Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[Tyler durden]

I'm missing the Trump outrages of the day now that I'm seeing the Biden outrages of massive spending bills he's pushing.  So much for him being a moderate.  He's been taken over by the Bernie Sanders/AOC socialist wing.  Very disappointing because I voted for him.  I support some of the spending, but not most of it.  Hopefully the true moderates can stop most of the unnecessary spending.

@American GenX , can you start a "Biden outrage of the week" thread, this post is Trump-adjacent, not truly Trump-related.

Ill bite seeing as how he is our president for the next 4 or so years and its probably worth discussing / critiquing some of his policies. I'm sure there are at least 3 or 4 other people on this board who are right of center like myself who can join in the fun. :)

To kick things off - I think a lot of folks saw Biden as a return to normal.

I would say adding states like PR and DC as well as having a commission to look at adding members to the Supreme Court are not the return to normal I would have hoped for our envisioned. Outrageous? depends on your views I guess, but certainly not the return to normalcy by any objective standard.

[JLee]

I'm missing the Trump outrages of the day now that I'm seeing the Biden outrages of massive spending bills he's pushing.  So much for him being a moderate.  He's been taken over by the Bernie Sanders/AOC socialist wing.  Very disappointing because I voted for him.  I support some of the spending, but not most of it.  Hopefully the true moderates can stop most of the unnecessary spending.

@American GenX , can you start a "Biden outrage of the week" thread, this post is Trump-adjacent, not truly Trump-related.

Ill bite seeing as how he is our president for the next 4 or so years and its probably worth discussing / critiquing some of his policies. I'm sure there are at least 3 or 4 other people on this board who are right of center like myself who can join in the fun. :)

To kick things off - I think a lot of folks saw Biden as a return to normal.

I would say adding states like PR and DC as well as having a commission to look at adding members to the Supreme Court are not the return to normal I would have hoped for our envisioned. Outrageous? depends on your views I guess, but certainly not the return to normalcy by any objective standard.

PR voted on this in 1967, 1998, 2012, and 2017.  DC voted in 2016 with an 86% vote to make DC a state.

What's your "objective standard" for a return to normalcy if not continuing what we have done in the past?

[Tyler durden]

I'm missing the Trump outrages of the day now that I'm seeing the Biden outrages of massive spending bills he's pushing.  So much for him being a moderate.  He's been taken over by the Bernie Sanders/AOC socialist wing.  Very disappointing because I voted for him.  I support some of the spending, but not most of it.  Hopefully the true moderates can stop most of the unnecessary spending.

@American GenX , can you start a "Biden outrage of the week" thread, this post is Trump-adjacent, not truly Trump-related.

Ill bite seeing as how he is our president for the next 4 or so years and its probably worth discussing / critiquing some of his policies. I'm sure there are at least 3 or 4 other people on this board who are right of center like myself who can join in the fun. :)

To kick things off - I think a lot of folks saw Biden as a return to normal.

I would say adding states like PR and DC as well as having a commission to look at adding members to the Supreme Court are not the return to normal I would have hoped for our envisioned. Outrageous? depends on your views I guess, but certainly not the return to normalcy by any objective standard.

PR voted on this in 1967, 1998, 2012, and 2017.  DC voted in 2016 with an 86% vote to make DC a state.

What's your "objective standard" for a return to normalcy if not continuing what we have done in the past?

DC has never been a state. I can post a link to a history lesson as to why if that would be helpful. So pushing and advocating for it to be a state and add 2 more senators ( which is the point if were talking honestly ) is not, by definition normal or custom.

There was someone long ago who added more members to the supreme court but the number 9 has been the norm/custom. Deviating from those customs ( right or wrong ) is objectively not a return to normalcy.

But who says normal is best anyway. that part certainly is subjective.

[JLee]

I'm missing the Trump outrages of the day now that I'm seeing the Biden outrages of massive spending bills he's pushing.  So much for him being a moderate.  He's been taken over by the Bernie Sanders/AOC socialist wing.  Very disappointing because I voted for him.  I support some of the spending, but not most of it.  Hopefully the true moderates can stop most of the unnecessary spending.

@American GenX , can you start a "Biden outrage of the week" thread, this post is Trump-adjacent, not truly Trump-related.

