Democrat Wish List

[Z Buck McFate]

With Congress & WH, what are you guys hoping for?

Off the top of my head:

1. I hope they form some kind of group to look at all the holes that need to be patched before another Trump happens. Especially if this new "no norm is too sacred to break lightly" norm sticks at all.

2. Including rules about SCOTUS nominations and a ceiling on how many can be appointed by one POTUS (and how early before an election a nomination can be tabled, etc, all the things that previously were kept in check by norms).

3. Add to SCOTUS. I think Mayor Pete's idea of choosing one progressive and then subsequent additions must have consensus approval of all Justices is fairest idea I've heard (and it's certainly more fair than the GOP deserves).

4. Campaign finance reform/ drop Citizens United. This is a big one for me, but it won't happen with a SCOTUS packed with Federalist shitheads.

5. Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC.

6. Get rid of electoral college (or work towards that end).

7. Fix gerrymandering.

And it kinda goes without saying that I think all abuses of power and violations of the law by everyone affiliated with the current administration need consequences, in order to set a precedent that it won't be tolerated, but I'm not sure that falls under this purview (it's distinctly a bipartisan thing, not politically motivated - as many lifelong Republicans will agree - and as such shouldn't be attached to this upcoming administration).

 

[Virtual ghost]

All of that sounds as something that is needed but this is all kinda "empty politics".


I would go more in the concrete policy direction. So in short:



1. Starting a genuine green new deal. What is important on a number of reasons from fixing economy, reducing costs and various international affairs.

2. Large increase in education spending as well as making curriculum visibly better and more up to date. Fixing schools in the term of infrastructure. All of that alone can fix a good chunk of above problem on the long run.

3. Rebuilding relationships with traditional allies and perhaps find a few new ones. Make everyone's commitments to NATO more serious, perhaps even expand it into the pacific region.

4. Large scale fixing of infrastructure and the start of reindustrializing certain parts of the country. What is very important internationally and internally (since it would reprogram certain people).

5. Making a push to make everyone more equal towards the law. Focus more on fines than jail and force.

6. Cleaning the streets from crime, drugs and trash. Since that would really speed up community rebuilding and regaining mental health.

7. Fixing healthcare (whatever that means in American case)

8. Rationalize military spending. Since the same results can almost surely be created with less money. Some smaller local tasks should be given to the allies. End conflicts that are too hard or too costly to win at this point.

9. Improve food quality by banning certain practices and chemicals in agriculture and food processing.

10. Focus more on fact checking and actually explaining why the facts are really the facts.

11. Cleaning up all unclear, outdated and contradictory laws.

12. Making sure everyone pays their taxes and their fair share in taxes. Make a push to eventually reach balanced budget (what is coming out the other points).



I could go on but I think this is enough.
But yeah, my standards are high.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

There’s really nothing illegal about packing the Supreme Court. The number of justices has been changed more than once throughout history. It’s allowed in the constitution and I’m all for expanding it. Regressive social conservative bootlickers have held a grip on the court far too long.

I’m looking closer at my state as we are one that holds odd number year elections and there’s a decent chance we could have a real demsoc nominee running for Governor this year. Although I predict that the pro business, pro big pharma, pro bank liberal with the backing of the national DNC is going to end up being the nominee. TPTB will do anything in their power to guarantee this outcome.

 

[Lark]

With Congress & WH, what are you guys hoping for?

Off the top of my head:

1. I hope they form some kind of group to look at all the holes that need to be patched before another Trump happens. Especially if this new "no norm is too sacred to break lightly" norm sticks at all.

2. Including rules about SCOTUS nominations and a ceiling on how many can be appointed by one POTUS (and how early before an election a nomination can be tabled, etc, all the things that previously were kept in check by norms).

3. Add to SCOTUS. I think Mayor Pete's idea of choosing one progressive and then subsequent additions must have consensus approval of all Justices is fairest idea I've heard (and it's certainly more fair than the GOP deserves).

