning against Cuomo and I hate Cuomo.

Cuomo's got a halo around his handling of COVID-19, for better and for worse, and good and bad.

But even then in the recent elections of 2020, the Dems got a Supermajority which means they can override Cuomo trying to veto their legislation. The Dem Supermajority came from strong support of the Worker's Family Party which pushed the State Dems of NY to the Left. Cuomo came to the scene as a centrist, who at times cut deals with Republicans at the expense of his party mandate to cultivate personal power but that might not work in 2022.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I call this Trump supporter "pants shittin day" as many are just going off from what I can see. The best part was Biden hours in decided to walk into Oval Office and just 15 Executive Actions. That was AWESOME.

[numberthirty]

...

First of all, primarying a sitting incumbent of your party has a common history. Ed Kennedy did it to Jimmy Carter in the '70s, and that's the "Lion of the Senate".

Bernie only talked about it, but decided once he saw how immensely popular Obama was.

...

If Pat Buchanan had not decided to primary a President, Clinton may never have been President.

If a President is too weak to win a General after having to deal with a primary?

You have way bigger problems than that someone decided to primary them.

[Mecegirl]

Sure.

Wanting an American President to finally be honest about that United States policy fundamentally works to make everything from Mexico South less stable and more dangerous for the citizens of those countries is "Whining..."

On day one calling what you are doing whining is being generous. You don't sound like someone concerned with the health and safety of others here, you sound bored and bitter. Maybe people would take your complaints seriously if he put a new policy in place that was harmful. As it is now he hasn't even had the time to do that. He doesn't even have half a cabinet confirmed yet. So as of yet he doesn't even have an administration to push forward whatever it is you have chosen for him to snap his fingers and do today.

[TheDarman]

Assuming Biden repeats all of Obama's mistakes. Give him credit, the man can come up with entirely new mistakes of his own.

But yeah, Biden will have to act and act fast. There needs to be a big shiny popular grand thing for Dems to have behind them on Midterms.

I would focus not just on COVID relief, but a new Voting Rights Bill named for John Lewis.

That's a legacy any president and party should be proud of. Johnson got it done in 1965 and it was listed as a huge accomplishment. We should be proud if that gets done. Past that, I think that immigration reform seems to be the big package outside of COVID that Biden is eying as his first legacy item--a kind of unfinished business under Obama. I'm sure that's how he views adding the public option to the ACA, but I think that Biden views the health care case open-and-shut after that and wants to focus on other things. If he can help it, I'm sure he would also like to deliver for his key constituency of young voters by giving them some student loan debt relief.

So, basically, Biden will have a "four-quadrant" plan to target and fire up the key parts of his constituency:

1) Get COVID under control
2) Get long-awaited (and bipartisan) immigration reform done
3) Finish what John Lewis and MLK started and reauthorize the VRA
4) Relieve student loan debt

There will obviously be quite a bit left on the table, but I think there needs to be some realistic expectations of what a government reeling in crisis can really get through legislatively over two years. Personally, I'm just as excited to see how Biden begins to interact with folks on the world stage again, how we work our way back into the Paris Climate Accord and build on that, and how much we focus on diplomacy over conflict over the next number of years (such as renegotiating or re-entering the Iran Nuclear Deal). Unilateral actions on climate change (which require international cooperation anyway) would be great.

[TheDarman]

If Pat Buchanan had not decided to primary a President, Clinton may never have been President.

If a President is too weak to win a General after having to deal with a primary?

You have way bigger problems than that someone decided to primary them.

This is frankly a complete misunderstanding of how politics works. Parties win when they are united. That is why incumbents tend to win--they don't face challenges from intra-party and, thus, the party is already united around them.

One of the things the Democrats did this time, and it is important to give credit to the progressives that lost this time because they left it all on the field, is unite around Biden to defeat Donald Trump. It may just be the case that incumbent presidents have a poor record because the sample size is really small, but it is true that it reopens fractures in the party. It also makes the task of uniting the party far more difficult--especially when you are a sitting president rather than merely a candidate. Candidates can spend considerable amount of times talking to constituencies and deciding what compromise measures need to be made. A president legitimately also has to govern, lest he lose support for being too concerned with an election rather than his job.

So, no, it doesn't hint at a weakness. Coalitions in American politics are necessarily large because you need to capture a majority of electoral votes. That means that some compromises have to be made. The more they are not litigated, the better chance the candidate has of moving towards grabbing the independent outstanding vote which moves elections in key states. That's just the way it is. In order to move away from it, there need to be considerable efforts at electoral reform.

[numberthirty]

On day one calling what you are doing whining is being generous. You don't sound like someone concerned with the health and safety of others here, you sound bored and bitter. Maybe people would take your complaints seriously if he put a new policy in place that was harmful. As it is now he hasn't even had the time to do that. He doesn't even have half a cabinet confirmed yet. So as of yet he doesn't even have an administration to push forward whatever it is you have chosen for him to snap his fingers and do today.

Honestly?

I can't say that I really care much about how it sounds to folks in this thread.

If someone actually threw the gauntlet down on day one, how long would it take just for the discussion about if the lack of stability in Mexico and Central America is actually America's fault to take place?

Six months?

One Presidential term?

Not even to actually do anything that will make a legitimate difference. Just to admit that U.S. policy is responsible for the bulk of that.

As for "Put A Policy In Place..."?

The policy that is already in place is the issue. I don't have to wait for you to make a bad situation worse before I suggest that maybe it's past time to try to undo some of the damage that we have already done.