President Biden's first term in office

[Cope]

I’m surprised a Democrat president would ever concede a state-centered solution at all. It’s been unprecedented since a century, following Wilson’s major expansions of federal power and confirmed by FDR’s New Deal and wartime measures.

He's trying to evade accountability not make genuine concessions on centralized power.

[Coughdrop addict]

I’m surprised a Democrat president would ever concede a state-centered solution at all. It’s been unprecedented since a century, following Wilson’s major expansions of federal power and confirmed by FDR’s New Deal and wartime measures.

What, exactly, is wrong with a state-centered solution? Those expansions of state power have had a very positive effect on the quality of life here in the US.

For example: a few years ago there was a fire in a Russian shopping mall. It killed at least 60 people, more than half of which were children. Some claim the number of people killed is being covered up and that the real figure runs into the hundreds.

Why? Turns out the fire alarms weren't working and no one ever bothered to inspect them, and highly flammable foam rubber was used in the walls instead of proper insulation to save money. The result of this corner-cutting was dozens of dead kids.

This kind of thing happens all the time in the third world. Though this isn’t extinct in North America it is such an extreme rarity that most never give it any kind of thought. We take it for granted that baring a natural disaster our businesses won't become death traps and our homes won't fall down on us.

Why not? In a word: regulations. The federal government enforces multiple layers of regulations and oversight that go into construction and maintenance to ensure events like this simply aren’t possible. And strong central government is needed to enforce these regulations, otherwise businesses would simply flout them as they do in Russia.

And that's just one example. Why do you think we have an FDA? Because companies were putting out tainted, unsanitary food products, along with drugs they claimed cured everything that were usually just water or morphine.

We need a strong state to keep the frauds and criminals that would prey upon society from the boardroom in check.

[EmperorBatman999]

What, exactly, is wrong with a state-centered solution? Those expansions of state power have had a very positive effect on the quality of life here in the US.

For example: a few years ago there was a fire in a Russian shopping mall. It killed at least 60 people, more than half of which were children. Some claim the number of people killed is being covered up and that the real figure runs into the hundreds.

Why? Turns out the fire alarms weren't working and no one ever bothered to inspect them, and highly flammable foam rubber was used in the walls instead of proper insulation to save money. The result of this corner-cutting was dozens of dead kids.

This kind of thing happens all the time in the third world. Though this isn’t extinct in North America it is such an extreme rarity that most never give it any kind of thought. We take it for granted that baring a natural disaster our businesses won't become death traps and our homes won't fall down on us.

Why not? In a word: regulations. The federal government enforces multiple layers of regulations and oversight that go into construction and maintenance to ensure events like this simply aren’t possible. And strong central government is needed to enforce these regulations, otherwise businesses would simply flout them as they do in Russia.

And that's just one example. Why do you think we have an FDA? Because companies were putting out tainted, unsanitary food products, along with drugs they claimed cured everything that were usually just water or morphine.

We need a strong state to keep the frauds and criminals that would prey upon society from the boardroom in check.

By state-centered solution, I was referring to states in the American sense, rather than in the Westphalian/Political Science sort of sense. But personally, I do hold that the US states, not the central government, should have most of the political power in the United States.

Firstly, state governments are much more democratically responsive than the federal government is, for several reasons. The average state representative stands for a smaller number of people than a federal Congressional representative, which amplifies the value of each individual voice in the constituency. Because of geographic factors, state representatives spend more time living in their communities, compared to federal representatives who spend most of their in Washington and only visit their constituencies when an election is coming up (compare an hour-two hour commute to the state capitol in most states versus a plane ride across the country). Because state governments often pay their representatives less than the federal government (such as in New Hampshire, where the state pays their House members only $100 annually), making state representation more of a civic duty than a career, and requires the representatives to live in their communities and have other responsibilities than simply politics. Additionally, NH also has 400 house members just for a state of less than 1.5 million, compared to US Congress's 535 House seats for 350 million people (each Federal House member represents about 700,000 people). Finally, as a state legislator, being more in touch with your community means you are more likely to be directly impacted by whichever policies you legislate, or at the very least to know people who will be impacted.