Ill bite seeing as how he is our president for the next 4 or so years and its probably worth discussing / critiquing some of his policies. I'm sure there are at least 3 or 4 other people on this board who are right of center like myself who can join in the fun. :)

To kick things off - I think a lot of folks saw Biden as a return to normal.

I would say adding states like PR and DC as well as having a commission to look at adding members to the Supreme Court are not the return to normal I would have hoped for our envisioned. Outrageous? depends on your views I guess, but certainly not the return to normalcy by any objective standard.

PR voted on this in 1967, 1998, 2012, and 2017.  DC voted in 2016 with an 86% vote to make DC a state.

What's your "objective standard" for a return to normalcy if not continuing what we have done in the past?

DC has never been a state. I can post a link to a history lesson as to why if that would be helpful. So pushing and advocating for it to be a state and add 2 more senators ( which is the point if were talking honestly ) is not, by definition normal or custom.

There was someone long ago who added more members to the supreme court but the number 9 has been the norm/custom. Deviating from those customs ( right or wrong ) is objectively not a return to normalcy.

But who says normal is best anyway. that part certainly is subjective.

Your argument is that adding states is not a return to normalcy. My argument is that there already has been a vote in DC in 2016, and numerous votes in PR on this very topic. 

This is not new.  You are creating a disingenuous argument by laying blame on the Biden presidency.

Read up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C._statehood_referendum

The Supreme Court has already expanded or shrunk seven times -- this is not new either: https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/

[nereo]

I haven't heard a good reason why Puerto Rico should not be a state.

It has over 3 million US citizens
It's far closer to the mainland than either Alaska or Hawai'i
It has more people than at least 18 current states
It's bigger than both Delaware and Rhode Island
It's been a US territory far longer (>120 years) than most current states that were not part of the original 13.  Hawai'i was a territory for less than 60 years before achieving statehood.

[Tyler durden]

Yes, there has been a vote, but DC has never been a state. Our president is pushing for something that hasn't existed in the history of this country, EVER. It's been attempted via voting as you point out but never done.

For the supreme court we have had 9 justices since 1869. I view that as the norm. You can disagree.

[JLee]

Yes, there has been a vote, but DC has never been a state. Our president is pushing for something that hasn't existed in the history of this country, EVER. It's been attempted via voting as you point out but never done.

For the supreme court we have had 9 justices since 1869. I view that as the norm. You can disagree.

Are you deliberately ignoring most of this thread?

[Tyler durden]

Yes, there has been a vote, but DC has never been a state. Our president is pushing for something that hasn't existed in the history of this country, EVER. It's been attempted via voting as you point out but never done.

For the supreme court we have had 9 justices since 1869. I view that as the norm. You can disagree.

Are you deliberately ignoring most of this thread?

I see we are disagreeing, which part am I ignoring?

[Kris]

Lots of states have never been a state... until they were. Like, all of them.

Also, taxation without representation is why we went to war against England. PR and DC deserve representation.

[nereo]

Yes, there has been a vote, but DC has never been a state. Our president is pushing for something that hasn't existed in the history of this country, EVER. It's been attempted via voting as you point out but never done.

For the supreme court we have had 9 justices since 1869. I view that as the norm. You can disagree.

Are you deliberately ignoring most of this thread?

I see we are disagreeing, which part am I ignoring?

The parts about Puerto Rico? I remember a class assignment about whether PR should be a state back in the early 90s....
The parts about how statehood has been a core issue in DC every decade for the past half-century (with numerous votes)?

This all seems pretty normal to me - which was your point all along (that Biden's presidency isn't a return to normalcy).

[brandon1827]

Mostly posting for ease of following the discussion...but I will point out that the only (real) objection Republicans have to PR and DC being granted statehood is that they believe those two new states would be blue.

[nereo]

Mostly posting for ease of following the discussion...but I will point out that the only (real) objection Republicans have to PR and DC being granted statehood is that they believe those two new states would be blue.

I understand that fear for DC (mind you: I don't think that's a legitimate reason for opposition).
Puerto Rico shouldn't be thought of as inherently a democratic lock.  Broadly speaking and compared to democrats in general the citizens in PR are fiscally and socially conservative, far more religious, far less accepting of abortion, somewhat weary of large governmental programs... in other words politically speaking they fit much closer to the Rs than the Ds.

The only reason they are considered reliably democratic voters is because the GOP of the last decade has been openly hostile towards PR.

