Roe vs Wade overturned

[sean99]

Both parties serve the same elites...at least generally speaking. There were/are some possible exceptions. Dennis Kucinich was one, but it's been a decade or so since he was in Congress. But, anyway, both parties receiving funding from the same mostly corporate sources...many of whom support both parties.

Unlike the UK, the US has mostly elected non-Republican federal governments over the last few decades. From the 1992 election on, Democrats have won the popular vote for president 7 out of 8 times (W. Bush's 2004 victory being the exception). 2000 and 2016 were both cases where the Democrats ran dreadful party loyalist candidates and just barely lost deciding states in the EC. Even still, Democrats have had the presidency for 18 years since that 1992 election (8 years for Clinton, 8 for Obama, Biden is on his 2nd year and will have 2 more) compared to 12 for Republicans. Democrats have had majorities in Congress several times during that period as well.

But, yet, the US has moved rightward during those years. Democrats have failed to pass progressive legislation which would naturally pull the Republican Party leftward. For example, FDR's New Deal era, along with Johnson's Great Society programs, introduced legislation so popular that the right-wingers cannot eliminate it. In fact, Republican presidents post-Johnson, Nixon and Ford at least, actually worked to expand things such as Medicare and Medicaid! Eisenhower led some work which eventually led to Medicare. Nixon implemented some of the greatest environmental reforms seen in the US. The conservatives were pulled leftward by strong social programs.

But, yet, we don't get much of that today. Even though the governments of FDR and Johnson were constrained financially in a way which is not the case today, what we get are excuses for austerity from the Democrats (and Republicans)...at least when it comes to social spending. Military misadventures and corporate subsidization are different stories, of course.

This analysis completely ignores the fact that control of the presidency alone is not sufficient to make meaningful policy changes, and that Clinton and Obama only had a cooperative Senate for their first two years. Compare that to FDR.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/

The US system of government just doesn't work when the senate is determined to oppose the President, as has been the case since the 1990s whenever a democratic president has faced a republican senate.

I believe Obama squandered his first two years in office, perhaps out of naivety ? I think Biden has done a reasonable job given that he effectively has an opposing senate (Manchin and Sinema may rot in hell). The democrats proposed expansive spending bills during Biden's term but Manchin and Sinema have held them all hostage for their personal enrichment.

Campaign finance laws are totally broken in the US, allowing corporations to pay off a handful of key senators from either party and stall any unfavorable legislation - hence the gridlock on healthcare, climate. However, let's not forget that, under Trump, the republicans came very close to dismantling the ACA, which would have removed non-emergency healthcare access from tens of millions. Meanwhile democrats have worked to try to expand the ACA.

I would also like a more left wing democratic party, but let's not pretend there is any equivalence between the two parties. The democrats are a broad party of center right to left leaning (AOC, Warren, Sanders) politicians, where the republicans have spent 30 years becoming a party of far-right, white nationalist, misogynist, boot lickers of the ultra rich.

 

[Klassik]

This analysis completely ignores the fact that control of the presidency alone is not sufficient to make meaningful policy changes, and that Clinton and Obama only had a cooperative Senate for their first two years. Compare that to FDR.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/

The US system of government just doesn't work when the senate is determined to oppose the President, as has been the case since the 1990s whenever a democratic president has faced a republican senate.

Just looking at the composition of the House and Senate in FDR's time does not tell the whole story either. There were significant conservative factions within both parties which worked hard to try to limit FDR's New Deal policies. Say what you want of the Democratic Party today, but at that time, it was a wide mix of Jim Crow loyal southerners and people who supported FDR. Also, the Supreme Court was often aggressive against FDR's policies in a way that is less common today (though not unheard of such as with the recent environmental ruling and such). This is why FDR sought to expand the Court, but was prevented from doing so by many in his own party.

Things were not considerably different even in Johnson's days. The courts might have been more favorable, but the Democratic Party was still a real hodgepodge.

I believe Obama squandered his first two years in office, perhaps out of naivety ? I think Biden has done a reasonable job given that he effectively has an opposing senate (Manchin and Sinema may rot in hell). The democrats proposed expansive spending bills during Biden's term but Manchin and Sinema have held them all hostage for their personal enrichment.

