Biden faces scrutiny over reliance on executive orders

[LNE]

Biden faces scrutiny over reliance on executive orders

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-don...ijiIoeIpho

[mamabug]

Good. I hate executive actions in general but they've just been getting worse for the last 20 years or so. It's a convenient way to absolve the legislature of having to do anything (if all on the same team) or the executive of having to actually work with them (if they are not). They also allow for substantial changes to occur without debate (or scrutiny if the media is feeling particularly lazy). The more we use them, the more it sets us up for a rotating dictatorship every 4-8 years.

[pbrower2a]

The ideal solution: turn them into legislation.

[David Horn]

(01-31-2021, 01:25 AM)mamabug Wrote: Good. I hate executive actions in general but they've just been getting worse for the last 20 years or so.  It's a convenient way to absolve the legislature of having to do anything (if all on the same team) or the executive of having to actually work with them (if they are not).   They also allow for substantial changes to occur without debate (or scrutiny if the media is feeling particularly lazy).  The more we use them, the more it sets us up for a rotating dictatorship every 4-8 years.

Partisanship has made it impossible to actually do much of anything most of the time.  If anything, it's even worse now than it was 10 years ago. Don't expect much if anything, unless the filibuster is crushed. Even then, the Dems are limited by Joe Manchin.  That could change if DJT actually creates a rival right-wing party.

[mamabug]

(01-31-2021, 12:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 01:25 AM)mamabug Wrote: Good. I hate executive actions in general but they've just been getting worse for the last 20 years or so.  It's a convenient way to absolve the legislature of having to do anything (if all on the same team) or the executive of having to actually work with them (if they are not).   They also allow for substantial changes to occur without debate (or scrutiny if the media is feeling particularly lazy).  The more we use them, the more it sets us up for a rotating dictatorship every 4-8 years.

Partisanship has made it impossible to actually do much of anything most of the time.  If anything, it's even worse now than it was 10 years ago.  Don't expect much if anything, unless the filibuster is crushed. Even then, the Dems are limited by Joe Manchin.  That could change if DJT actually creates a rival right-wing party.

The entire point of our constitution is to make it difficult for one party or group to 'get things done.'  Over the course of our country, Americans have repeatedly shown that they *like* gridlock - it's not a bug, it's a feature.  The only way to overcome this to make your party agenda popular enough that it gets about 60% or more of the public support.  

People whining about partisanship sound a lot to me like sports fans whinging that the other team is allowed to even field a defense.

[random3]

You could escape tyranny in the Soviet Union, but you can't flee a global police state.

The future is terrible because even if the patriots defeated the elites, drones, robots, wiretapping, and surveillance cameras will always exist in the world and the technology will improve.

Americans must be mobile now. When you have an address and SSN, the government knows who to look for when they begin to liquidate the 99%.

The target of tyranny are not just negroes, illegal immigrants, or Muslims. The target of the police state is YOU.

In 2021, guns will be banned, there will be lockdowns, masks and vaccinations will be mandatory, the stock market will crash, and cash will be banned.

ATM machines will be shut off.

Property may be nationalized.

Walls might be built around cities.

If Americans studied history,
Americans would know that tyranny leads to struggle sessions, death squads, show trials, mass arrests, summary executions, concentration camps, boxcars, ovens, and lampshades.

Buy gold, guns, ammo, rice, water, and canned goods today.
Buy a sailboat or move to a small white town in South Dakota.

Pass the word.

[David Horn]

(01-31-2021, 06:41 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 12:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 01:25 AM)mamabug Wrote: Good. I hate executive actions in general but they've just been getting worse for the last 20 years or so.  It's a convenient way to absolve the legislature of having to do anything (if all on the same team) or the executive of having to actually work with them (if they are not).   They also allow for substantial changes to occur without debate (or scrutiny if the media is feeling particularly lazy).  The more we use them, the more it sets us up for a rotating dictatorship every 4-8 years.

Partisanship has made it impossible to actually do much of anything most of the time.  If anything, it's even worse now than it was 10 years ago.  Don't expect much if anything, unless the filibuster is crushed. Even then, the Dems are limited by Joe Manchin.  That could change if DJT actually creates a rival right-wing party.

