The Biden Presidency - 2020

[GrantDawg]

Fun little thread pointing out the various ways the Texas election law they are trying to pass is voter suppression.

Okay, both Dade Phelan and Dan Patrick invited us to point to places in #HB6/#SB7 where there is voter suppression.
So here's a thread of me doing that in SB7.
First, the restriction on 24-hour voting: pic.twitter.com/HcFL4aw5WD

— Emily Eby (@emilyebytx) April 8, 2021

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Header perked my interest but there is not a lot of substance/details on what the policies are (or at least in the CNN article). Enforcing existing gun laws is good but article seem to indicate more/better background checks (assume like at gun shows or giving weapons to family/friends).

Biden seems to be rushing this. I think the country is ready for something more robust than his limited executive actions. May be surprised though, so I'll wait and see his proposal on Thu.

I'm not sure I'm missing something but Biden's executive actions amounts to nothing much? I didn't see anything on background checks, limits on magazine capacity. Even ability to sue gun makers (which I'm lean against) wasn't part of this?

Congress should take this up and there should be formal votes. This Biden package seems to be little more than say "well I did something now, up to Congress to do the rest".

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/08/polit...den/index.html

Biden emphasized the announcements only amount to the first steps toward addressing gun violence, with later action -- like a ban on assault weapons or rules requiring universal background checks -- requiring Congress. Biden, who is in the midst of advancing a massive infrastructure plan, has previously voiced uncertainty on the likelihood of passing major new gun laws.

Ghost guns are handmade or self-assembled firearms that don't have serial numbers. Some can be fabricated in as little as 30 minutes using kits and parts purchased online.
:
Another proposed rule would target stabilizing braces for pistols, which aid in the weapons' accuracy and manage recoil
:
Biden also announced new investments in intervention programs in violence-prone communities; a directive to the Justice Department to publish model "red flag" laws for states that allow the temporary removal of guns from people deemed at high risk of harming themselves or others

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not sure I'm missing something but Biden's executive actions amounts to nothing much? I didn't see anything on background checks, limits on magazine capacity. Even ability to sue gun makers (which I'm lean against) wasn't part of this?

Congress should take this up and there should be formal votes. This Biden package seems to be little more than say "well I did something now, up to Congress to do the rest".

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/08/polit...den/index.html

Yeah these will have no impact and is as usual disappointing.SMH.

[Brian Swartz]

Is he wrong in saying those actions require Congress?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Is he wrong in saying those actions require Congress?

Yeah, I am not getting what people expect here. He is not a dictator, and he can't simply overturn written law. He is doing what he legally can do.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Is he wrong in saying those actions require Congress?

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Yeah, I am not getting what people expect here. He is not a dictator, and he can't simply overturn written law. He is doing what he legally can do.

I agree with both of you. Congress should pass meaningful gun control that was what I meant.

[Edward64]

I am saying Biden could have done more with his executive actions. There are limits to what he can do, and Congress needs to act. But IMO he clearly chose the "less" route.

It may be politically astute and because he wants to satiate (for now) the pressure from the further Left, or he doesn't want to use political capital now, or he doesn't want to distract from his more immediate/higher priority agenda (e.g. jobs/infrastructure bill) etc.

But to say he couldn't have done more with executive actions and it's just up to Congress is IMO giving him a pass.

With that said, he is in his honeymoon period. He does have more important and immediate concerns. So don't do a half-hearted effort now, wait for Day 200 or 300.

Good article on what could have been done with executive actions. Yes, some of this be challenged in court but it shows more "creative" ideas, including from VP.

(BTW - just to reiterate my overall stance ... as a gun owner, I do support the 2A but definitely can support stronger, more stringent controls & restrictions. There are many things I'm sure I would not like from the Dems but there is much that I believe should be done)

How Can a President Tackle Gun Violence Via Executive Action?

If the president wants to take unilateral action on guns, he or she can mostly act through the Department of Justice and its agencies, said attorney Lindsay Nichols of Giffords, the gun violence prevention organization. In particular, that means the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which handles background checks, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which regulates the gun industry and enforces federal firearms law. The president can prioritize enforcement of current laws, direct existing infrastructure like the background check system to operate differently, or, most dramatically, promulgate formal rule changes to rewrite the particulars of regulation. Outside of the DOJ, the president can also address the proliferation of guns through trade policy.

