the-pi-guy said:
firebush03 said:
(The bottom of this quote post is what I'm referring to. Y'all should follow how you said you'd behave. I would appreciate it.)
Please read what I have written. Be detailed, just I have been detailed with your response. This is all I ask.
"But there are tons of differences. How they treat trans people, and climate change and science and education." Yes, I agree that they support trans people in their rhetoric, and they don't outright dismiss climate change for being a hoax (not that Trump is doing this...though I do know some in the party prolly are). Never denied that there are optical differences. When looking at policy, however, it's hard to say there is truly much difference. Climate change is the easiest to debunk: Simply refer to this Retuers article (https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BIDEN/OIL/lgpdngrgkpo/). This article also demonstrates Biden's tendency to rely on all-talk-no-action with respect to addressing climate change: https://apnews.com/article/greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-biden-coal-oil-2184db68945d5b10864c2525b9204ef7. When looking into trans issues, it is disturbing that this issue has become one of politics.
When dicussing education, it's interesting that Biden actually cut funding to the Department of Education this most recent fiscal year (https://www.k12dive.com/news/fy-24-budget-proposal-education-department-cut/711098/). That being said, however, I'm not going to die on the hill that dems are the same to repubs (more speicifcally, Trump) in this respect: There does exist substantial difference. Granted, it's the difference between bordering-on-nothing versus actively gashing into public funding, I will confess the difference exists nonetheless. As far as what students are learning? I don't believe there will be much difference between Harris nor Trump. Changing ciriculum is no easy feat, and so the only influence either politician would have is via small shifts in federal funding and executive orders.
"The only way that both parties are the same is if you're discounting incremental change. A big part of that is very little changes quickly. There's not a stark difference in how my life is going between Trump's presidency and Biden's. But conservatives don't seem to discount incremental change. They'll vote for Bush on the premise that he's pro-life, and they'll vote for him again even though he's changed nothing. And then they'll vote for the next guy, and then in 20 years they've finally overturned Roe v Wade. They seem like they're in it for the long haul. I've been very concerned with how I've seen a lot of people talk about Trump's second presidency being the end of democracy. Because I think we should recognize that even if it didn't end up meaning that, having the door being opened up to it more, should be concerning enough. Having the Overton window shift more to make people think it's a little more acceptable should also be concerning enough." maybe I'm just getting tired of typing lol, but I'll just agree with what you're saying here. I just wish the dems would reverse the changes of the repubs as opposed to solidify them. Why didn't Biden bring the corporate tax rate back to 39%, for instance? Why didn't Biden make much effort to codify Roe v. Wade when he had both chambers? Why doesn't Biden stop the increased militarization of our police, borders, etc? It's these decisions which lead me to believe that dems don't actually have a true interest in enforcing an agenda, but rather are looking to play with as many political footballs as they can. They are responsible for creating this illusion of choice in elections, they are actively preventing better parties from rising up. if we "vote blue no matter who", how will this ever tell the party leadership that we do not want republican policy solidified? That's just my take. Agree or disagree.
|
Most of this feels like you're disappointed that Biden isn't a dictator.
Pretty much the entire US system is set up for compromises.
Biden can't single handedly codify abortion, he can't single handedly adjust climate change or singlehandedly control what oil companies are doing.
A lot of these things have to go through Congress, and Congress has been very 50/50. Some things can pass with "only 51" votes.
Codifying abortion would require 60 votes in the Senate, which isn't particularly possible.
Democrats tried to codify roe.
Democrats haven't had a majority like that in decades.
President Biden’s proposed 2024 budget calls for top 39.6% tax rate
President Biden’s FY 2025 budget again calls for corporate and individual tax increases
|
Biden did privately tell donors that nothing would “fundamentally change” if elected president in 2020. (https://jacobin.com/2020/07/joe-biden-wall-street-donors-blackstone,https://www.axios.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-wealthy-donors-demonize, etc.) In particular, no legislation would be introduced: The private sector would be trusted to work on their own.
So it doesn’t matter that he introduced tax hikes. All that matters is that they never went through, he never exerted any effort to get them through, and the reason why he did nothing was because this was the plan all along (as demonstrated by the linked remarks). You mean to tell me donors are gonna support the guy who’s promising to nearly double the corporate tax rate?
Additionally, you mention the padlocks of the America legislative system existing for a reason. My belief is that they exist solely to protect corporate interests, so as to provides democrats the excuse never to increase taxes (though congress conveniently is able to lower taxes on the upper echelon pretty easily). But in any case, do you truly believe the current model is the best model? When the Dems win all three chambers of congress, yet end up not being able to deliver on almost any of their promises? It needs fixing, and I find it upsetting that you suggest my discontentment with the outcomes as being “oh so you want a dictatorship?”. I want a functional government.
Also, Biden *permitted* the oil drilling. He could have (I don’t know) not given them permits to drill on federal land? Yeah, the President actually does have power when it comes to how many drilling permits are issued lol. And codifying need not be complete codification, but just some small measures. For instance, passing through congress the construction of abortion clinics on federal land (which only requires a simple majority in both chambers). Easy. Yet Biden neglected to do this… (p.s. Why not get rid of the filibuster too? Obama could’ve very easily done this when he had a near supermajority in both chambers back in ‘09. And despite even running on such a position, he refused to enforce it.)
Last edited by firebush03 - on 06 August 2024