4. Campaign finance reform/ drop Citizens United. This is a big one for me, but it won't happen with a SCOTUS packed with Federalist shitheads.

5. Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC.

6. Get rid of electoral college (or work towards that end).

7. Fix gerrymandering.

And it kinda goes without saying that I think all abuses of power and violations of the law by everyone affiliated with the current administration need consequences, in order to set a precedent that it won't be tolerated, but I'm not sure that falls under this purview (it's distinctly a bipartisan thing, not politically motivated - as many lifelong Republicans will agree - and as such shouldn't be attached to this upcoming administration).

But wasnt getting rid of the electoral college part of what the Trump supporters were wanting/complaining about too?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

But wasnt getting rid of the electoral college part of what the Trump supporters were wanting/complaining about too?

Republicans complain about it when it doesn’t work in their favor.

 

[ceecee]

Actually deal with COVID at the federal level.

So many policies that our elected officials have long told us were impossible and impractical were eminently possible and practical all along. So, everything in the links below...

Bernie Sanders's Economic Plan: A Second Bill of Rights

The Green New Deal Explained

Naturally there are many more items but the above focuses on the most people, in the most needed ways.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

There’s really nothing illegal about packing the Supreme Court. The number of justices has been changed more than once throughout history. It’s allowed in the constitution and I’m all for expanding it. Regressive social conservative bootlickers have held a grip on the court far too long.

Does "packing" have a specific meaning, when it comes to SCOTUS? (Asking anyone). Because I keep seeing conservatives using this term to denote increasing the number of Justices, but then I also see the left using the term to explain that conservatives already 'packed' the court and that the reason for adding Justices is to balance it out. Is it just a relatively arbitrary term people are using to describe unfair action on other's parts?

I think it's a good idea to expand because right now 5/9 Justices were nominated and confirmed by people who were elected by a minority of the country (electoral wins, gerrymandering advantages, etc). It's just not sustainable to have the values of the minority determine laws for a majority that doesn't share their values. And to boot, they picked shitheads who are a lot younger than the norm - so this imbalance will be imposed on an opposing majority for generations.

****

+1 to healthcare and ceecee's post.

I'm not sure this is a government thing per se (funded by government certainly, research-wise, but I'm wary of putting it directly in government purview), but I think probably some focus on education - specifically on how/when to trust one's own judgement, the difference between being 'right' by railroading people aggressively enough vs. feeling bona fide curiosity about what's most true, teaching people/kids healthy ways to regulate their emotions in the first place so that it doesn't come out in the form of manipulating/gaslighting/bullying/etc - could go a long way towards preventing another bizarre fact-check apocalypse (where a manipulative con man starts a cult). At any rate, I feel like we need to research what the fuck happened. Though I'm grateful Trump is exactly too incompetent to have succeeded, this whole thing has been a wake up call. But this seems to have the ingredients of being studied/directed by forces just outside the government, working alongside of it, instead of being run by it. Like it should be about inspiring people to practice this kind of mindfulness and reaching out encourage those around them, rather than anything the government could possibly mandate.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

But wasnt getting rid of the electoral college part of what the Trump supporters were wanting/complaining about too?

If any Trump supporters complained about it, it's only because they either don't understand what they're talking about or because they were focusing on some miniscule aspect where he didn't benefit from it - but everything considered, he would have lost hands down without it (both in 2016 and 2020). Every Republican POTUS since the 80s (I think?) would have lost without it.

I don't remember when they started doing this (except that it was before I was born), but once a state has counted all their electoral votes then *all* the electoral votes for that state go to the winner - not just the electoral votes they actually won. There's a sort of 'winner takes all' system in every state. It's feasible to me that Trump supporters would protest that particular aspect if that particular aspect didn't work to his advantage this time around.

