Biden's 17 executive orders

[AmazonQueen]

Actually, no. It wasn't that. It was "We don't like being taxed by England without representation. Absolutely none of the colonists could vote (not even the land-owning white men), so they had no influence in parliament whatsoever.

That's also a difference between the American Revolution and when the south betrayed the country a century later. The south had representation.

Almost all of the British couldn't vote either.
The conservative argument of the time was that your interests (just like those of Manchester for example) were represented by those who were investing in or trading with the Colonies.

 

[Samson]

Almost all of the British couldn't vote either.
The conservative argument of the time was that your interests (just like those of Manchester for example) were represented by those who were investing in or trading with the Colonies.

Most people could not vote in the south either.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Most people could not vote in the south either.

And no doubt the slave owners would have claimed they had the best interests of their slaves in mind too.

 

[Joij21]

but I can't help but see that the Republicans will spin this for years.

If that's your main concern for making this thread, yes it will happen. It's what Republicans do best, playing the underdog narrative when not in power, only to fumble once they get back in.

One could make the argument that Republicans are actually more powerful when not in power. It is precisely during this very time that brand new conspiracy theories to rally the base are crafted.

As a matter of fact it was around this time after Obama was in office back in 2009 that Glenn Beck created nearly every conspiracy used by the right. From George Soros, the New World Order, to Obama being communist. Qanon would take Alex Jones to popularize it, but there is no doubt it was originally inspired by Glenn Beck's original idea of a New World Order. Same with Trump's idea of the Deep State.

All the right needs right now is for Glenn Beck to rise out of his cript/bunker and get a show on primetime Fox television again. If not I see Tucker Carlson as Glenn Beck's stand in. Not as much charisma or off the walls insanity as Beck but somewhat doable. If Tuck doesn't work out likely Mitch Mcconnell will make a personal call to Murdoch to get someone in more like Glenn Beck. After all it's conspiracy theories like this that rile up the base and hopefully bring in more gullable converts to the party. That's simply an opportunity Mitch can't refuse, especially with the GOP now in full retreat, divided, and potentially in legal trouble.

 

[GenMarshall]

All the right needs right now is for Glenn Beck to rise out of his cript/bunker and get a show on primetime Fox television again.

Glenn Beck already has his own news network, BlazeTV. Though granted its presence is largely online. I doubt he has any interest returning back to Fox.

 

[Joij21]

Glenn Beck already has his own news network, BlazeTV. Though granted its presence is largely online. I doubt he has any interest returning back to Fox.

Well he had a lot more influence before Blaze and that was also before he started getting all weird and evangelical. He would arguably have a greater influence if he was on mainstream radio or TV like he did before, a larger audience is to be found that way. IMHO his greatest downfall was because he became too religious, which I think drove away many of his followers who instead liked his off the walls say it like it is attitude. Hence why I believe most of his old audience left to places like Info Wars, where they could at least get the old Beck albeit in the crazier more insane Alex Jones. After Alex Jones endorsed Trump, that's when I believe the "say it like it is" crowd became fully Trump supporters (because remember Glenn Beck disavowed Trump and instead endorsed Ted Cruz, even calling him the Messiah back in 2016).

That's of course not to say Alex doesn't come off as a radical Christian, but he's far less preachy and full of ugly sweater wearing/bunker hiding moments that modern day Beck is known for.

 

[Lexicus]

the evidence backing regular masks is...questionable.

For those wondering at home, this is absolutely untrue. There is a large body of robust evidence that mask use significantly reduces transmission of covid.

 

[Angst]

If that's your main concern for making this thread, yes it will happen. It's what Republicans do best, playing the underdog narrative when not in power, only to fumble once they get back in.

One could make the argument that Republicans are actually more powerful when not in power. It is precisely during this very time that brand new conspiracy theories to rally the base are crafted.

As a matter of fact it was around this time after Obama was in office back in 2009 that Glenn Beck created nearly every conspiracy used by the right. From George Soros, the New World Order, to Obama being communist. Qanon would take Alex Jones to popularize it, but there is no doubt it was originally inspired by Glenn Beck's original idea of a New World Order. Same with Trump's idea of the Deep State.