[Samuel]

There was someone long ago who added more members to the supreme court but the number 9 has been the norm/custom. Deviating from those customs ( right or wrong ) is objectively not a return to normalcy.

The commission is looking at the "merits and legality" of changing the size of the court along with other topics such as term/age limits, ethics/recusals rules, cameras in the courtroom, and size of lower courts. They're not even required to issue recommendations. A bipartisan commission of legal experts being asked to help clarify the legal landscape around these issues for law makers to potentially act on via legislation may not be "normal" but good god it should be.

[Raenia]

I haven't heard a good reason why Puerto Rico should not be a state.

It has over 3 million US citizens
It's far closer to the mainland than either Alaska or Hawai'i
It has more people than at least 18 current states
It's bigger than both Delaware and Rhode Island
It's been a US territory far longer (>120 years) than most current states that were not part of the original 13.  Hawai'i was a territory for less than 60 years before achieving statehood.

Because they don't want to be?

I haven't researched this issue myself, but my DH has and we've had some discussions on the topic, so forgive me if some of my information is out of date or misunderstood.

My understanding is that for PR to become a state, they would have to make some changes to their constitution to meet the requirements for a state constitution.  These changes are controversial among the PR population.  There may be other reasons that some PR citizens vote against statehood.  As previously mentioned, PR has voted numerous times on the issue of statehood, and the referendums (referendi?) have mostly failed or passed by very narrow margins.  Certainly nowhere near 2/3 majority.  Many blame this on poor wording, which the current iteration avoids, but it still passed by a very narrow margin, indicating that a large portion of the population doesn't want statehood.

Just to be clear, I do actually support statehood for both PR and DC if they can get it.  But it is by no means a simple question, and there are certainly arguments against.

"It's not normal" is not one of those arguments.  Even if we discount the original 13 states, every other existing state at one time was not a state and applied for statehood using an established process.  To say that no more territories are allowed to follow that process because "it's tradition now" is nonsense.

[Tyler durden]

Yes, there has been a vote, but DC has never been a state. Our president is pushing for something that hasn't existed in the history of this country, EVER. It's been attempted via voting as you point out but never done.

For the supreme court we have had 9 justices since 1869. I view that as the norm. You can disagree.

Are you deliberately ignoring most of this thread?

I see we are disagreeing, which part am I ignoring?

The parts about Puerto Rico? I remember a class assignment about whether PR should be a state back in the early 90s....
The parts about how statehood has been a core issue in DC every decade for the past half-century (with numerous votes)?

This all seems pretty normal to me - which was your point all along (that Biden's presidency isn't a return to normalcy).

I can see a reasonable case for PR. They seem pretty divided on it themselves from the last poll I saw, so as someone else noted do they even want it?

 I think taken all these things together it seemed a bit excessive. Essentially, lets jam 4 new Democratic senators in via statehood, pack more justices on the supreme court and while were at it lets abolish the filibuster. To Biden's credit his party wants it abolished but he only wants it reformed back to a talking filibuster. Again just my perspective but those dont feel like calm normal things i would have expected out him.

[PDXTabs]

I think taken all these things together it seemed a bit excessive. Essentially, lets jam 4 new Democratic senators in via statehood, pack more justices on the supreme court and while were at it lets abolish the filibuster. To Biden's credit his party wants it abolished but he only wants it reformed back to a talking filibuster. Again just my perspective but those dont feel like calm normal things i would have expected out him.

Come on, abolishing the filibuster is a GOP pass-time, and Biden doesn't run the Senate. You can't blame him.

[PDXTabs]

I'm sure there are at least 3 or 4 other people on this board who are right of center like myself who can join in the fun. :)

I'm actually way left of center, but I'm happy to criticize any politician that is doing dumb shit.

So I'll just say that I view the vaccine patent waiver as a really good way to never get a good malaria, chagas, or dengue fever vaccine.
Bloomberg: Merkel Pushes Back on Vaccine Patent Waiver in Row With U.S.

[Boll weevil]

...having a commission to look at adding members to the Supreme Court are not the return to normal I would have hoped for our envisioned. Outrageous? depends on your views I guess, but certainly not the return to normalcy by any objective standard.