Obama most certainly did squander his first two years in office. The conditions under which he was elected were perhaps the most fertile ground a president has been elected into since FDR replaced Hoover. And, yet, what's Obama's legacy as compared to FDRs? That's just looking at domestic policy and not foreign policy where Obama didn't need Congress's assistance in continuing and expanding global humanitarian disasters. Naivety? At best, that is a glass half full take. Naivety, incompetence, or purposeful neoliberal policy, Obama's presidency wasn't enough to stop the right-wing turn.

As for Biden, wasn't the whole reason for nominating Biden was that he had so much experience in the Senate making bipartisan deals? So, with that in mind, why is it that he can't even pass legislation with a Senate majority? And are Senate Republicans to blame for the State Department's very hawkish foreign policy...much of which is carried over from the Trump administration?

The Democrats' spending bills may not reflect complete austerity, but how much of that spending goes towards social programs as compared to corporate spending? How does this compare to the New Deal era or Johnson's Great Society era? Where are the bills for Medicare for All (or something similar)? Are there any attempts at passing spending bills which directly benefit the public the way that FDR's did?

 

[sean99]

As for Biden, wasn't the whole reason for nominating Biden was that he had so much experience in the Senate making bipartisan deals?

No - Biden was nominated as the person most likely to be able to beat Trump. I can't say if this was true, but I do think that Sanders would have struggled with the "socialist" tag. I would have preferred Warren or Sanders, but most of all I wanted rid of Trump.

So, with that in mind, why is it that he can't even pass legislation with a Senate majority?

Simple - 100% republican opposition, and Manchin and Sinema pursuing their own agenda / political donations. Biden doesn't really have a senate majority - it's disingenuous to pretend that he does.

And are Senate Republicans to blame for the State Department's very hawkish foreign policy...much of which is carried over from the Trump administration?

Other than the awful withdrawal from Afghanistan (negotiated by Trump, and long overdue) I'm not sure what's "very hawkish" about the current US foreign policy. I am very disappointed that the US did not push harder on Moderna and Pfizer with regard to global vaccine production, but the US has been right on the money with regard to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and China's growing militarism.

 

[Klassik]

No - Biden was nominated as the person most likely to be able to beat Trump. I can't say if this was true, but I do think that Sanders would have struggled with the "socialist" tag. I would have preferred Warren or Sanders, but most of all I wanted rid of Trump.

No - Biden was nominated as the person most likely to be able to beat Trump. I can't say if this was true, but I do think that Sanders would have struggled with the "socialist" tag. I would have preferred Warren or Sanders, but most of all I wanted rid of Trump.

Ok, 'electability' was one factor and Biden did pass that. Beyond that, one of the biggest selling points we heard about Biden, and one of the justifications for a conservative Democrat, was that a conservative Democrat with Biden's extensive Senatorial/VP experience would be able to make bipartisan deals in the Senate. So far, that's a massive fail. And, really, the infrastructure bill is so stretched out that the amount of funding in it is quite paltry really. It might be necessary regardless, but not near enough. That's just one bill, what about Medicare for All and other things the public is generally supportive of and Democrats especially are supportive of? Are these not even going to be introduced?

You can't win if you don't try. FDR tried to sell the public on the New Deal. Modern Democrats talk about how the US can't afford social spending and then act flummoxed when the same justifications are used to vote against their weak bills.

Other than the awful withdrawal from Afghanistan (negotiated by Trump, and long overdue) I'm not sure what's "very hawkish" about the current US foreign policy. I am very disappointed that the US did not push harder on Moderna and Pfizer with regard to global vaccine production, but the US has been right on the money with regard to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and China's growing militarism.

Klassik has no problem with Afghanistan. Biden was off to a good start there. We agree about the vaccines, but Klassik could not disagree more about Ukraine and China. China's growing militarism? China has not invaded a country in any meaningful way since 1979. The US, meanwhile, has engaged in at least a couple of handfuls of major foreign policy blunders in that time including Afghanistan in the first place and Iraq, a war that Biden voted for as a Senator. Klassik's not worried about Chinese aggression aside from any we provoke by trying to encircle China.