The 11 Democratic presidential candidates who have endorsed executive action on guns have put forth proposals that vary in specificity and ambition.

Julian Castro, Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren have the boldest plans. They have each promised to enact a far more expansive definition of who is “engaged in the business” of selling guns than was attempted by Obama. It would likely require thousands of private sellers to get licenses and conduct checks — or stop selling guns. All four say they would reverse the Trump administration decision to use a much more limited definition of “fugitives from justice” for the purposes of the federal background check system. And they intend to use the president’s authority over trade policy to limit the import and export of guns, which they argue has worsened violence both at home and abroad.

The remaining candidates have made more modest or vague promises. Amy Klobuchar and Marianne Williamson say they would restore Obama’s order to include Social Security records in the background check system. Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, and Bernie Sanders have not said which executive actions they would take, only that they would use the power of the presidency to institute gun policy.

Joe Biden has said he would use executive action to block the importation of assault weapons. As vice president, his office was in charge of the Obama administration’s efforts to limit gun violence through executive action.

[albionmoonlight]

The president is not doing cable news interviews. Tweets from his account are limited and, when they come, unimaginably conventional. The public comments are largely scripted. Biden has opted for fewer sit down interviews with mainstream outlets and reporters.

— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) April 12, 2021

People are rightly making fun of this for preferring Trump's chaos to Biden's governing.

But I think that the more telling part is the next tweet he sent: "Invites the question: is he really in charge?"

It is revealing that the GOP thinks that its best attack on Biden at this point is to argue that he's not really running things. That's not a long-term winning line of attack. You are pretty much conceding that the guy seems like he's doing a good enough job if the thing to fear is that he might not actually be doing that job.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Senator Cornyn

Tweets from his account are limited and, when they come, unimaginably conventional.

Yes, this is a meaningful part of what many, many Americans literally went out of their way to vote for.

[ISiddiqui]

And it's one of those ridiculous things that is easily seen as a lie. The whole charge is that Biden is senile so the party made sure that Kamala Harris is really running things. But if you actually listen to him talk you know that's not true. And then there is the strange charge that the Party would throw in for Harris, after so few bigwigs in the Party endorsed her in the primaries. Not to mention she isn't exactly a leftist standard bearer.

But facts don't matter here.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

Facts don't matter. All that matters is that someone in some sort of position of power (official or media) says/tweets something that you want to believe or agree with, so you have some sort of authority to point to as justification for your position/beliefs. That's literally all that's going on with the GOP and many of its supporters now.

What they realize worked so well for Trump is (a) having an enemy and (b) repeating any argument against the enemy so many times that it becomes the truth by sheer will of force. That's the secret sauce. It doesn't get any more complex than that, and it works against people, parties, masks, vaccines, viruses, etc.

[QuikSand]

yup

[Lathum]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...215364099?s=21

[JPhillips]

Turns out Cornyn was quoting a Politico piece, so the original complaint was that journalists don't have as much to write about.

Good.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Turns out Cornyn was quoting a Politico piece, so the original complaint was that journalists don't have as much to write about.

Good.

The media is not pro-Democrat or pro-Republican.

But the media is pro making money.

Trump/GOP bring in 'dem clicks. So I could see a media backlash against Biden ("Another Mexican Caravan is Coming! And This Time We Mean It!") just out of self-preservation.

[GrantDawg]

This is also back door racism. "The white guy is not really in charge. It is the scary black woman." I am always amazed at the old white women that will just let you know how directly they hate VP Harris. The chief criticism I hear of her? She is just always smiling. Like having a black women smile is somehow evil.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

I don't know if Sep 11, 2021 is the right time but yeah, time to get out. We're down to 2,500. Combat deaths are down considerably so assume not as much activity.

It could be Taliban wants US troops out first before launching all out offensives. Or maybe they do want to talk peace. Either way, time to get out. Nothing strategic (that I know of) about Afghanistan. I do think we should offer to bring back any Afghanis that have helped us.

