Trump’s crony achieved in a few hours what Biden kept pretending to want for 15 months. Not a great look for Democrats. Will Trump continue to defy the Israel lobby? Who knows.

Most of these executive orders are silly or performative. Some are outright ridiculous. The most stupid, and most damaging, are the environmental policies. But none of this was unexpected.

Here’s to shrinking the government (except for the parts that benefit the rich), cutting taxes for the rich, cutting regulations for the rich, having billionaires run agencies that oversee their industries, and new ways of denying climate change — for the next 4 years! Hazzah!

Biden and democrats could have done a lot more to help the majority of Americans instead of taking baby steps.

True, a lot of things were blocked by the reactionary courts or thwarted by Sinema and Manchin— but that’s only some of the story. He could have pushed as much as Trump is pushing now— and he didn’t. He half-assed it. So he lost. — Mikie

A political problem for social liberalism is that there is no reachable goal. It can only ever be a direction. Biden successfully pushed the US in that liberal direction through his actions. There could always be more. There are a complex set of reasons why there wasn't. Among the reasons: 1) improvements are never universal; some are helped, others aren't (consider the student loan forgiveness program). 2) each positive step typically has some negative consequences for some.

You could add to this that fully half the country disagrees with much of the conceptual basis for those policies. Like, regardless of the pro/con table, it's morally wrong to do X.

I think that is going to be an issue for social liberalism across time. Optimism is usually not the worst thing int he world though

I agree on all points.

A political problem for social liberalism is that there is no reachable goal. It can only ever be a direction. — Relativist

Eh, that’s kind of nonsense. Or one could say the same thing about conservatism, or anything really. Just an east slogan for those who like to talk in generalities— because the actual work of details is too time consuming.

The fact is there were plenty of concrete measures that could have been taken, that were very popular, and that would have helped the majority of Americans. Take a look at the first proposals of the reconciliation bill. Or the PRO act. The child tax credit— Medicare for all, or a public option. Raising taxes on the wealthy. Declaring a climate emergency. Cutting defense spending. Etc etc. To say nothing of disastrous foreign policy decisions.

Those are all very real and very popular policies. Not just a “direction.”

2) each positive step typically has some negative consequences for some. — Relativist

Yes, and the little that WAS done had some negative consequences, which the right wing will gladly hammer forever.

Eh, that’s kind of nonsense. Or one could say the same thing about conservatism, or anything really. Just an east slogan for those who like to talk in generalities— because the actual work of details is too time consuming. — Mikie

What makes you think it's nonsense? Is there some end-point in any liberalism, conservativism, or anything else?

The fact is there were plenty of concrete measures that could have been taken, that were very popular, and that would have helped the majority of Americans. — Mikie

You overestimate the popularity of the things you listed, the ease with which they could be passed, and the negative consequences (real and perceived) of any specific proposal.

Is there some end-point in any liberalism, conservativism, or anything else? — Relativist

Interesting quesion. Do you think there needs to be an end point? I tend to think of these ideas more as dispositions or methods, not goals, and these methods set about intervening in the world which is in continual change.

What makes you think it's nonsense? Is there some end-point in any liberalism, conservativism, or anything else? — Relativist

Something so general and so irrelevant is nonsense to me — but maybe vacuous is better.

You overestimate the popularity of the things you listed — Relativist

No, I don’t. Take a look at any reputable polling on the issue. Public option — child tax credit — taxing the wealthy — child tax credit — unions, emissions reduction, etc. All have majority support, some well over 2/3rds.

the ease with which they could be passed, — Relativist

Which I’ve discussed at length for several years. In fact I created a thread devoted to it. There’s plenty that could have been done, with democrat control of Congress. I mentioned Manchin and Sinema — but there ways around that, if the willingness was there.

and the negative consequences (real and perceived) of any specific proposal. — Relativist

No. I’ve discussed this at length as well. Plenty of negative consequences associated with these policies. See the climate change thread for examples, to name one issue.

Take a look at any reputable polling on the issue. Public option — child tax credit — taxing the wealthy — child tax credit — unions, emissions reduction, etc. All have majority support, some well over 2/3rds. — Mikie

I found a Kaiser poll. It showed that only 40% support of Republicans for a public option, and 25% supporting medicare for all. These numbers imply little, if any, support in Congress by GOP.

I doubt there'd be much GOP congressional support for anything in your list except for child tax credits- which Biden achieved in the American Rescue Plan. This is an example of something with no specific objective- it could always be higher.