I thought Biden was against expanding court, and the opinions I’ve read indicate the committee is mostly for show... it is way too large (36 people) and has too little time (6 months from first public meeting) to generate a report that will be of much value to either side.

Setting up a committee that’s under resourced  to generate a report that only a few will read and nobody will be able to take action on unfortunately sorta sounds normal to me.

[CodingHare]

1. Adding states isn't Biden's call.  It's the call of PR and DC (and the current makeup of Congress.)  Whether or not he's in favor of it, it isn't like he's going to send out an executive order.  It's also been a Democrat goal since before Reagan, so it seems normal to me for them to continue supporting it.

2. Given the now extremely political nature of the Supreme Court coupled with the Constitutional lifetime appointment, expanding the court is one of the few options Biden has to expend Democratic influence there.  We lost Merrick Garland's seat to dishonest political hackery on the right.  RBG died and McConnell had no trouble at all flip flopping his position to back another conservative judge in her seat.  (So much for waiting for the will of the people.)  If conservatives are going to shred norms, why would Democrats hobble themselves following them?

Going back to "normal" only makes sense if both parties are doing it.  I think a lot of Democrat voters (though that may be my own bias) see the Republican party as fundamentally incapable of honesty.   You can't have 4 years of someone shitting on the table and then wonder why people aren't sitting at it eating dinner.  We have to hose off the table first, at least.

[PDXTabs]

Going back to "normal" only makes sense if both parties are doing it.  I think a lot of Democrat voters (though that may be my own bias) see the Republican party as fundamentally incapable of honesty.   You can't have 4 years of someone shitting on the table and then wonder why people aren't sitting at it eating dinner.  We have to hose off the table first, at least.

Yup, and there is no sign of a return to normalcy, but I'm pretty convinced after reading How Democracies Die by Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky that the Democrats acting normal while sitting at that table is still the best course of action.

[Sid Hoffman]

PR voted on this in 1967, 1998, 2012, and 2017.  DC voted in 2016 with an 86% vote to make DC a state.

I don't think that's what he's talking about though. There's a few different parts: an area declaring it wants to be a state and then the US Government permitting them to become a state. DC could vote itself to be a state every single year and it doesn't matter unless the president leads congress to take the same action. That's what's new news:

https://news.yahoo.com/house-votes-washington-dc-uss-160216681.html

We all know it has nothing to do with representation either, it's to pack the house and senate with permanent Democrats, same as he wants to pack the supreme court.

Personally, I think PR should be granted their independence and option to sign on to the Compact of Free Association, as should Guam and the USVI. None of them should be states. D.C. wasn't ever truly intended to have permanent residents requiring representation so the best option would be to redraw the borders of D.C. to only include the government buildings and parks, thus no residents aside from the president.

Also it's worth pointing out that D.C. does in fact have votes in the electoral college, so they only lack house & senate members. Again though, just redraw the borders so all the permanent residents are in neighboring states and not D.C. city limits and the problem goes away - everyone has full representation then.

[JLee]

PR voted on this in 1967, 1998, 2012, and 2017.  DC voted in 2016 with an 86% vote to make DC a state.

I don't think that's what he's talking about though. There's a few different parts: an area declaring it wants to be a state and then the US Government permitting them to become a state. DC could vote itself to be a state every single year and it doesn't matter unless the president leads congress to take the same action. That's what's new news:

https://news.yahoo.com/house-votes-washington-dc-uss-160216681.html

We all know it has nothing to do with representation either, it's to pack the house and senate with permanent Democrats, same as he wants to pack the supreme court.

Personally, I think PR should be granted their independence and option to sign on to the Compact of Free Association, as should Guam and the USVI. None of them should be states. D.C. wasn't ever truly intended to have permanent residents requiring representation so the best option would be to redraw the borders of D.C. to only include the government buildings and parks, thus no residents aside from the president.

Also it's worth pointing out that D.C. does in fact have votes in the electoral college, so they only lack house & senate members. Again though, just redraw the borders so all the permanent residents are in neighboring states and not D.C. city limits and the problem goes away - everyone has full representation then.

You have an interesting definition of "pack the house and senate" when the Democratic half of the Senate represents over 40 million more people than the Republican half.

Is "pack the Senate" Republican-speak for "a representative democracy"?

[Kris]

Personally, I think PR should be granted their independence and option to sign on to the Compact of Free Association, as should Guam and the USVI. None of them should be states.