Now, Iraq is a different story. I would still get the 2,500 troops out but maintain some good influence (like the Kurds) and maybe FOB at the Saudi, Kuwait etc. border.

[GrantDawg]

Agreed, Edward. I am afraid that we are just going to abandon any allies in Afghanistan, though. We don't have a good track record.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But to say he couldn't have done more with executive actions and it's just up to Congress is IMO giving him a pass.

I didn't see any specific actions listed in your post that you think he has the authority to do.

For my part, it's not giving him a pass; it's not expecting him to do Congress's job when he's not supposed to do that, and being grateful for any time we don't have the kind of Presidential overreach that's been consistently practiced for the past 50 years or more escalated even further.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I didn't see any specific actions listed in your post that you think he has the authority to do.

I quoted an article that had additional stuff that he could have done?

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Biden Presidency - 2020

[albionmoonlight]

Biden sanctioning Russia.

Will be interesting to see how Russia reacts. They've had the run of the place for 4 years. I can't imagine they are happy to see America back in the room.

[Brian Swartz]

Correct you are Edward. I must have had my brain off when I read your post before *slap self*

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Biden sanctioning Russia.

Will be interesting to see how Russia reacts. They've had the run of the place for 4 years. I can't imagine they are happy to see America back in the room.

Yes, personally I like this approach so far and incrementally do more (and if not already, the US should be ramping up clandestine activities also). But I am concerned about how this may trigger any additional actions against Ukraine.

I don't think the US should be in the forefront of Ukraine, the EU should be primary as this is literally in their backyard (but the US should be supporting). I don't have a good sense of scale but in reading the BBC & Euronews, I don't get a sense the EU is doing "much" and Ukraine is left dangling somewhat.

I've read an article that said Ukraine is probably a bluff, more for Putin to lose than win (he does have the Crimea and the port already). But I'm not so sure about that. He is trying to rebuild the "greatness" of the USSR to some extent including military, world influence and (very likely) land.

[Edward64]

Some interesting stats. Tthe article didn't provide total cost but another article said about $1.6T+. So say 80% of that as a swag = $1.3T.

Using that same formula for $10K proposal or 33%, that is = $500B.

Here's How Many Borrowers Will | Money

Roughly 80% of federal student loan borrowers would see their debts completely wiped out if the government cancels $50,000 of student loans.
:
If the government forgives $10,000 — the amount that Biden has repeatedly said he’s comfortable with — the number of borrowers whose debt is completely forgiven drops to 15 million, or about 33% of all borrowers.
:
The new data from the Education Department show that of the 44.9 million borrowers with federal Direct Loans and FFEL program loans, 36 million would have their debt completely forgiven under the $50,000 of cancellation proposal. That would include 9.8 million borrowers who are delinquent or in default on their loans, and it would also wipe out the debt of more than 3 million borrowers who’ve been repaying their loans for 20 years of more.

[Ksyrup]

So that will be the second major thing that I will have missed out on because of my age. I know, I know, things change/advance, but holy hell! I could have used my $50K in law school loans wiped out.

The first thing I missed out on was paid family leave. When I had my two kids, I took 3 days off - basically from contractions through the end of that work week and then back to work the next Monday. Now, my old job gives two separate paid leave periods for both men and women, up to 19 weeks, I think it is? I feel like older employees or those who choose not to have children ought to get a 12 week paid sabbatical to make up for it.

[JPhillips]

I'm sure if anything happens it will be well under 50k, and my bet is nothing gets forgiven. The Biden shop has been really focused on what is popular and student loan forgiveness is politically toxic.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm sure if anything happens it will be well under 50k, and my bet is nothing gets forgiven. The Biden shop has been really focused on what is popular and student loan forgiveness is politically toxic.

Agree.

I also think that this was a plan to inject some stimulus into the economy when it looked like nothing else might happen.

But now that we got the stimulus bill and it looks like we might (probably) get an infrastructure bill, there is less need to do this.