, the US having turned into pre-industrial anarchy would be "objectively an unmitigated trainwreck" (yours is tweet-style exaggeration). But, sure, things aren't exactly optimal. (By the way, the Ukraine situation isn't just the US, as have been argued again and again, though they should have handled it my way.) ;) Threatening Canada Greenland Panama Mexico is estranging.

It showed that only 40% support of Republicans for a public option, and 25% supporting medicare for all. — Relativist

Republicans. Good try. Bye.

What's your point? Mine is that nothing could pass without some Republican support.

No, your point was that I overestimated popularity. I didn’t.

Your second point was how I underestimate how difficult it is to pass legislation. I didn’t— but that’s a different issue.

You want to shift (1) into (2), but that’s your own doing. Popularity for a public option and passing a public option in congress, where one may need GOP support (although that wasn’t necessary in 2021 or 22), are separate issues.

It’s like saying Trump isn’t unpopular because Republicans polled support him by 90+ %. Kind of a strange thing to do.

The non-discriminating pardon of 1/6 criminals is bad for the rule of law. It specifically empowers those who see themselves as executors of T's will outside of what T can perform as official acts. The recent expansion of executive privilege means T cannot be associated with such behavior when excrement hits whirling objects.

The withdrawal from WHO is a strategic mistake apart from the idiocy of not engaging with public health problems as they emerge.

No, your point was that I overestimated popularity. I didn’t.

Your second point was how I underestimate how difficult it is to pass legislation. I didn’t— but that’s a different issue. — Mikie

You seemed to be unhappy with the job Biden did because he failed to do these things. Because of this, I inferred that you meant those things were so popular, they could pass easily. Sorry if my inference was wrong.

Trump just pardoned Ross Ulbricht, who was serving two life sentences for running a website. Huge.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/21/ross-ulbricht-silk-road-trump-pardon

Sorry if my inference was wrong. — Relativist

Fair enough — no worries.

Having outraged half the nation by acquitting numerous violent offenders and secessionists who assaulted and in some cases murdered police officers on 6th Jan 2021, Trump has now drafted the Ending the Weaponisation of the Federal Government order:

The American people have witnessed the previous administration engage in a systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents, weaponizing the legal force of numerous Federal law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community against those perceived political opponents in the form of investigations, prosecutions, civil enforcement actions, and other related actions. These actions appear oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives. Many of these activities appear to be inconsistent with the Constitution and/or the laws of the United States, including those activities directed at parents protesting at school board meetings, Americans who spoke out against the previous administration’s actions, and other Americans who were simply exercising constitutionally protected rights.

The prior administration and allies throughout the country engaged in an unprecedented, third-world weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process. It targeted individuals who voiced opposition to the prior administration’s policies with numerous Federal investigations and politically motivated funding revocations, which cost Americans access to needed services. The Department of Justice even jailed an individual for posting a political meme. And while the Department of Justice has ruthlessly prosecuted more than 1,500 individuals associated with January 6, and simultaneously dropped nearly all cases against BLM rioters.

Let's remember the criminal actions that two of those prosecutions were directed towards:





Now we're going to witness the purging of the Department of Justice and the implanting of thousands of Trump political apparatchiks in their offices, hellbent on extracting revenge for those who tried and failed to bring Trump to justice.

The Washington Post's slogan is 'Democracy Dies in Darkness'. Wrong. We're witnessing it being strangled in the full light of day.

Trump Revokes Biden's Order to Lower Drug Prices for Medicare
President Donald Trump has been busy rescinding Biden-era Executive Orders in his first days in office, including one that had the potential to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Americans on Medicare.

Known as Executive Order 14087, it was designed to identify a list of prescription drugs that would, under the plan, require only a $2 copay a month for anyone on Medicare. Former President Biden had directed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, an arm of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to look into ways to make prescription drugs cheaper for Medicare recipients.

I wonder how that order will be implied when it's an Anti-Trump crowd trying to invade the White House. :snicker:

Then it will be "I want the US Army and Marines to fight these bastards." And actually we did see that earlier, btw. Just look how pissed off Trump was at general Milley. So this is just white washing and trying to rewrite history in a very Soviet way. Even if the Dems did go after him like the Republicans went after Clinton.

in a very Soviet way — ssu

Hence my reference to apparatchiks. It’s obvious Trump intends to rule by decree and bypass both House and Senate. And he’s protected by the absolute immunity conferred by the Supreme Court last July.