The US has been right on the money with Ukraine? Oh, where's the US's diplomacy to engage in peace negotiations to end the war (or to have prevented it in the first place...though it's hard to pin that all on Biden)? The EU is waiting for it. It seems Zelenskyy would like to engage in peace negotiations. Where is the US in this?

Oh, and why did Biden select a US's Secretary of Defense straight from the board of directors of Raytheon and a privatized healthcare company? How has Lloyd Austin, Antony Blinken, and Pine Island Capital benefited from this militarization?

Meanwhile, what's the environmental impact of all this militarization?

 

[flatpopely]

Ok, 'electability' was one factor and Biden did pass that. Beyond that, one of the biggest selling points we heard about Biden, and one of the justifications for a conservative Democrat, was that a conservative Democrat with Biden's extensive Senatorial/VP experience would be able to make bipartisan deals in the Senate. So far, that's a massive fail. And, really, the infrastructure bill is so stretched out that the amount of funding in it is quite paltry really. It might be necessary regardless, but not near enough. That's just one bill, what about Medicare for All and other things the public is generally supportive of and Democrats especially are supportive of? Are these not even going to be introduced?

You can't win if you don't try. FDR tried to sell the public on the New Deal. Modern Democrats talk about how the US can't afford social spending and then act flummoxed when the same justifications are used to vote against their weak bills.



Klassik has no problem with Afghanistan. Biden was off to a good start there. We agree about the vaccines, but Klassik could not disagree more about Ukraine and China. China's growing militarism? China has not invaded a country in any meaningful way since 1979. The US, meanwhile, has engaged in at least a couple of handfuls of major foreign policy blunders in that time including Afghanistan in the first place and Iraq, a war that Biden voted for as a Senator. Klassik's not worried about Chinese aggression aside from any we provoke by trying to encircle China.

The US has been right on the money with Ukraine? Oh, where's the US's diplomacy to engage in peace negotiations to end the war (or to have prevented it in the first place...though it's hard to pin that all on Biden)? The EU is waiting for it. It seems Zelenskyy would like to engage in peace negotiations. Where is the US in this?

Oh, and why did Biden select a US's Secretary of Defense straight from the board of directors of Raytheon and a privatized healthcare company? How has Lloyd Austin, Antony Blinken, and Pine Island Capital benefited from this militarization?

Meanwhile, what's the environmental impact of all this militarization?

Have you not been keeping up on events in Hong Kong, or the continuing threat to Taiwan?

 

[Klassik]

Have you not been keeping up on events in Hong Kong, or the continuing threat to Taiwan?

Klassik is aware and Klassik is more concerned with the US's actions more than China's in the Pacific at the moment. The AUKUS arms deal with Australia was quite disgraceful and, of course, the UK was a part of that. Klassik believes the best thing the US can do with China at the moment is work on green energy partnerships. Both countries are going in the opposite direction environmentally specifically due to the militarization in the last few months. Diplomacy is the way to correct this and partnerships with China will go a long way to furthering green energy in both China, the US, and globally.

China is not the US or Russia. They're not invading countries every so often. The US might be unfamiliar with the threats to their global hegemony that China represents, but that does not mean China is going to turn into the US unless the US allows them to.

 

[flatpopely]

So you’re not concerned about the human rights abuse in China, just rather blame the west. I wonder, hypothetically, if asked would you consider Ukraine an independent country.

 

[wacko]

Have you not been keeping up on events in Hong Kong, or the continuing threat to Taiwan?

HK was always part of China. Taken by a foreign power (UK) by force in 1841.
Taiwan is debatable. But China has not invaded Taiwan and is unlikely to unless provoked.

 

[sean99]

No one who had paid any attention to the last 12 years thought that there was the slightest chance of any bipartisan cooperation from senate republicans. Biden was selected on the basis that he was most likely to beat Trump. That's it. The US left held their noses and voted for Biden in the general election and thank god they did, or we would have had a re-run of 2016.

I think that anyone who believes that there can be good faith peace negotiations with Putin is completely delusional.