All the right needs right now is for Glenn Beck to rise out of his cript/bunker and get a show on primetime Fox television again. If not I see Tucker Carlson as Glenn Beck's stand in. Not as much charisma or off the walls insanity as Beck but somewhat doable. If Tuck doesn't work out likely Mitch Mcconnell will make a personal call to Murdoch to get someone in more like Glenn Beck. After all it's conspiracy theories like this that rile up the base and hopefully bring in more gullable converts to the party. That's simply an opportunity Mitch can't refuse, especially with the GOP now in full retreat, divided, and potentially in legal trouble.

I have another concern in that I think it's unhealthy as a political process that executive orders are the only way to get certain things done, and that they're something you can use so liberally when in power. I like the current 17 but as we saw with Trump, bad eggs exist.

 

[Lexicus]

I have another concern in that I think it's unhealthy as a political process that executive orders are the only way to get certain things done, and that they're something you can use so liberally when in power. I like the current 17 but as we saw with Trump, bad eggs exist.

You can't talk about the problems with executive orders without understanding that they have become more common because Congress is incapable of action on many (most?) important issues. The "solution" is for Congress to act, and imo that means we need to get rid of some of the minority-veto points and make it easier for a Congressional majority to enact an agenda.

 

[Joij21]

I have another concern in that I think it's unhealthy as a political process that executive orders are the only way to get certain things done, and that they're something you can use so liberally

Oh, well it's never going to stop as a common practice, at least not in my lifetime and probably yours. It's used more often now because the congress is always stuck in constant deadlock, in the past representatives and senators actually got their asses of their seats and passed legislation like they're supposed to. Doesn't happen anymore, and won't happen until the legislature actually believes they have a job to do and not a career to protect. Though to be honest they care more about protecting their careers then they do their jobs, and likely will far into the future.

On the other hand I feel Democrats are more motivated to pass legislation than Republicans. The Republicans had complete control for the first two years of Trump's term and could only cut taxes (they didn't actually reform the tax system itself despite them saying otherwise, it has the same structure as before). After that they just *****ed and complained about Democrats (like it was still the Obama years) despite the fact they were in complete control. So they fumbled (I think Mitch got too used to obstructionism during Obama's term that he couldn't adapt to actually being in charge, he got too used to being a broken record). Democrats sorta did a similar thing when they had power under Obama, but it wasn't because they were unmotivated, they actually passed more then the Republicans did when in charge. Rather they trusted the Republicans too much and kept reaching a bipartisan hand outward to them. Time after time Mitch the turtle bit their hand to the point where they couldn't get anything done. Had Democrats been more mean and partisan under Obama nothing would have been gridlocked and they could have actually gotten more passed. Now it is true that Republicans did eventually take the power away from the Democrats, but that was after the Dems were trying to be too bipartisan (during which time they could have just steamrolled over the GOP).

Things are different now, the Democrats have seen how nasty Trump is and also seen how unflinching and unchanging Mitch is. They also know Mitch was one of Trump's greatest enablers and now see the GOP as not being so nice after all. So I suppose now the kid gloves come off of the Democrats as they finally become mean and nasty to the GOP in return. Especially so after the attempted Trump coup that potentially endangered all their lives. Likely this time around we'll see the Democratic steamroller just completely sh*t on and mow down Mitch and his cronies without any concern for bipartisanship in the coming months. Biden's current executive orders are just designed to undo Trump's, but once the Senate and House swing into full gear Biden won't need to give orders anymore as this time you'll see Democratic legislation being passed like you've never seen before. As a matter of fact the coming Dem steamroller will probably create the first ever highly productive legislature branch that we've seen in a long time. I see that as a good thing despite not being Democrat myself, as it will likely be a wakeup call to Republicans to clean up their act or continue to get steamrolled (as well as hopefully elect Mitch McConnell out of office).

This is of course if they choose to steamroll instead of falling for Mitch's calls for bipartisanship all over again. If deceived by Mitch again, then yeah this whole executive order bullcrap is just going to continue long after we're dead.

 

[sendos]

Democrats, and any centre left leaning party, in government do tend to legislate more, while Republicans, and any centre right leaning party, in government just tend to repeal stuff. That's always been the case.

I don't think Democrats will cram in that much legislation as they last time due to COVID-19, but who knows?

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I'm a big supporter of proper parliamentary procedure and while executive orders are a necessary function in how the US government is designed, they can also be a toxic element.

In other countries, these would have been cabinet decisions, but since those don't exist and Biden had had at least three months to think about what he wants to do, there's no reason that he couldn't invoke them right after getting into office.