Could you expand a bit on why you don't think PR should be allowed to become a state (as other US territories historically have in the past)?

Getting on my own hobby horse, I think it is bad tactics that the dems talk a lot more and focus a lot more on making DC a state (which creates weird 23rd amendment issues and potentially gives the sitting president and first family 3 electoral votes of their very own) and not on PR which is a regular US territory, has a population larger than many existing states, and could follow the exact same legal path as most of the last 37 states to join the union.

This is a good point.

[MilesTeg]

I'm missing the Trump outrages of the day now that I'm seeing the Biden outrages of massive spending bills he's pushing.  So much for him being a moderate.  He's been taken over by the Bernie Sanders/AOC socialist wing.  Very disappointing because I voted for him.  I support some of the spending, but not most of it.  Hopefully the true moderates can stop most of the unnecessary spending.

@American GenX , can you start a "Biden outrage of the week" thread, this post is Trump-adjacent, not truly Trump-related.

Ill bite seeing as how he is our president for the next 4 or so years and its probably worth discussing / critiquing some of his policies. I'm sure there are at least 3 or 4 other people on this board who are right of center like myself who can join in the fun. :)

To kick things off - I think a lot of folks saw Biden as a return to normal.

I would say adding states like PR and DC as well as having a commission to look at adding members to the Supreme Court are not the return to normal I would have hoped for our envisioned. Outrageous? depends on your views I guess, but certainly not the return to normalcy by any objective standard.

The only reason you find a president listening to and then carefully considering the issues of his constituents abnormal is because we've had four years of an egomaniac man baby making reactionary and arbitrary decisions primarily with the goal of being an asshole (along with other child like behaviors).

[nereo]

Getting on my own hobby horse, I think it is bad tactics that the dems talk a lot more and focus a lot more on making DC a state (which creates weird 23rd amendment issues and potentially gives the sitting president and first family 3 electoral votes of their very own) and not on PR which is a regular US territory, has a population larger than many existing states, and could follow the exact same legal path as most of the last 37 states to join the union.

I strongly agree.  To me, the objective case to make PR a state is incredibly compelling. A resolution even passed by a 5 point margin. 
DC to me also has a decent case, but it makes zero sense to me to allow DC statehood but continue to deny 3.1MM Puerto Ricans.

[joe189man]

PR voted on this in 1967, 1998, 2012, and 2017.  DC voted in 2016 with an 86% vote to make DC a state.

I don't think that's what he's talking about though. There's a few different parts: an area declaring it wants to be a state and then the US Government permitting them to become a state. DC could vote itself to be a state every single year and it doesn't matter unless the president leads congress to take the same action. That's what's new news:

https://news.yahoo.com/house-votes-washington-dc-uss-160216681.html

We all know it has nothing to do with representation either, it's to pack the house and senate with permanent Democrats, same as he wants to pack the supreme court.

Personally, I think PR should be granted their independence and option to sign on to the Compact of Free Association, as should Guam and the USVI. None of them should be states. D.C. wasn't ever truly intended to have permanent residents requiring representation so the best option would be to redraw the borders of D.C. to only include the government buildings and parks, thus no residents aside from the president.

Also it's worth pointing out that D.C. does in fact have votes in the electoral college, so they only lack house & senate members. Again though, just redraw the borders so all the permanent residents are in neighboring states and not D.C. city limits and the problem goes away - everyone has full representation then.

You have an interesting definition of "pack the house and senate" when the Democratic half of the Senate represents over 40 million more people than the Republican half.

Is "pack the Senate" Republican-speak for "a representative democracy"?

This is a big problem, how can we have Wyoming, south dakota, north dakota, montana, nebraska, utah, etc with a combined population less than california but with 6x+ the number of senators. tthats a problem that needs to be addressed, either break cali up or combine low population states

also biden is way left of center compared to how i thought he would be

[Telecaster]

Yes, there has been a vote, but DC has never been a state. Our president is pushing for something that hasn't existed in the history of this country, EVER. It's been attempted via voting as you point out but never done.

Adding new states is not a radical concept.  Every state since the original 13 has been an addition.   

[sailinlight]

I'm not totally opposed to PR becoming a state as long as it follows the same process as the previous 37, however for those pushing for it so strongly, don't you see a contradiction to the 'anti-colonialism' the left so often espouses? Why not advocate for giving PR its freedom as an independent country? This, to me, indicates that the sole reason liberals are pushing for it is because they want the extra senate seats.