The US has spent the past 3 decades working on the assumption that trade engagement with China would guide China toward a more cooperative and democratic future, but that has been shown not to be the case. The US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were unjustifiable and terrible mistakes, but WRT to the current Chinese policy toward Taiwan bringing up US foreign misadventures is pure whataboutism. China's threats toward Taiwan are completely unacceptable - the future of Taiwan is the choice of the people of Taiwan, and not the CCP.

 

[flatpopely]

HK was always part of China. Taken by a foreign power (UK) by force in 1841.
Taiwan is debatable. But China has not invaded Taiwan and is unlikely to unless provoked.

So you’re ok with the suppression of democratic rule in HK?

 

[klfrs]

China is not the US or Russia.

If you had to choose where to live out of the three countries, and all other factors important to you being equal, which would you choose?

 

[Le Baron]

So you’re not concerned about the human rights abuse in China, just rather blame the west. I wonder, hypothetically, if asked would you consider Ukraine an independent country.

This is a bit of red herring. are you saying that they shouldn't co-operate with China on green energy (China is pursuing it anyway, especially in Africa) on the grounds that they disagree with certain facets of Chinese policy? So that on the same grounds maybe everyone should never cooperate with the U.S. based upon its malevolent foreign policy (for the last 60-70 years)? If we want to count human rights abuses people in the west can quickly be embarrassed.

 

[Le Baron]

If you had to choose where to live out of the three countries, and all other factors important to you being equal, which would you choose?

This is usually said by people who've never been to China. There's this idea that it's devoid of civil liberties and everyone walks about afraid. It's not true. At base level alone you're not likely to end up shot dead while sitting in a restaurant there.

I think we've all seen over the last few years that civil liberties can be curtailed anywhere, but that some states have better PR.

 

[flatpopely]

This is a bit of red herring. are you saying that they shouldn't co-operate with China on green energy (China is pursuing it anyway, especially in Africa) on the grounds that they disagree with certain facets of Chinese policy? So that on the same grounds maybe everyone should never cooperate with the U.S. based upon it's malevolent foreign policy (for the last 60-70 years)? If we want to count human rights abuses people in the west can quickly be embarrassed.

Classic whataboutism.

 

[Le Baron]

Classic whataboutism.

I think rather yours was. Go back and read it.

what you rail against is the same 'we need to be pragmatic' preached on here about all unpleasant realities.

 

[Hook]

The COVID relief bill was the largest transfer of wealth in US history, raising 4+ million kids out of poverty. Then there was over a trillion in the new infrastructure bill. Congress just passed $52B to onshore chip production and now, Manchin has agreed to support filibuster-proof reconciliation bill to address climate, energy and health care.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/politics/schumer-manchin-deal-build-back-better/index.html

IMO, the “Biden Agenda” is now a significant list of progressive legislative wins that Dems can run and win on.

 

[Le Baron]

raising 4+ million kids out of poverty.

It didn't 'raise' them, it likely stopped some falling into poverty. Clearly the infrastructure was always too small, and was continuously throttled to meet the usual panics of 'default' etc. This is the same story for the climate/energy transformation plan.

Did you read that 'new trickle-down' plan for 'build back better' from Janet Yellen on the government's policy announcements posted by LaughingBoy? The numbers look big, they are big, but nowhere near what is required. Yet in the popular mind it's hard to stand there and say so without people being stunned into incredulity as to why that would be said.

 

[sean99]

Back on topic the NYT nicely illustrates how GOP "concerns" for unborn children ends the moment they are born.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/upshot/abortion-bans-states-social-services.html

Democrats should be shouting this hypocrisy from the rooftops ahead of the mid-terms.

 

[kensalriser]

So you’re ok with the suppression of democratic rule in HK?

Are you really attempting serious debate with someone who refers to their online profile in the third person way beyond the point at which it might have been a bit of a joke?

 

[stevec67]

Are you really attempting serious debate with someone who refers to their online profile in the third person way beyond the point at which it might have been a bit of a joke?

It appears so. Personally I find the behaviour extremely pretentious. It's an attempt to add a false gravitas to one person's opinions and banal observations.