I'd much prefer a focus on reducing college costs going forward than on a blunt cancellation of the debt that's out there.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So that will be the second major thing that I will have missed out on because of my age. I know, I know, things change/advance, but holy hell! I could have used my $50K in law school loans wiped out.

The first thing I missed out on was paid family leave. When I had my two kids, I took 3 days off - basically from contractions through the end of that work week and then back to work the next Monday. Now, my old job gives two separate paid leave periods for both men and women, up to 19 weeks, I think it is? I feel like older employees or those who choose not to have children ought to get a 12 week paid sabbatical to make up for it.

The US doesn't have paid family leave yet, does it? I mean, there's FMLA but that's just "you can't be fired". For instance, in 2015, I took 2 months off and it trained my PTO and then I was unpaid part of the time. There was no paid leave

SI

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'd much prefer a focus on reducing college costs going forward than on a blunt cancellation of the debt that's out there.

I believe that both should be done. I do wonder why this idea is not pushed more by those against forgiving the current debt.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The US doesn't have paid family leave yet, does it? I mean, there's FMLA but that's just "you can't be fired". For instance, in 2015, I took 2 months off and it trained my PTO and then I was unpaid part of the time. There was no paid leave

SI

It is likely company specific. I know that many of the banks offer 16 weeks paid leave. 10 years ago, I could take 8 weeks paid.

[JPhillips]

A new America First Caucus is forming to more clearly articulate a white nationalist agenda.

https://punchbowl.news/wp-content/up...rm-FINAL-2.pdf

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A new America First Caucus is forming to more clearly articulate a white nationalist agenda.

https://punchbowl.news/wp-content/up...rm-FINAL-2.pdf

It must be something to look over America in the year 2021 and say to yourself "You know the problem with this country? It isn't pro-Trump enough. People who support Trumpism just don't have a voice."

[RainMaker]

Just call yourselves the Fascist Party already.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I believe that both should be done. I do wonder why this idea is not pushed more by those against forgiving the current debt.

And it seems easy enough to do. Just say that you can't raise costs more than ([inflation metric] -0.5%) per year.

It's a solution that will take a generation to work, but I'm OK with the country thinking long term.

[Brian Swartz]

I think higher education is like health care in terms of the costs. I expect the cost of high-quality either to continue to escalate faster than inflation for the foreseeable future. I don't see how anything else is realistic given the march of technology.

[ISiddiqui]

First foreign leader to visit the WH in the Biden Administration is the PM of Japan. That's a clear message to China.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think higher education is like health care in terms of the costs. I expect the cost of high-quality either to continue to escalate faster than inflation for the foreseeable future. I don't see how anything else is realistic given the march of technology.

Tech costs within tech programs is certainly an issue, but overall the costs at colleges aren't rising due to academic expenses. Admin, non-academic programming, and facilities are the main drivers of costs.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Just call yourselves the Fascist Party already.

Yeah seriously. I read that and that fucking terrifying lots of references. To being the progeny of past European civ and mentions the nations needs to retain its AngloSaxon traditions.

[Edward64]

No idea what Raul Castro stepping down means for US-Cuba relationships. But I would love to travel to Cuba and smoke a hand rolled cigar right then and there.

I hope the next generation of Cuban leaders are more willing to open up. I also hope US (okay, FL and politicians that need FL votes) are willing to normalize relations.

[GrantDawg]

This will be interesting to see where it goes. My guess is that he doesn';t actually run. He is just going to flirt with it for awhile.

Matthew McConaughey Trounces Greg Abbott In Poll For Texas Governor | HuffPost

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This will be interesting to see where it goes. My guess is that he doesn';t actually run. He is just going to flirt with it for awhile.

Matthew McConaughey Trounces Greg Abbott In Poll For Texas Governor | HuffPost

I won't say that anything is impossible after Trump. But I don't think that McConaughey is a viable candidate. Of course an actor with high name recognition who seems like a really neat guy is going to poll well against a politician.

If he actually runs, however, he will start having to take positions on controversial issues and get a ton of negative ads run against him. And then the numbers will come back down to Earth.