[nereo]

Yes, there has been a vote, but DC has never been a state. Our president is pushing for something that hasn't existed in the history of this country, EVER. It's been attempted via voting as you point out but never done.

Adding new states is not a radical concept.  Every state since the original 13 has been an addition.

In fact, it’s highly unusual that we have gone some 70 years without a new territory being added or a state cleaving into two. It’s ever been so long between additions.

Personally, I think people are overly attached to the round number of 50 (and the flag redesign it would require)

An interesting question is: why HAVEN’T we admitted another state recently?

[nessness]

I'm not totally opposed to PR becoming a state as long as it follows the same process as the previous 37, however for those pushing for it so strongly, don't you see a contradiction to the 'anti-colonialism' the left so often espouses? Why not advocate for giving PR its freedom as an independent country? This, to me, indicates that the sole reason liberals are pushing for it is because they want the extra senate seats.

I don't see how it could be colonialist to grant statehood to a territory that wants it.

Does PR want to be an independent country? I don't know the answer,  but I've never heard anything indicating that they do.

ETA: per Wikipedia:

"Of the fifty-four percent (54.0%) who voted "No" on maintaining the status quo, 61.11% chose statehood, 33.34% chose free association, and 5.55% chose independence."

It's not clear that they want statehood, but it seems like they definitely don't want independence.

[Roland of Gilead]

I kind of think waiving the patent protections for vaccines was a bit of a Biden outrage but only because there should be a show of support and recognition for the effort the biotech companies put in to get these vaccines researched, manufactured and distributed in record time.   The waiving of patent protections probably won't make any difference at all in the world availability but seems to vilify these companies and their "profits during COVID"

But lets not mention lumber companies raising prices 300%, or any of the other companies profiting from the situation we are in.

[OzzieandHarriet]

The concept of this topic is a sad example of false equivalence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[Telecaster]

An interesting question is: why HAVEN’T we admitted another state recently?

Lack of good candidates, mostly.  Alaska and Hawaii wanted to become states.  Puerto Rico doesn't.  DC would like to.  Beyond that we are talking places like Guam and the US Virgin Islands that will never become states due to lack of population. 

[fuzzy math]

The concept of this topic is a sad example of false equivalence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

It doesn't matter whether its equivalent or not. The Trump outrage thread made one central place where all personal and political things Trump did could be posted about. This will do the same thing and allow for fluidity of topics instead of a singular (Statehood for DC) thread dying and falling off the first page.

[fuzzy math]

I have concerns about DC statehood being something that the founding fathers wanted to avoid. The issue becomes that the vast majority of members of congress have some sort of residence there, and by default DC would receive unequal treatment. Their representative should absolutely have a vote that tallies, I'm a bit more neutral about the fairness of adding 2 senators. Partitioning off portions into Virginia and Maryland seems like an even worse idea. Its a shame so many live there that its become an issue.

Puerto Rico should absolutely become a state, if that's what the people want. If the vote was re-done with no independent country option I'd be interested to see if the pro-statehood vote would go up and make it an easier sell for everyone.

[OzzieandHarriet]

The concept of this topic is a sad example of false equivalence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

It doesn't matter whether its equivalent or not. The Trump outrage thread made one central place where all personal and political things Trump did could be posted about. This will do the same thing and allow for fluidity of topics instead of a singular (Statehood for DC) thread dying and falling off the first page.

The problem is calling something an outrage when it’s just something you sort of disagree with. The Trump stuff is magnitudes beyond that by any measure.

[Tyler durden]

The concept of this topic is a sad example of false equivalence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

It doesn't matter whether its equivalent or not. The Trump outrage thread made one central place where all personal and political things Trump did could be posted about. This will do the same thing and allow for fluidity of topics instead of a singular (Statehood for DC) thread dying and falling off the first page.

The problem is calling something an outrage when it’s just something you sort of disagree with. The Trump stuff is magnitudes beyond that by any measure.

OP here - I dont love the subject line of my own thread. I only used it as a play on the other thread.

In my opening sentence I stated we should discuss/critique his policies. Thats it really. I hope there is literally nothing outrageous to discuss, but a conversation on the pros and cons of his policies is worthwhile.