The entire point of our constitution is to make it difficult for one party or group to 'get things done.'  Over the course of our country, Americans have repeatedly shown that they *like* gridlock - it's not a bug, it's a feature.  The only way to overcome this to make your party agenda popular enough that it gets about 60% or more of the public support.  

People whining about partisanship sound a lot to me like sports fans whining that the other team is allowed to even field a defense.

That truly may be "the point of our Constitution", but the document was written by upper class elites to serve their interests - especially the interest of slavery.  Excuse me if I fail to see that as a positive model.  During the Agricultural Age it may have been justified to some extent, but that time is long past.  Today, it's antiquated to the point of near ineffectuality.  I agree that democracy must allow for give and take, but how can that occur when the conservative side of the spectrum is so totally overrepresented in both the Senate and the Electoral College -- and the imbalance is getting larger. 

Since the election of 2000, the GOP has won a plurality only once in the Presidential race: 2004.  It has won the office in 3 of the 6 elections.  At the moment, the Senate is evenly split, but the Dems represent 41 Million more Americans than the GOP.  Asking for additional consideration is a bit cynical, don't you think?

[mamabug]

(02-01-2021, 11:57 AM)David Horn Wrote: That truly may be "the point of our Constitution", but the document was written by upper class elites to serve their interests - especially the interest of slavery.  Excuse me if I fail to see that as a positive model.  During the Agricultural Age it may have been justified to some extent, but that time is long past.  Today, it's antiquated to the point of near ineffectuality.  I agree that democracy must allow for give and take, but how can that occur when the conservative side of the spectrum is so totally overrepresented in both the Senate and the Electoral College -- and the imbalance is getting larger. 

Since the election of 2000, the GOP has won a plurality only once in the Presidential race: 2004.  It has won the office in 3 of the 6 elections.  At the moment, the Senate is evenly split, but the Dems represent 41 Million more Americans than the GOP.  Asking for additional consideration is a bit cynical, don't you think?

So you advocate the 'two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner' model of governance?

If the basic argument is that the system is broken because it is intended for the majority to have to compromise with the minority then I don't know what to say anymore.  

America, it was a beautiful idea while it lasted.

[David Horn]

(02-01-2021, 12:26 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(02-01-2021, 11:57 AM)David Horn Wrote: That truly may be "the point of our Constitution", but the document was written by upper class elites to serve their interests - especially the interest of slavery.  Excuse me if I fail to see that as a positive model.  During the Agricultural Age it may have been justified to some extent, but that time is long past.  Today, it's antiquated to the point of near ineffectuality.  I agree that democracy must allow for give and take, but how can that occur when the conservative side of the spectrum is so totally overrepresented in both the Senate and the Electoral College -- and the imbalance is getting larger. 

Since the election of 2000, the GOP has won a plurality only once in the Presidential race: 2004.  It has won the office in 3 of the 6 elections.  At the moment, the Senate is evenly split, but the Dems represent 41 Million more Americans than the GOP.  Asking for additional consideration is a bit cynical, don't you think?

So you advocate the 'two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner' model of governance?

That seems more inline with your view than mine.  Actually, your view is one wolf and two sheep, and the wolf wins by default every time.  If the majority is quashed repeatedly overtime, it will find an alternative.  I mean, the Righteous Minority chose violence when it didn't get it's way this time.  At least the majority has objective right on its side. Note: the violence tends to be on the right, almost exclusively.  

mamabug Wrote:If the basic argument is that the system is broken because it is intended for the majority to have to compromise with the minority then I don't know what to say anymore.  

America, it was a beautiful idea while it lasted.

No, the argument is that the minority has excessive power, and the majority is rarely able to overcome the bias.  Look at recent past history.  Reagan left a mess for Clinton, who fixed it.  Then the electorate, in it's wisdom, elected the first minority President (GWB) who left a mess for his replacement.  Obama patched things together -- even as the GOP opposed every move -- and the electorate then elected yet another minority President to break everything again. In short, the GOP gets to run the show as a minority party, but the Democrats get the task of clean-up on isle 5, but never the chance to enact their vision.  If majorities rejected them, then that's politics -- but that's not the case.

