Unfortunately, this will probably be good enough to energize all the shit libs and corporate arm of the Democratic party. However, appointing a black woman to SCOTUS does nothing for a voter like me. It only serves as a reminder of why Democrats lose so fucking always. Throwing a bone to appease the identity politics crowd does little to actually improve racial equality. It’s not only a tried and proven failed strategy, but is downright insulting given how he neglects to invoke real and meaningful change by way of any number of executive orders at his disposal that he could sign today!
But if you follow the discussion with iron, he’s talking about this promise in the context of the left dragging Biden’s pick. Most progressives would prefer a progressive nominee of any race to a center-left black woman.
2 Likes
And you just know he’s going to do the classic loser Democrat thing where he nominates a milquetoast centrist in an effort to dampen the right wing outrage that would be equally intense if he nominated Clarence Thomas’ long lost insurrectionist sister.
Inb4CandaceOwensGetsTheNom
Are actual Democratic voters as angry about “identity politics” as people on the internet? Joe is being hamfisted about it, but more minority representation on the bench is kinda a good thing?
if only a real progressive who can do absolutely nothing but write dissents the rest of their lives was on the bench instead!
not sure what the point of getting mad at joe about his pick is at this point. was it a cynical ploy? yes. did it work? yes. so what, it’s sunk at this point, I have zero interest in nitpicking it now.
1 Like
Basically this. Republicans tell their base they’re going to put arch-Catholic white people on the bench, they do it, their base loves it. No one on the right cares about whether this delegitimizes ACB’s legacy or if it’s insulting to white people. They’re too busy banning abortions in Texas. Only the Dems chuff about whether it’s unseemly for them to play politics with SCOTUS picks.
2 Likes
A good politician here nominates the wildest progresive he can finds and as soon as there’s even a hint of pushback you hammer on the “obviously racists and sexists are going to oppose any black woman no matter what her qualifications” just like the GOP did with ACB, they just shout “yall hate women” and just keep shouting it until they can get the vote over with.
6 Likes
That’s because it was packed with corporate handouts and other goodies
I’d argue the failures have been caused by a very weak president who didn’t fight anywhere near hard enough for his own agenda. The question is, was it because he’s inept? Or because he never really gave a shit about his campaign promises? I’d say it’s some combination of both
Yeah I mean my recollection was that the majority of the stuff in that bill was from the original Republican proposal. The reason was that it’s very good for corporate America, which is why eDems liked it too.
Whoa, Republican ideas were included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill?! Should have just fought harder and made up the 10 missing votes that way.
1 Like
Well Dems had House+Senate+Presidency and the GOP still got their way on the majority of the BIF.
That’s so vague as to be meaningless. Is broadband access on the GOP or the Dem side of the ledger? What about getting rid of lead in pipes?
You guys have got your purity tests so finely tuned that any legislation that can be enacted is ipso facto a sellout betrayal. If it doesn’t enrage every Republican plus two or three conservative Democrats, it’s trash.
Let me put it this way. We got less spending in the BIF than there was in the Republicans’ opening offer on infrastructure.
When you look at the series of proposals, Dems gave way more to them and actually decreased spending from their offer quite a bit.
From CNN on 5/27/21:
According to a document obtained by CNN, the GOP offer includes $506 billion for roads, bridges and major projects; $98 billion for public transit systems; $46 billion for passenger and freight rail; $21 billion for safety; $22 billion for ports and waterways; $56 billion for airports; $22 billion for western water storage; $72 billion for water infrastructure; $65 billion for broadband infrastructure; and $20 billion for infrastructure financing.
In terms of new spending, we ended up spending $110 billion on roads/bridges/projects, 39 on public transit, 66 for passenger and freight rail, 11 for safety, 17 for ports, 25 for airports, 50 for western water storage, 55 for water, 65 for broadband, 15 for EVs, 21 for water/soil purification, and 73 for power infrastructure.
So Dems got a ballpark of $100bn in their priorities in there, but gave up some public transit which probably is more Dem favorable, and added passenger and freight rail which is neutral/Republican. Republicans got basically all their priorities.
Like if the GOP had a trifecta, they’d have passed about 70-80% of this on their own.
1 Like
Lol the stuff we want polls at 70%, hiding behind “50 senators representing like 35% of the population don’t want it, win more (voter suppression influenced) elections” is straight up horseshit
1 Like
Couldn’t help myself, for old time’s sake.
2 Likes
As always, start at 100, subtract the (D) number and that is the accurate (R) number.
8 Likes
Eh, I actually think that was true during the Trump years because there’s an effect where people are “pissed at those in power” but then come home to the party in the end. Right now Biden’s in power and a lot of the left is pissed at him, but I think most come home to him in the end as well, especially if he’s running against Trump. Like, how many people on this forum right now would answer this poll that they were not voting for Biden? And out of that, how many of them do you really think wont vote for Biden, or won’t vote.
Lol, spending half a trillion dollars on highways isn’t progressive just because it costs a lot of money.
2 Likes