[nereo]

The concept of this topic is a sad example of false equivalence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

It doesn't matter whether its equivalent or not. The Trump outrage thread made one central place where all personal and political things Trump did could be posted about. This will do the same thing and allow for fluidity of topics instead of a singular (Statehood for DC) thread dying and falling off the first page.

The problem is calling something an outrage when it’s just something you sort of disagree with. The Trump stuff is magnitudes beyond that by any measure.

The topic seems like a farce to begin with.  The OP chose the title as a riff on the ‘Trump daily outrage” thread - problem is, Trump’s governing style was to elicit extreme reactions, and Biden’s is that of a more traditional head of state who follows the more established role of an executive.  One dominated the daily news cycle (Trump).  Biden purposefully doesn’t, and instead wants the news cycle to focus on his policies.

By it’s very title this thread isn’t about debating policies we disagree with or directions we wish he’d take (but hasn’t).  There’s plenty to talk about there... just not daily outrages. Proposing an infrastructure bill to be discussed isn’t really an outrage, regardless of whether you support or oppose it.

...and I, for one, am thrilled not to be outraged on a regular basis.

[Kris]

The concept of this topic is a sad example of false equivalence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

It doesn't matter whether its equivalent or not. The Trump outrage thread made one central place where all personal and political things Trump did could be posted about. This will do the same thing and allow for fluidity of topics instead of a singular (Statehood for DC) thread dying and falling off the first page.

The problem is calling something an outrage when it’s just something you sort of disagree with. The Trump stuff is magnitudes beyond that by any measure.

The topic seems like a farce to begin with.  The OP chose the title as a riff on the ‘Trump daily outrage” thread - problem is, Trump’s governing style was to elicit extreme reactions, and Biden’s is that of a more traditional head of state who follows the more established role of an executive.  One dominated the daily news cycle (Trump).  Biden purposefully doesn’t, and instead wants the news cycle to focus on his policies.

By it’s very title this thread isn’t about debating policies we disagree with or directions we wish he’d take (but hasn’t).  There’s plenty to talk about there... just not daily outrages. Proposing an infrastructure bill to be discussed isn’t really an outrage, regardless of whether you support or oppose it.

...and I, for one, am thrilled not to be outraged on a regular basis.

Agreed.

[Tyler durden]

The concept of this topic is a sad example of false equivalence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

It doesn't matter whether its equivalent or not. The Trump outrage thread made one central place where all personal and political things Trump did could be posted about. This will do the same thing and allow for fluidity of topics instead of a singular (Statehood for DC) thread dying and falling off the first page.

The problem is calling something an outrage when it’s just something you sort of disagree with. The Trump stuff is magnitudes beyond that by any measure.

The topic seems like a farce to begin with.  The OP chose the title as a riff on the ‘Trump daily outrage” thread - problem is, Trump’s governing style was to elicit extreme reactions, and Biden’s is that of a more traditional head of state who follows the more established role of an executive.  One dominated the daily news cycle (Trump).  Biden purposefully doesn’t, and instead wants the news cycle to focus on his policies.

By it’s very title this thread isn’t about debating policies we disagree with or directions we wish he’d take (but hasn’t).  There’s plenty to talk about there... just not daily outrages. Proposing an infrastructure bill to be discussed isn’t really an outrage, regardless of whether you support or oppose it.

...and I, for one, am thrilled not to be outraged on a regular basis.

Yes! It is just a riff in the title. Folks can talk policy calmly.

"dont take life so seriously. you'll never make it out alive"

[RetiredAt63]

OP, you can always edit the title.

Our Supreme Court justices have mandatory retirement at age 75.  Given the Canada Pension Plan and OAS kick in normally at 65, they are working to a much older age than usual.  Of course they can retire earlier.  Having a mandatory retirement age should not be a huge leap for the US Supreme Court.

The American system always strikes me as odd with regard to how old many of your elected officials are.  Our PM will turn 50 this June.  The Conservative Party leader is 48 and the New Democratic Party leader is 42.

[ixtap]

OP, you can always edit the title.

Our Supreme Court justices have mandatory retirement at age 75.  Given the Canada Pension Plan and OAS kick in normally at 65, they are working to a much older age than usual.  Of course they can retire earlier.  Having a mandatory retirement age should not be a huge leap for the US Supreme Court.