[mamabug]

What defines and who is in the majority/minority shifts over time. I can be geographical, philosophical, identitarian, etc. one era and something else the next. Each side will cast the narrative of past events in terms that depict their interpretation of them because we like our grand political narratives of 'right' vs. 'wrong' instead of what is typically just a case of people with competing interests trying to figure sh*t out. Your view of obstructionism and partisanship since GWB is as distorted and biased as the inverse from a Republican. Or, as Terry Pratchett put it, where the story starts depends on which arbitrary point in time you pick to begin. From my perspective, it is the role of the majority to advance their agenda and the role of the minority to advocate for their constituents to the best of the ability, not to simply put up their hands and say 'oh, well, I guess 2% more voters wanted you so do as you will.'

I don't want to live in a political system where 50.00001% of the population can impose an effective dictatorship on the other 49.99999% for however long until the next election. I live in a state with one party rule (thanks Sullivan decision) and we are definitely the worse off for it. Those who are disappointed conservatives still exist spend a lot of time complaining about 'structural imbalance' or 'obstructionism' but never put forth a reasonable alternative that doesn't fall into Churchill's 'mob rule' trap. I believe the Constitutional system that requires plurality as well as majority is about as fair as you can get when seeking balance, as are the historical conventions and standards that require general popular support to overcome.

Whinging about partisanship is just another way of saying the policies being proposed haven't been embraced. It is so much easier to blame your opponent for not joining the program than it is to look critically at the solution being offered. It is so much easier to blame 'reactionaries' than to consider that they may have a point about potential consequences. If the polices are right and what is best, they will triumph without coercion and authoritarianism.

Last point on this topic, I find it almost comical how those proposing to change the structure of American institutions in order to push through their favored agenda because they are unable to get enough pluralistic support for it, never stop to realize that it will be used against them. If not by the GOP (who spent the last 4 years thanking Harry Reid for invoking the nuclear option) then certainly by the next group of Prophets who will seek to overthrow whatever 'utopia' is built. I guess that may be the one thing I can look forward to in the coming 2T - watching the yet unborn generation dance on the graves and tear down the statues of the current 'greatest generation.'

[David Horn]

(02-01-2021, 06:45 PM)mamabug Wrote: What defines and who is in the majority/minority shifts over time.   I can be geographical, philosophical, identitarian, etc. one era and something else the next.  Each side will cast the narrative of past events in terms that depict their interpretation of them because we like our grand political narratives of 'right' vs. 'wrong' instead of what is typically just a case of people with competing interests trying to figure sh*t out.  Your view of obstructionism and partisanship since GWB is as distorted and biased as the inverse from a Republican.  Or, as Terry Pratchett put it, where the story starts depends on which arbitrary point in time you pick to begin.  From my perspective, it is the role of the majority to advance their agenda and the role of the minority to advocate for their constituents to the best of the ability, not to simply put up their hands and say 'oh, well, I guess 2% more voters wanted you so do as you will.'

When the nation is closely divided, comity and common sense call for some form of compromise politics (variety TBD, but the concept stands).  My point was simple: not only has that not happened, but the built-in structural advantage to say no (the default conservative position) added to the structural advantage given to conservative voters (i.e. rural v. urban) means the progressive voice only gets heard when things go so far off the tracks, that the conservative option is no longer viable.  That's not balance or fairness.  It's an unacceptable thumb-on-the-scale, whether it was intended or not.

FWIW, we may finally be there.

mamabug Wrote:I don't want to live in a political system where 50.00001% of the population can impose an effective dictatorship on the other 49.99999% for however long until the next election.  I live in a state with one party rule (thanks Sullivan decision) and we are definitely the worse off for it.  Those who are disappointed conservatives still exist spend a lot of time complaining about 'structural imbalance' or 'obstructionism' but never put forth a reasonable alternative that doesn't fall into Churchill's 'mob rule' trap.  I believe the Constitutional system that requires plurality as well as majority is about as fair as you can get when seeking balance, as are the historical conventions and standards that require general popular support to overcome.  

Let me share the opposite situation.  I moved to Virginia from New York in 1972. It was like moving to the antebellum South.  Political power in the state resided in the rural counties and was enforced through gerrymandered districts and a slight population advantage to the conservatives (almost all Democrats even then).  As demographics shifted, that diminishing rural tail wagged the more urban dog until just a few years ago when population increases in Northern Virginia (NoVA) made even those structural obstacles inadequate.  This time redistricting will be done by a neutral commission rather than the dominant party.

