You maybe right it could all be a fantasy. So what’s your answer? Should Biden spend the next two years whining about Mitch McConnell? Will that help in 2022?
We are done with promises of change that amounts to a few hours of bullshit training that is thrown out of the minds of those who took the training as soon as they walk out that door.
There were and are a lot of minorities who help the Democrats beat that man, and they sure as hell are more important than the leftover Republicans trying to figure out if they can “reimagine” their party or try and bully their way over others to the table at the Democratic party.
There is a seat, a single seat at that table, they don’t get to push the black, brown and women behind them when they take it.
The system was designed to do what it is doing. It is fully corrupt and needs to go.
We get to start here in Oregon where we don’t put people in corrupt prison systems for the rest of their lives over a couple of grams or pills of some drug that was deemed illegal by lawmakers whom we know purposefully targeted liberals and minorities when they created those laws. There is no doubt that was the intention and yet they still stand.
The laws are garbage. The police are hugely corrupt. There are millions being made off people rotting as prisoners at extraordinary rates to the bulk of the rest of world.
I am done letting people backing the Blue ruin the lives of people they don’t care about. There are literal Nazis in their ranks. They had a chance to clean house and blew it, repeatedly. Time to take the house down.
No, of course not. The Democrats in the House should craft good bills from those popular proposals. Create a public health insurance plan that anyone can buy into and with Obamacare-like subsidies. Send it over to the Senate and invite Republicans to consider it and suggest amendments. If necessary, sweeten it with some reasonable pork for them. Joe can call them and try to convince them. They can try to rally public support. But I don’t have any illusions: all of that will come to naught and McConnell will not permit a vote on it.
What’s your suggestion? What is the bill that Joe could offer that Mitch will sign on to?
This is very good:
NCLB wasn’t passed until December and it was a bad law.
I know but most of the work was done well before 9/11 . I wasn’t a big fan of the law, but it was his biggest domestic achievement in his first term and enjoyed overwhelming support.
Slogans and policies are different things.
Republicans have long known how to do this. Your campaigns and your slogans are tailored to things that sound good to a broad swath of people. Then cut taxes for the wealthy, which was not covered under a kinder, gentler nation, nor even part of draining the swamp.
Of course, it looks like we are likely going to face a Republican Senate, which will limit our options. But if the opportunity arises, we should use political capital to do some things (like rein in police criminality and cut incarceration in general) that are not broadly popular. But rhetorically, you lead with well crafted phrases about jump starting the economy and infrastructure.
I am done being silenced by white men who think black women are too strong for them to handle and are always trying to soften what they do and what they say. I am not alone.
We did it this way, your way, and got nothing, nothing for our labors and our votes. Nothing, for decades, generations. No.
The party publicly leads with the former, the people manifest for the later, peacefully and in coordination where possible. Same with jobs, wages, and all that stuff labor parties used to to. Make Mitch answer why he doesn’t want to agree.
Unless that’s populist socialism, then, i don’t know, pray.
Black women tend to do the hard work and pray; it’s not really either or.
This is not the first time change has been promised by Democrats or Republicans leading to pretty much failure on both fronts, so yeah no, BLM isn’t going away, or softening the message, or reducing the number videos posted because you know they won’t stop killing while the politicians try to figure out a new phrase to invoke no change and no improvements.
You don’t get killers, murderers and those who delight in making money off a people’s suffering by asking them nicely to change.
I was more disagreeing with (what I read on) Finn’s post that you can only focus on one and promises vague things on the other, when you can still support the second one, protests and all, while figuring out the practicalities that will take longer (I think? not withstanding dealing with low hanging pigs).
Of course, BLM is a lot trickier to do that with for all the reasons we know, but a party can have two difference speeches; the rights does it everywhere.
Aaw, then my apologies. I misunderstood.
It’s the actions that will matter the most, and Biden and his admin have a lot of work to do. I’m sure we can all agree on that. Hard work just gets harder now.
From a practical and measurable impact, would there be any way to move towards decriminilization from the admin? Would legalizing weed require the senate?
Looking at the Oregon measures seems to be the kind of thing that could do actual real good for the black community, as well as others, and could possibly be done through EO
It would be best to have Congress act, and that might even pass through the Senate… but the executive branch could effectively decriminalize it by just saying they weren’t going to prosecute any cases involving weed. But that opens it up to a future president reversing it.
Sure, I agree actual legislation would be better than reversible EO. But I also think EO is better than o action.
Plus it is a concrete and actionable thing with immediate imapacts.
He could issue an executive order saying I claim two Senate seats in Georgia. There’s recent precedent for that sort of thing.
I really like Gary Kasparov’s take on the election. His experience living in the Soviet Union and fight Putin give him a unique perspective.
It’s ineffective without the “hereby.”
Easy mistake to make.
Uh, no. Dems have most decidedly not done it my way. Liberal history is one of choosing between rhetoric with broad appeal OR policy and laws that actually make a difference regardless of broad appeal. Almost never both in combination.
Agree completely.
Yes. Nothing I posted was aimed private citizens. I gave my opinion how Biden and Pelosi and Schumer and congressional committee chairpeople ought to proceed.
D’oh!