 

[ceecee]

Does "packing" have a specific meaning, when it comes to SCOTUS? (Asking anyone). Because I keep seeing conservatives using this term to denote increasing the number of Justices, but then I also see the left using the term to explain that conservatives already 'packed' the court and that the reason for adding Justices is to balance it out. Is it just a relatively arbitrary term people are using to describe unfair action on other's parts?

I think it's a good idea to expand because right now 5/9 Justices were nominated and confirmed by people who were elected by a minority of the country (electoral wins, gerrymandering advantages, etc). It's just not sustainable to have the values of the minority determine laws for a majority that doesn't share their values. And to boot, they picked shitheads who are a lot younger than the norm - so this imbalance will be imposed on an opposing majority for generations.

****

+1 to healthcare and ceecee's post.

I'm not sure this is a government thing per se (funded by government certainly, research-wise, but I'm wary of putting it directly in government purview), but I think probably some focus on education - specifically on how/when to trust one's own judgement, the difference between being 'right' by railroading people aggressively enough vs. feeling bona fide curiosity about what's most true, teaching people/kids healthy ways to regulate their emotions in the first place so that it doesn't come out in the form of manipulating/gaslighting/bullying/etc - could go a long way towards preventing another bizarre fact-check apocalypse (where a manipulative con man starts a cult). At any rate, I feel like we need to research what the fuck happened. Though I'm grateful Trump is exactly too incompetent to have succeeded, this whole thing has been a wake up call. But this seems to have the ingredients of being studied/directed by forces just outside the government, working alongside of it, instead of being run by it. Like it should be about inspiring people to practice this kind of mindfulness and reaching out encourage those around them, rather than anything the government could possibly mandate.

I refer back to this article often.

Coronavirus Will Change the World Permanently. Here’s How. - POLITICO

Things like - government service regains its cachet or a new civic federalism. Neither of these are new in any way, they've simply been absent for so long people think they are new.

So when I hear some chud like Ben Shapiro or even people on this forum, start using the word "civic" and following it with "nationalism" I know it's just another form of their agenda that sounds palatable to the people not paying much attention. Nationalism is always bad. Always. Even in places where that feeling is understandable - like Scotland or N. Ireland. Sill bad.

Teaching people the difference is key. Demanding that the government serve the people in governs is another. You don't accept the grifers and moronic ex-football coaches or anyone else grossly unqualified to deliver on those fundamental demands. You make the avenue for qualified people non-toxic, non-corrupt and non-lobbied. If that means packing the SCOTUS to repeal things like CU or commissions at the state level to redraw gerrymandered as fuck districts - do it. The battle is just beginning. I hope people can grasp that they no longer get to sit back and assume government just works on its own. Or there will be much worse than the last 5 years.

 

[tinker683]

My own:

1) Get the pandemic under control. Any and everything else is contingent on this. Get the vaccines out and coordinate this on all levels of government

2) Some sort of public health option (be it M4A or something else entirely).

3) Do a full investigation (commission a special prosecutor if need be) of the Trump admin for any and all crimes and prosecute them if any turns up.

*edit* Those are the top three, others in the threads have already articulated points I'd like to see so I don't feel the need to restate them.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

 

[EJCC]

Actually deal with COVID at the federal level.

So many policies that our elected officials have long told us were impossible and impractical were eminently possible and practical all along. So, everything in the links below...

Bernie Sanders's Economic Plan: A Second Bill of Rights

The Green New Deal Explained

Naturally there are many more items but the above focuses on the most people, in the most needed ways.

This this this. ^

Also: police reform and much of the OP.

Biden and the Dems are going to have to do a lot if they want to avoid ALL young* progressives abandoning them in favor of a third party. We'll see how bold they go. (My hopes aren't high, given that the Democratic Party goal at the moment seems to be "absorb all conservatives who abandon the Republican Party, then cater to them and make them happy.")


*millennial and gen Z, i.e. younger than 40

 

[EJCC]

I want to like this, but it is bafflingly optimistic, given the fact that we're probably heading into a civil war.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I want to like this, but it is bafflingly optimistic, given the fact that we're probably heading into a civil war.