Already, the rural counties are aligning as 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries and promoting private militias to 'defend their rights', when for decades they lorded it over the opposition with zero mercy.  So tell me, is turnabout fair play? The old system dated to the 1870s.  Isn't it fair and right that they stand aside, or at least acquiesce to a bit of balance?  They ran the show for 150 years.  They think not!

mamabug Wrote:Whinging about partisanship is just another way of saying the policies being proposed haven't been embraced.  It is so much easier to blame your opponent for not joining the program than it is to look critically at the solution being offered.  It is so much easier to blame 'reactionaries' than to consider that they may have a point about potential consequences.  If the polices are right and what is best, they will triumph without coercion and authoritarianism.

True to a point, but if something is embraced by 60+% of the population, but opposed by an obstructionist minority, then no, I don't agree with that.  The case of obstructionism is and has been common with the party of 'no' for decades -- since before Reagan, but dominant since then. That's 40 years giving the practice the benefit of the doubt, and long past its sell-by date.  The pendulum swings both ways, you know.

mamabug Wrote:Last point on this topic, I find it almost comical how those proposing to change the structure of American institutions in order to push through their favored agenda because they are unable to get enough pluralistic support for it, never stop to realize that it will be used against them.  If not by the GOP (who spent the last 4 years thanking Harry Reid for invoking the nuclear option) then certainly by the next group of Prophets who will seek to overthrow whatever 'utopia' is built.  I guess that may be the one thing I can look forward to in the coming 2T - watching the yet unborn generation dance on the graves and tear down the statues of the current 'greatest generation.'

FDR's policies were both popular and advantageous for most of the 50 years before Reagan.  Economic growth was the best its ever been, and the benefits of that growth were widely shared.  The fracture lines were race and war.  Both were, in retrospect, easily identified as issues long before they triggered a breakup of the FDR coalition.  So now, they are being addressed, along with pandemic response, climate change and the return of income and wealth inequality.  If the GIs had been less dogmatic, they may have fixed those in the '60s and'70s -- but they didn't. Progressive change is both necessary and scary for the risk averse. It still must happen, or decay sets in.  It won't matter to me personally. I'll be dead.  It matters to my children and grandchildren.

[Einzige]

(01-31-2021, 08:07 PM)random3 Wrote: You could escape tyranny in the Soviet Union, but you can't flee a global police state.

The future is terrible because even if the patriots defeated the elites, drones, robots, wiretapping, and surveillance cameras will always exist in the world and the technology will improve.

Americans must be mobile now. When you have an address and SSN, the government knows who to look for when they begin to liquidate the 99%.

The target of tyranny are not just negroes, illegal immigrants, or Muslims. The target of the police state is YOU.

In 2021, guns will be banned, there will be lockdowns, masks and vaccinations will be mandatory, the stock market will crash, and cash will be banned.

ATM machines will be shut off.

Property may be nationalized.

Walls might be built around cities.

If Americans studied history,
Americans would know that tyranny leads to struggle sessions, death squads, show trials, mass arrests, summary executions, concentration camps, boxcars, ovens, and lampshades.

Buy gold, guns, ammo, rice, water, and canned goods today.
Buy a sailboat or move to a small white town in South Dakota.

Pass the word.

Yes, but MUH PATRIOTS also want a police State.

[Eric the Green]

(01-31-2021, 06:41 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 12:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 01:25 AM)mamabug Wrote: Good. I hate executive actions in general but they've just been getting worse for the last 20 years or so.  It's a convenient way to absolve the legislature of having to do anything (if all on the same team) or the executive of having to actually work with them (if they are not).   They also allow for substantial changes to occur without debate (or scrutiny if the media is feeling particularly lazy).  The more we use them, the more it sets us up for a rotating dictatorship every 4-8 years.

Partisanship has made it impossible to actually do much of anything most of the time.  If anything, it's even worse now than it was 10 years ago.  Don't expect much if anything, unless the filibuster is crushed. Even then, the Dems are limited by Joe Manchin.  That could change if DJT actually creates a rival right-wing party.