You can't talk about the problems with executive orders without understanding that they have become more common because Congress is incapable of action on many (most?) important issues. The "solution" is for Congress to act, and imo that means we need to get rid of some of the minority-veto points and make it easier for a Congressional majority to enact an agenda.

This is the heart of it: the United States congress is not a parliamentary system, even if the GOP approach since even before Obama's first term was to close ranks and vote as a bloc. Even setting aside how the Republicans spent literally decades sabotaging procedure, no less than Francis Fukuyama has written that America's much-touted checks-and-balances work to hamstring the government in actually implementing its agenda, good or bad. In Denmark, if a party forms a majority government, it can forward almost any policy it wants with expectation it'll be implemented; in the US, you can have both Congress and Senate on-side but you're entangled in so much red tape it'll still fall through—as previously mentioned, even before the midterms flipped the House, Trump still couldn't repeal Obamacare.

Genocide, it's been around since our tribal days back in the Stone Age. Slavery, been around since the dawn of civilization and the Bronze Age.

I highly doubt any theory of ethnic relations was sophisticated enough prior to agrarian civilization that one tribe would war another with the specific intent of wholesale extermination on the basis of their existence ipso facto.

As for slavery, it's worth noting that the chattel system underwriting the trans-Atlantic trade was significantly different from earlier practices, specifically, in that the Europeans justified African slavery on explicitly moral and racial grounds. Yeah, the ancient empires took slaves, but they weren't assumed to be less than human.

Though both are moot points since the proposition is so vague and broad as to be meaningless as a starting point for serious discussion.

As a matter of fact it was around this time after Obama was in office back in 2009 that Glenn Beck created nearly every conspiracy used by the right. From George Soros, the New World Order, to Obama being communist. Qanon would take Alex Jones to popularize it, but there is no doubt it was originally inspired by Glenn Beck's original idea of a New World Order. Same with Trump's idea of the Deep State.

#HarsherInHindsight

 

[Angst]

This is the heart of it: the United States congress is not a parliamentary system, even if the GOP approach since even before Obama's first term was to close ranks and vote as a bloc. Even setting aside how the Republicans spent literally decades sabotaging procedure, no less than Francis Fukuyama has written that America's much-touted checks-and-balances work to hamstring the government in actually implementing its agenda, good or bad. In Denmark, if a party forms a majority government, it can forward almost any policy it wants with expectation it'll be implemented; in the US, you can have both Congress and Senate on-side but you're entangled in so much red tape it'll still fall through—as previously mentioned, even before the midterms flipped the House, Trump still couldn't repeal Obamacare.

I guess that's a benefit of parliamentarism, even if I don't like it either. Makes it far too easy to force stuff through by controlling both the legislative and executive branches. Luckily our voting system and broad spectrum of elected parties mean that parties need to form coalitions to get anything done, and work outside the coalitions to get enough support in the parliament. But with something like covid, it's (as we've seen) very rare that the government isn't able to offer some form of solution.

I highly doubt any theory of ethnic relations was sophisticated enough prior to agrarian civilization that one tribe would war another with the specific intent of wholesale extermination on the basis of their existence ipso facto.

As for slavery, it's worth noting that the chattel system underwriting the trans-Atlantic trade was significantly different from earlier practices, specifically, in that the Europeans justified African slavery on explicitly moral and racial grounds. Yeah, the ancient empires took slaves, but they weren't assumed to be less than human.

Though both are moot points since the proposition is so vague and broad as to be meaningless as a starting point for serious discussion.

Adding to this (the article touches on it), it wasn't just that ancient slavery had a different ideology behind it, it was also much less brutal by a large margin. Most of the slavery systems I know of was basically unpaid house servants and stuff. Heavy labor also happened, but not working the slave to death. Still completely unacceptable, but not the same as chattle slavery by any means. A system where you had bound and unpaid servants vs a system where it's cheaper to let your slaves work themselves to death and then buy and sail more slaves across the Atlantic. Of course, eventually it became cheaper to just let the slaves (and I'm very very sorry about the terminology) breed to give you more slaves, but the Atlantic slave trade and the following system in the US has very few peers in historical slavery.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

For those wondering at home, this is absolutely untrue. There is a large body of robust evidence that mask use significantly reduces transmission of covid.