Secondly, state governments are in a better position to address regional needs and adjust to regional circumstances. In the case of the COVID pandemic, the example I've used many times is that the situation on the ground in New York City is different from that in Montana, and those parts of the US require different approaches to stemming the pandemic. Hypothetically speaking, lockdown might make sense for New York if cases are surging there, but for rural Montana where cases are low, a lockdown would be an undue burden for the states' inhabitants if there is no apparent and immediate pandemic danger. Therefore, New York City and New York State ought to have authority for New York, and the state government in Helena should be allowed to pursue its own policies which are best for Montana. If the federal government assumed responsibility for all pandemic policy, I don't think it would be adequately flexible to address all needs in all regions; somebody would end up being disadvantaged. I suspect in this case, the Fed would be more inclined to listen to New York (it has more representatives in Congress, it has more cultural prestige than Montana, and it is geographically closer to Washington) and make the solution for New York into nationwide policy, while not addressing Montana's situation. States are just better equipped to make precise remedies for regional needs.

Federal usurpation of public health responsibilities in this regard would also break two centuries of precedent. Public health, especially in regards to epidemic and pandemic health crises, has always been a state responsibility to handle, with the federal government coming in over the previous century to play an advisory and supporting role, but not making direct policy itself. The prominent Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts case of 1905, affirmed the states' responsibility for public health (including vaccine mandates), but remains silent on the federal government's role.

So I am not saying that there should be no regulatory power at all anywhere in the US, but rather that the federal government should return historical state-level responsibilities back to the state governments. I think the states are best suited for remedying local problems because they have better access to local information, and because decentralizing power works out better for the average voter and would improve the quality of American democracy. Finally, states can, in the famous words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, serve as "Laboratories of Democracy," capable of pioneering new public policies on a safely small scale, and if successful, may see those policies adopted by other states or the overall federal government. But first, to do that, the federal government needs to delegate policy responsibilities back to the states for the states to work with.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://thehill.com/homenews/wire/58...them-from-jail

I'm glad these crocodile tears are being disregarded.

[Heathen Hammer]

Creepy Joe is pushing responsibility to states not because he is benevolent, but because his handlers know that they lack actual power to have things under control. Kinda the same way USSR disintegration was caused not by Gorbachev "seeing the light" of capitalism and democracy, but simply because Soviet officials wanted to save face while essentially losing. America is undergoing its own Perestroika.

[alhoon]

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-start...TRyY6RIDXeoZT4


Biden trails Trump by 5 points in a hypothetical 2024 matchup... and we know polls favor the democrats.
It is too early to really make predictions for 2024 but the fact is that "buyers remorse" is setting in for USA already.

[irontaino]

It would be better if the choice was neither. Even better, if we didn't have geriatric leadership.

[antaeus]

It would be better if the choice was neither. Even better, if we didn't have geriatric leadership.

You should judge leadership on it's capability, not on it's demographic or life stage. Both Biden and Trump are prohibitively good at what they do. It's too easy to throw away capability with a wave of the geriatric stick, but that's lazy.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The key advantage of elderly leaders is presumably the experience and relationships they’ve built up over the years to direct the ship of state with a wise and steady hand. Clearly hasn’t worked out that way. Instead we’re left with the negatives of a qualitative and quantitative gap between the current leadership of well connected familial patriarchs/matriarchs, and any likely replacements; a leadership class obsessed with preserving their own legacy and family wealth connections for their children, at the expense of virtually anything else. It’s the stuff collapse and revolution are made of.

[antaeus]

I think the idea that an elder leader should be a 'wise and steady hand' is part of the same set of prejudices that also suggests that they might be geriatric - they're two sides of the same coin, and they're largely our projections onto them. One person's wisdom is another person's out of touch hokeyism.

When in reality, leaders in their 70s seem to express the same hopes, desires, failings and flaws as someone in their 20s. Trump was an agitator who had no care for tradition or systems or wise governance. Biden cares for all of those things and represents the opposite of agitation. Even if in practice they're a combination. And they're no more or less desiring to push their own self interest than any other demographic. That's a problem with our political system, not the age of our party leaders.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I think the idea that an elder leader should be a 'wise and steady hand' is part of the same set of prejudices that also suggests that they might be geriatric - they're two sides of the same coin, and they're largely our projections onto them. One person's wisdom is another person's out of touch hokeyism.

When in reality, leaders in their 70s seem to express the same hopes, desires, failings and flaws as someone in their 20s. Trump was an agitator who had no care for tradition or systems or wise governance. Biden cares for all of those things and represents the opposite of agitation. Even if in practice they're a combination. And they're no more or less desiring to push their own self interest than any other demographic. That's a problem with our political system, not the age of our party leaders.

If that’s the case I can’t see the upside to having elderly and infirm leaders. Time for age limits, for the same reason there’s a minimum age.