The entire point of our constitution is to make it difficult for one party or group to 'get things done.'  Over the course of our country, Americans have repeatedly shown that they *like* gridlock - it's not a bug, it's a feature.  The only way to overcome this to make your party agenda popular enough that it gets about 60% or more of the public support.  

People whining about partisanship sound a lot to me like sports fans whinging that the other team is allowed to even field a defense.

I agree with that last point. The problem now is that one Party (yours I assume) is pathologically dedicated to standing in the way of all necessary solutions, mostly justified by their neo-liberal ideology and their religion. Sometimes gridlock is dysfunction. That is the case today. The filibuster must be reduced or removed now. A nation cannot have a government prevented from taking any action for 40 years, and expect to endure. The dysfunctional Party (yours) has removed filibusters too; the most necessary one in fact. It should be our turn now.

[random3]

Americans say that Libertarians support tyranny.

[Einzige]

(02-02-2021, 06:39 PM)random3 Wrote: Americans say that Libertarians support tyranny.

All Americans support tyranny. It's simply a matter of whether or not they want that tyranny applied by the State or by local communities and businesses.

[David Horn]

(02-02-2021, 06:39 PM)random3 Wrote: Americans say that Libertarians support tyranny.

No, 'Americans' say libertarians support chaos, which is not the same at all.

[random3]

Americans say tyranny is peace and freedom is chaos.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-04-2021, 07:19 AM)random3 Wrote: Americans say tyranny is peace and freedom is chaos.

Come the crisis, Americans say to do what you have to do to solve the crisis problems. Sacrifice for the common good. Of course, some are slow to come into the crisis mind set.

[mamabug]

(02-02-2021, 03:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree with that last point. The problem now is that one Party (yours I assume) is pathologically dedicated to standing in the way of all necessary solutions, mostly justified by their neo-liberal ideology and their religion. Sometimes gridlock is dysfunction. That is the case today. The filibuster must be reduced or removed now. A nation cannot have a government prevented from taking any action for 40 years, and expect to endure. The dysfunctional Party (yours) has removed filibusters too; the most necessary one in fact. It should be our turn now.

I feel like this is the sound of my point flying right past you. 

I don't have a party, as I've said before.   Both of the two major ones have good points and bad points, I judge them entirely by how coercive and authoritarian the proposals are.  I used to be far more Democrat in preference but that has changed over time.  Possibly it is due to the fact that Republicans have been slipping out of power culturally for some time and whichever side is out of power tends to put forward more arguments in support of individual freedom.  As I've also said, it is rarely the majority that has to fear it's liberties being curtailed by the minority.  When I was growing up, conservatives were more in power so all of the support for freedom came from the left.  Now they are the ones advocating silence of unpopular opinions, discrimination based on political affiliation, and purging of wrongthink from the military.

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

[David Horn]

(02-04-2021, 02:03 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 03:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree with that last point. The problem now is that one Party (yours I assume) is pathologically dedicated to standing in the way of all necessary solutions, mostly justified by their neo-liberal ideology and their religion. Sometimes gridlock is dysfunction. That is the case today. The filibuster must be reduced or removed now. A nation cannot have a government prevented from taking any action for 40 years, and expect to endure. The dysfunctional Party (yours) has removed filibusters too; the most necessary one in fact. It should be our turn now.

I feel like this is the sound of my point flying right past you. 

I don't have a party, as I've said before.   Both of the two major ones have good points and bad points, I judge them entirely by how coercive and authoritarian the proposals are.  I used to be far more Democrat in preference but that has changed over time.  Possibly it is due to the fact that Republicans have been slipping out of power culturally for some time and whichever side is out of power tends to put forward more arguments in support of individual freedom.  As I've also said, it is rarely the majority that has to fear it's liberties being curtailed by the minority.  When I was growing up, conservatives were more in power so all of the support for freedom came from the left.  Now they are the ones advocating silence of unpopular opinions, discrimination based on political affiliation, and purging of wrongthink from the military.

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

If you're looking for a libertarian solution to the current crisis, keep looking. We're moving into a communitarian period, where 'all for one and one for all' will become increasingly popular, and 'get off my lawn' much less so.  We've tried libertarian policies in one form or another for roughly 40 years, and it's finally sinking in.  Only the rich and powerful were truly free.