Yes! Some common sense is spoken. I agree completely.

If everyone wears a mask, transmission is impeded significantly. How do people think Nova Scotia is getting by with only two or three cases a day?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes! Some common sense is spoken. I agree completely.

If everyone wears a mask, transmission is impeded significantly. How do people think Nova Scotia is getting by with only two or three cases a day?

Clearly it is because you are there keeping folks in line.

 

[mitsho]

I guess that's a benefit of parliamentarism, even if I don't like it either. Makes it far too easy to force stuff through by controlling both the legislative and executive branches. Luckily our voting system and broad spectrum of elected parties mean that parties need to form coalitions to get anything done, and work outside the coalitions to get enough support in the parliament. But with something like covid, it's (as we've seen) very rare that the government isn't able to offer some form of solution.

I can always offer you the Swiss system: a coalition of parties holding 85% of the voting share with a council of seven instead of a president and a parliament heavily set on fixed and revolving procedures. This means that no law can be buried and forgotten, but will get voted on eventually. The thread of popular referendums and initiatives also helps parties finding a compromise. The downside? It's a really really slow system.

I guess the saying of the triangle of good, cheap and fast (you can only ever have two of those things) holds true here as well. Replace cheap with "popular" I guess.

 

[uppi]

I guess that's a benefit of parliamentarism, even if I don't like it either. Makes it far too easy to force stuff through by controlling both the legislative and executive branches. Luckily our voting system and broad spectrum of elected parties mean that parties need to form coalitions to get anything done, and work outside the coalitions to get enough support in the parliament. But with something like covid, it's (as we've seen) very rare that the government isn't able to offer some form of solution.

I would rather have it this way than a gridlocked legislative, which leads to permanent power grabbing by the executive and judicature just to keep the country running.

The downside? It's a really really slow system.

Are you sure it is the system, which is slow, and not the Swiss?

 

[mitsho]

Are you sure it is the system, which is slow, and not the Swiss?

We make the same joke about a people from a specific region here (in case you're wondering: Berne, the capital). And yes, it's definitely the system, but of course those mix and mesh, we are also a multilingual country with (in the past) religious minorities, so I guess that all comes together to a system that values compromise all other. Whereas the US system values combat and fight and total victory of 51% versus 49%.

 

[Samson]

Adding to this (the article touches on it), it wasn't just that ancient slavery had a different ideology behind it, it was also much less brutal by a large margin. Most of the slavery systems I know of was basically unpaid house servants and stuff. Heavy labor also happened, but not working the slave to death. Still completely unacceptable, but not the same as chattle slavery by any means. A system where you had bound and unpaid servants vs a system where it's cheaper to let your slaves work themselves to death and then buy and sail more slaves across the Atlantic. Of course, eventually it became cheaper to just let the slaves (and I'm very very sorry about the terminology) breed to give you more slaves, but the Atlantic slave trade and the following system in the US has very few peers in historical slavery.

At least in literature, the process of taking slaves in the Hellenic period was kill the men, castrate the boys and take the women and girls as "wives" (read sex slaves). In South America, at least in the popular imagination, it was acquiring ritual sacrifices. There are a lot of history of horrificness in slavery. It seems to me the main way the transatlantic slave trade stands out is the scale that the industrial revolution allowed it to be carried out at.

 

[Kyriakos]

At least in literature, the process of taking slaves in the Hellenic period was kill the men, castrate the boys and take the women and girls as "wives" (read sex slaves). In South America, at least in the popular imagination, it was acquiring ritual sacrifices. There are a lot of history of horrificness in slavery. It seems to me the main way the transatlantic slave trade stands out is the scale that the industrial revolution allowed it to be carried out at.

There were actually a number of famous greek people who were at one time sold to slavery. Two examples would be Diogenes of Sinope (the cynic) and Epictetus the stoic philosopher.
Maybe you mean specific events, like in the Peloponnesian war (eg Melos). During the last sacred war (when Macedonia rose from a second-tier power, to the prominent land-based power) the plan also was to depopulate all of Phokis and sell everyone to slavery. Apparently Philip B' had a secret deal with Phokis to make things a little better (still mass depopulation, but smaller settlements would be allowed to stay) in exchange for letting him pass through Thermopylae undetected (because he had no serious fleet, so Thermopylae would likely stop him if Athens/Thebes would place their armies there).