Personally, if I had the life of a famous rich actor (and I wasn't trying to stay ahead of my Russian creditors), one of the last things I'd do is run for office. Seems like a ton of work and stress for a not-large increase in prestige and power.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I won't say that anything is impossible after Trump. But I don't think that McConaughey is a viable candidate. Of course an actor with high name recognition who seems like a really neat guy is going to poll well against a politician.

If he actually runs, however, he will start having to take positions on controversial issues and get a ton of negative ads run against him. And then the numbers will come back down to Earth.

Personally, if I had the life of a famous rich actor (and I wasn't trying to stay ahead of my Russian creditors), one of the last things I'd do is run for office. Seems like a ton of work and stress for a not-large increase in prestige and power.

Compared to Abbott, my left shoe is a viable candidate.

[Ksyrup]

In Texas, the problem with your shoe winning is that it's your LEFT shoe.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This will be interesting to see where it goes. My guess is that he doesn';t actually run. He is just going to flirt with it for awhile.

Matthew McConaughey Trounces Greg Abbott In Poll For Texas Governor | HuffPost

If Jessie Ventura can be a governor then I don;'t see why Matthew could not.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This will be interesting to see where it goes. My guess is that he doesn';t actually run. He is just going to flirt with it for awhile.

Matthew McConaughey Trounces Greg Abbott In Poll For Texas Governor | HuffPost

alright
alright
alright

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If Jessie Ventura can be a governor then I don;'t see why Matthew could not.

There was also a reality TV show star who became president some time back.

[GrantDawg]

I really don't think it is a question if it is "plausible" that he could win. History shows it is. I just don't think we know enough whether it is likely he could win. Polls now are just fluff. His name recognition will have him ahead of most anyone. No one seems to know exactly what his platform would be. Heck, they don't even know if he'd as Democrat, independent, or it is even possibly a Republican (not likely). Some of the things he has said recently seems to suggest a more conservative bend than you would expect. I imagine it will be more of a populous style, but still more left than right.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Personally, if I had the life of a famous rich actor (and I wasn't trying to stay ahead of my Russian creditors), one of the last things I'd do is run for office. Seems like a ton of work and stress for a not-large increase in prestige and power.

Arnold wasn't going broke when he ran for governor. Of course, he did have an easier path as a special election. Still, it really depends on whether McConaughey really wants it. If he feels it is more important than his movie career, then he might do it.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The US doesn't have paid family leave yet, does it? I mean, there's FMLA but that's just "you can't be fired". For instance, in 2015, I took 2 months off and it trained my PTO and then I was unpaid part of the time. There was no paid leave

SI

Right, it's company-specific but many companies are making it standard. You can take unpaid leave, but 15-20 years ago, paid leave was not common at all. Now it's overboard, IMO.

Here's the thing - people who take advantage of the full benefit are likely slitting their own throats. When you prove that your employer can make do without you for 3 months at a time, when the time comes for cuts, they don't have to fire you because you had a kid, they can just remember that they did just fine without you and can figure out how to make that work, minus your salary.

At my old job, we were told we could not contact the person on leave. Which is fine. But if you really cared about your job, you reached out from time to time to check in and offer assistance on ongoing projects. We had one guy who wouldn't even answer his phone for 3 months and had 2 kids within about 15 months of each other. That's 6 months of total silence during 18 months of employment. I can tell you his co-workers did not think as highly of him after that as they did before.

[Edward64]

Wow, I've never thought or read about this option. It makes a lot of sense to me. Gradual reduction over X years to wean smokers.

Biden administration could require tobacco companies to reduce nicotine in cigarettes - MarketWatch

The Biden administration is considering requiring tobacco companies to reduce the nicotine levels in all cigarettes sold in the U.S. to levels at which they are no longer addictive, according to people familiar with the matter.

Administration officials are considering the policy as they approach a deadline for declaring the administration’s intentions on another tobacco question: whether or not to ban menthol cigarettes.

The Food and Drug Administration must respond in court by April 29 to a citizens’ petition to ban menthols by disclosing whether the agency intends to pursue such a policy. The Biden administration is now weighing whether to move forward on a menthol ban or a nicotine reduction in all cigarettes—or both, the people familiar with the matter said.