The American system always strikes me as odd with regard to how old many of your elected officials are.  Our PM will turn 50 this June.  The Conservative Party leader is 48 and the New Democratic Party leader is 42.

The pre-Boomers will not go away. We get excited when a Boomer gets a national position, never mind that Gen X is in their 50s and Millennials are fully grown and capable.

[RetiredAt63]

The American system always strikes me as odd with regard to how old many of your elected officials are.  Our PM will turn 50 this June.  The Conservative Party leader is 48 and the New Democratic Party leader is 42.

I don't know yet whether I'd be ready to generalize from the last to elections to America's leaders always being old.

Obama was 47 when he became president. George W. Bush was 54. Clinton was 46.

Trudeau was 42 I  think when he first became PM, which was considered young.  I think I have his birthday wrong.

I was thinking more of senators.  I can't do a good comparison because our senators are appointed. 

Being President really ages people.  Better if they start out younger.

Back to the Supreme Court, would it be difficult to bring in a mandatory retirement age?

[Travis]

The American system always strikes me as odd with regard to how old many of your elected officials are.  Our PM will turn 50 this June.  The Conservative Party leader is 48 and the New Democratic Party leader is 42.

I don't know yet whether I'd be ready to generalize from the last to elections to America's leaders always being old.

Obama was 47 when he became president. George W. Bush was 54. Clinton was 46.

Trudeau was 42 I  think when he first became PM, which was considered young.  I think I have his birthday wrong.

I was thinking more of senators.  I can't do a good comparison because our senators are appointed. 

Being President really ages people.  Better if they start out younger.

Back to the Supreme Court, would it be difficult to bring in a mandatory retirement age?

No different than any other Constitutional amendment, but what you'll see is the two parties jockeying to delay implementation to capture the most justices hitting that age while they're in power.

[Monerexia]

Would love to see less hesitation on student loan forgiveness. My sense is at least some form of tax-free forgiveness at the end of a shorter period of time will be given serious consideration, which is enough for me.

[brandon1827]

I think term limits should be instituted in all elected governmental positions. We term limit Presidents, but not any members of Congress and it makes for career politicians gumming up the works in order to maintain power or their particular seat. I don't feel the Supreme Court has been overly political in its history, but I also would support term limits for Justices as well. It seems like an easy fix to many of the problems our system of government faces...but I know Congress wouldn't pass it in a million years. Congress seats were never meant to be lifelong careers. I believe the intent was for people to serve a term or two and then go back home...but of course we have people holding onto seats for dear life...for decades...and I feel like we all suffer for it.

[Tyler durden]

Edited title as it was a distraction from just discussing policy proposal by Biden and his party.

[Raenia]

Puerto Rico should absolutely become a state, if that's what the people want. If the vote was re-done with no independent country option I'd be interested to see if the pro-statehood vote would go up and make it an easier sell for everyone.

This was done in 2020.

I think you're looking at the 2017 referendum results which was a messy two part question. 2020 was much clearer:

"Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?"

And yes carried 53% to 47%. 6% may not seem like so very much but to put it in context it's a larger margin of victory than we used to pick our last three presidents.

[By the River]

I wondered when this topic would start and I always assumed that the first issue would be kids in cages.  In one of the "Should I have a political litmus test for family/friends/contractors" topics, someone mentioned that they couldn't talk to republicans because Trump put kids in cages.  When I mentioned that the cages were built and originally used by Obama, it became that they couldn't be friends with republicans because of the number of kids in cages.  Now that Biden has crushed that record number of kids due to his policies, I just want to say lp.org is your place for the libertarian party.

[GuitarStv]

I wondered when this topic would start and I always assumed that the first issue would be kids in cages.  In one of the "Should I have a political litmus test for family/friends/contractors" topics, someone mentioned that they couldn't talk to republicans because Trump put kids in cages.  When I mentioned that the cages were built and originally used by Obama, it became that they couldn't be friends with republicans because of the number of kids in cages.  Now that Biden has crushed that record number of kids due to his policies, I just want to say lp.org is your place for the libertarian party.

What's the official Libertarian Party policy on border crossing?

Traditionally many libertarians have argued that since crossing a border harms no-one (and state boundaries are arbitrary and enforced with violence), there should be completely open borders - in accordance with the non-aggression principal.