[antaeus]

If that’s the case I can’t see the upside to having elderly and infirm leaders. Time for age limits, for the same reason there’s a minimum age.

I'll be interested to revisit this when you're in your 70s and feeling entirely capable of rational though and argument. We should be judging the individual for their capabilities, not their demographic. Age limits are idiotic when we have the ability to judge an individual's merits objectively.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I'll be interested to revisit this when you're in your 70s and feeling entirely capable of rational though and argument. We should be judging the individual for their capabilities, not their demographic. Age limits are idiotic when we have the ability to judge an individual's merits objectively.

If I’m able to retire by the time I’m in my 70s, the last thing I’ll want to do is get another job. I’ve been ready to stop working from the moment I got my first one. People’s ego may drive them to stay in office forever, but as you say, there’s not much they do that a younger person can’t. The argument to the contrary isn’t much different from arguing 16 year olds should vote or 18 year olds should hold federal office. It’s a no from me dawg.

[Cyclops]

Biden is a stuffed shirt who used to work with a more or less competent president: in a heavily fixed two horse race all he had to be is the lesser of two evils. The fact that he's senile doesn't matter to the people who chose the candidates, he's flipped on most of his promises: just triangulate what he flipped on and you should be able to work out who owns him.

The thinking seems to be more or less "4 years from an orange clown didn't ruin the country, so why not give an incompetent hack a term?".

[antaeus]

If I’m able to retire by the time I’m in my 70s, the last thing I’ll want to do is get another job. I’ve been ready to stop working from the moment I got my first one. People’s ego may drive them to stay in office forever, but as you say, there’s not much they do that a younger person can’t. The argument to the contrary isn’t much different from arguing 16 year olds should vote or 18 year olds should hold federal office. It’s a no from me dawg.

Interesting perspective from a libertarian. That leaders should be excluded by group demographic rather than individual circumstance.

Particularly given that we're voters in an electoral system, and we can see their merits and capabilities and choose accordingly. And yeah, I'm OK with an 18 year old holding office for the same reason. If they demonstrate the required capabilities to earn my vote. Then barring someone who has the capability to lead effectively because of their demographic category is nonsensical.

dawg.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Minimum age requirements are literally Constitutional. Not sure what that has to do with libertarianism.

[antaeus]

Minimum age requirements are literally Constitutional. Not sure what that has to do with libertarianism.

I'm commenting on your opinion, not the Constitution.

You can allow yourself a little scope for dreaming... if you so choose. Your opinions are not bound by the Constitution, and with elder age limits, we're definitely talking your opinion.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I'm commenting on your opinion, not the Constitution.

You can allow yourself a little scope for dreaming... if you so choose. Your opinions are not bound by the Constitution, and with elder age limits, we're definitely talking your opinion.

The point was that age limits of any kind being incompatible with the comparatively libertarian politics espoused by the people who put the Constitution together, for example, is rather odd. SCOTUS has already determined that age is a reasonable basis of exclusion / discrimination as a matter of competence. No one’s voting rights are being infringed upon here.

[antaeus]

The point was that age limits of any kind being incompatible with the comparatively libertarian politics espoused by the people who put the Constitution together, for example, is rather odd. SCOTUS has already determined that age is a reasonable basis of exclusion / discrimination as a matter of competence. No one’s voting rights are being infringed upon here.

On one hand you're basing your opinion that a lower age limit is good on the SCOTUS or Constitution or what ever. But on the other hand your opinion that there should be an upper limit to electoral office has no precedence in the US. Even allowing for justification for a minimum age (which I don't agree with), it is not justification for a maximum age. Which to my eyes, makes your opinion somewhat hypocritical, and the whole conversation is on shaky ground - especially when we take into account your often libertarian stance on issues.

You may disagree with my opinion on your opinion. That's your prerogative. I'm not sure you're ever going to be able to convince me that it is a good idea to judge someone's competence though an arbitrarily assigned age number. You're on your own with that one dawg

[Lord Thesaurian]

On one hand you're basing your opinion that a lower age limit is good on the SCOTUS or Constitution or what ever. But on the other hand your opinion that there should be an upper limit to electoral office has no precedence in the US. Even allowing for justification for a minimum age (which I don't agree with), it is not justification for a maximum age.

Of course it is. And the idea that it’s hypocritical to acknowledge that is just poor form. It’s also untrue there’s no precedent for it in the US. So if you don’t agree with my justification feel free to research these.

https://ballotpedia.org/Mandatory_retirement

At this point I at least hope you know who Randy Jackson is.