Perhaps, but there could be a plot twist. The mainstream politics in DC could trigger NATOs collective defense paragraph and that would put Trumpists at direct disadvantage (especially in the terms of supplies). While nuclear shield if it remains in the governments hands would prevent any outside NATO interference in the conflict.

 

[EJCC]

Perhaps, but there could be a plot twist. The mainstream politics in DC could trigger NATOs collective defense paragraph and that would put Trumpists at direct disadvantage (especially in the terms of supplies). While nuclear shield if it remains in the governments hands would prevent any outside NATO interference in the conflict.

You know - I guess from the progressive standpoint, decreasing American prominence and military power on the global stage WOULD be making America great again. Maybe that kind of global humiliation would be exactly what we need to finally start looking inward and fixing our own shit.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I want to like this, but it is bafflingly optimistic, given the fact that we're probably heading into a civil war.

I don't think he meant the "made America great again" part literally, I think it's just an lulz playing on the fact that Trump almost certainly gave us all three. (It's just a way to maximize rubbing it in).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

It took me a while to hunt this down, but in response to [MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION]'s first^ post and "pie in the sky" goals:

NYT: The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You

In addition: Republicans, Not Biden, Are About to Raise Your Taxes

The Trump administration has a dirty little secret: It’s not just planning to increase taxes on most Americans. The increase has already been signed, sealed and delivered, buried in the pages of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

President Trump and his congressional allies hoodwinked us. The law they passed initially lowered taxes for most Americans, but it built in automatic, stepped tax increases every two years that begin in 2021 and that by 2027 would affect nearly everyone but people at the top of the economic hierarchy. All taxpayer income groups with incomes of $75,000 and under — that’s about 65 percent of taxpayers — will face a higher tax rate in 2027 than in 2019.
​

 

[Red Memories]

^ there's a new level of rage for me.

 

[The Cat]

^ there's a new level of rage for me.

Just imagine all you'll learn tomorrow...

 

[Z Buck McFate]

With all the pardons Trump has been giving away (in a way that takes advantage of a norm that relies more or less on honor, as if there were an assumption no one so absolutely bereft of a moral compass would be elected POTUS that it wouldn't be necessary to put any safeguards in place), I wonder if we shouldn't add some stipulation about all pardons being up for review if a president impeached. It just doesn't seem right that someone corrupt can pardon the Legion of Doom and have it stick. I realize this is what the checks and balances are supposed to prevent, but it's been proven that's an unreliable/broken safeguard.

NYT: Prospect of Pardons in Final Days Fuels Market to Buy Access to Trump

Legal scholars and some pardon lawyers shudder at the prospect of such moves, as well as the specter of Mr. Trump’s friends and allies offering to pursue pardons for others in exchange for cash.

“This kind of off-books influence peddling, special-privilege system denies consideration to the hundreds of ordinary people who have obediently lined up as required by Justice Department rules, and is a basic violation of the longstanding effort to make this process at least look fair,” said Margaret Love, who ran the Justice Department’s clemency process from 1990 until 1997 as the United States pardon attorney.

There are few historical parallels. Perhaps the closest occurred in the final hours of Bill Clinton’s administration when he issued 170 pardons and commutations, some of which went to people who paid six-figure sums to his family and associates. But even Mr. Clinton, who was seen as flouting protocols, mostly rewarded people who had gone through an intensive Justice Department review process intended to identify and vet the most deserving recipients from among thousands of clemency applications.

Mr. Trump has shunned that process more than any recent president, creating an ad hoc system in the White House that Mr. Kushner has had significant influence over and has relied on input from an informal network of outside advisers, including Mr. Tolman. That system favors pardon seekers who have connections to Mr. Trump or his team, or who pay someone who does, said pardon lawyers who have worked for years through the Justice Department system.
​