We'll see how that goes. But he cannot bypass both houses. He would have to have quite the leadership skills by going on ruling without the Congress. And now he still has a very good position in the Congress and a party that is loyal to him. Telling will be the midterms.

But he cannot bypass both houses — ssu

Maybe but he’s sure as hell wanting to try. He’s already muscling both houses to allow him to pass Pete ‘Pass-the-Bottle’ Hegseth as Defence Secretary as an interim appointment.

, that's too bad. :/

By the way, we don't see this happening in otherwise comparable countries:

Did Alex Smith Die at Age 26 Because He Couldn't Afford Insulin? (— David Emery · Snopes · Sep 24, 2018)

Apropos the recent murder.

Someone elsewhere claimed that the recent pardons of insurrectionists are a way of building loyalty from militias and such. They might carry out unofficial acts. Not exactly a charitable comment, still consistent though.

Contrary to the lies, no cops were murdered on J6. More evidence that the proverbial maggots have burrowed too far into the brain.

True. None were murdered.

In the days and weeks after the riot, five police officers who had served at the Capitol on Jan. 6 died.

Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob, died on Jan. 7.

Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department killed himself after the attack.

Officer Howard S. Liebengood of the Capitol Police also died by suicide four days afterward.

The Capitol Police had previously said that Officer Sicknick died from injuries sustained “while physically engaging with protesters.” The Washington medical examiner later ruled that he had died of natural causes: multiple strokes that occurred hours after Officer Sicknick’s confrontation with the mob. The medical examiner added, however, that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

A bipartisan Senate report, released in June, found that the seven deaths were connected to the Capitol attack. But the report was issued a month before two Metropolitan Police officers — Gunther Hashida and Kyle DeFreytag — died by suicide in July.

During the siege of the Capitol that day, over 140 police officers were assaulted—including over 80 from the U.S. Capitol Police and over 60 from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.

J D Vance on Jan 6th:

If you protested peacefully on Jan. 6 and you’ve had Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned. If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.

Don't bet on him taking it up with The Boss.

Spain is very low...

Are they a BRICS nation?

Spain, a BRICS nation... You will figure out.

:rofl: :rofl:

I am fond of the poor geopolitical knowledge of some Americans. It is funny. These folks changed one old man for another. Imagine Republicans reaction if Biden would say things like that.

Yes. Perhaps in many cases he doesn't have to care so much if the executive orders flop either in the courts or in Congress. Trump simply can state it as an example of "Deep State" fighting his administration. And likely his base will be OK with that. At least he tried.

For example the idea of changing the Constitution (or bypassing the Constitution) of taking the birth right citizenship away is likely not going to succeed. But that doesn't matter so much for Trump.

(The Hill, 21st Jan 2025) Twenty-two Democrat-led states and two cities challenged President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, which on Tuesday kicked off the first legal battles between his new Justice Department and Democratic attorneys general.

The two separate lawsuits, filed in Massachusetts and Washington state, ask federal judges to rule the order contradicts the Constitution, which under the 14th Amendment bestows citizenship on anyone born in the United States.

“President Trump now seeks to abrogate this well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle by executive fiat,” one group of states wrote in their complaint.

If executive fiat would really overturn here the courts or the courts up to the Supreme Court would OK changing the Constitution, that would extremely worrisome.

We shouldn't forget that the US still has separation of powers.

Lol. :lol: Don't assume that Americans would look objectively at both Biden and Trump in the gaffes they do. The vast majority of Americans are either for Trump or Biden and thus against the other. They will never accept such an obvious truth that both old men are showing signs of senility. Just as they will never accept that the disaster that happened in Afghanistan is the fault of both presidents and their administrations.

And this is one of things that Trump might not understand or take into account. If he let's say puts high tariffs against Denmark in order to get Greenland, he is basically doing it with all EU. So in the end, just like with the first Trump administration, one can think that Trump will avoid the worst disasters.

Yet things like Trump going for the Panama Canal might really happen. We shouldn't forget what happened during the older Bush administration. How that will play out this time will be interesting, because Latin American countries might not like it (or simply don't like it). And naturally Trump, as being totally honest with his intensions, doesn't hide the imperialism at all. For Trump the idea of "China controlling the Panama canal now" might be enough of a reason for military action. The idea behind that, I guess, is that a Hong Kong company won the contract for operation of the container shipping ports located at the canal's Atlantic and Pacific outlets.