The Biden/Harris Administration

Enough of Trump

Biden has been making nominations of whom he would like to have to work for him in the cabinet and other executive offices, What do you think of the nominations so far?

He has said his first priority is to get the pandemic under control. How should the new administration do that?

What else should be taken up first?

I like the fact Biden is saying the Attorney General will not be his attorney, but the people's attorney.

I have also noticed he has been nominating people of a strong middle class and union background. He has said it was the union that built the middle class. I like that.

«134567

Comments

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Without exception, his nominations have been of highly qualified people who, I am sure, will be outstanding in their roles.

    Getting the pandemic under control, erm, trumps everything else. There is nothing else to take up first . . . except, perhaps, bringing insurrectionists to justice.
  • It's a bit early to say anything worthwhile, at least from this side of the Pond, but having two sane, rational, decent human beings as President and VP is a Good Beginning...
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Enough of Trump
    ...
    He has said his first priority is to get the pandemic under control. How should the new administration do that?
    ...

    Encourage preventive measures, ramp up production of the vaccine, help states with distributing the vaccine, rejoin WHO, work with other countries, help other countries get and distribute the vaccine. Economic support for people and businesses directly impacted. Long term planning for the next pandemic.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    I want Biden to do really well but I get the impression that he is scared to punish Trump for fear of his mad followers
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    I want Biden to do really well but I get the impression that he is scared to punish Trump for fear of his mad followers
    I don't think that it is that he is "scared" so much as it may be better for the healing of the country not to "punish" Trump or the people who voted for him. It would not surprise me if, once he is inaugurated, Biden pardons many (if not all) of those who invaded the Capitol. Pardon them, even though they think he is The Great Satan. That would probably blow their minds.

    I have frequently mentioned that the scary part of the Lord's Prayer (a.k.a. the "Our Father") is that is does NOT ask God to forgive us absolutely. It literally asks God to forgive us only to the extent that "we forgive those who trespass against us." I suspect that Biden will forgive those who have trespassed against him. Many of the far left liberals will be angry about that, because they want blood. They want Trump and his supporters to suffer. But that is not the Christian way and, unlike Trump, I think Biden is a Christian.

    But I have been wrong before.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I'd think it pretty presumptuous of Biden to forgive Trump for sins committed against third parties.
  • Hedgehog--

    Biden is very Catholic. Means a lot to him, and it's gotten him through rough times.

    So is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, actually.

    Not sure of Kamala's beliefs.
  • Biden is a consensus politician, so it is natural for him to try and find common ground with his political enemies and compromise. I'm not sure about Harris. She strikes me as a fighter and a pragmatist. But Biden has also said that he will allow the DoJ to operate independently, so what happens to Trump and his circle will be up to Merrick Garland and his people.
  • I disagree with the puted Biden that pardoning Trump would do anything toward healing the country. It just sends a message that what he did was acceptable and will be tolerated again.
  • Being forgiven does not mean you are not still responsible for the consequences of your crime.
  • To me, pardoning people who stormed into the Capitol would not be a sign of "healing" - it would come across as a sign of weakness ("I really really don't want you to be angry with me").

    You don't want to give any hint that something as egregious as this can be brushed over. This is a time to make people understand that sedition is a serious matter. I hope Biden lets the course of justice run freely. All those who can be proved to have entered the Capitol should know that they will be spending a goodly amount of time behind bars.
  • Being forgiven does not mean you are not still responsible for the consequences of your crime.

    No but being pardoned does.
  • There's some thought that T might pardon the rioters, along with himself. IMHO, that would be very, very bad.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited January 10
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Hedgehog--

    Biden is very Catholic. Means a lot to him, and it's gotten him through rough times.

    So is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, actually.

    Not sure of Kamala's beliefs.

    @Golden Key Take a look at what you wrote. You started out by mentioning Biden's last name. You used Nancy Pelosi's full name, but then, well, you went off the rails. "Kamala" has a full name too. Why did you drop her surname? Is it is because she is colored? Just asking..

    The point is as much as I can be accused of mangling Mr. T's name, I know never to address a person of authority who happens to be dark-skinned by his or her first name unless that person has given me permission to address him/her is a less formal way.

    BTW I know Ms Harris is Christian. I am not sure of denomination though.

    Regarding what happened on January 6. Mr. Biden says he will hand the matter over to the Justice Department. Personally, I think he should allow the prosecutors to begin trying the alleged terrorists. Later, if they can demonstrate remorse and reforming their ways, then maybe work to pardon them on a case by case basis. Where to house them? I hear Guantanemo is mostly vacant now.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited January 10
    Gramps--

    No, my use of Kamala Harris' first name has nothing to do with color, insult, or any kind of disrespect.

    On one of the related threads, there was a discussion about that, and I put forth my particular quirks (and I called them that) about last-name usage. I went looking for the post; but I'm not sure of the thread, and (so far) searching my list of comments hasn't been fruitful.

    She was a prosecutor here in SF, and state attorney general. I often call city/state officials that I like by their first names. I call our governor Gavin Newsom "Gavin". He was mayor here, then lt. governor, and now governor. I like him much better now than when he was mayor, and I think he's doing a much better job.

    I often call Joe Biden "Joe" here.

    Plus: Hillary = Hillary Clinton, and that's her personal brand. Dubyah = George W. Bush. (That's his long-time nickname, based on the Texan pronunciation of his middle initial.)

    tl;dr: It mostly means I like her.

    ETA: Found my post, over on the "Break Glass" thread.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited January 10
    I call Hillary Clinton Hillary, Hills, Our Hills, and the best damn President the USA could have.

    I have an idea that some of Kamala Harris' campaign material just used her first name, but a google search did not really bear that out. My argument that I can call Hillary Hillary because that's what she campaigned on, Kamala Kamala for like reasons and Jeb Bush Jeb!, but only if I either use the ! or act it out if speaking falls for lack of evidence.

    In Australian politics, Scott Morrison chose his own nickname, ScoMo. That caused one comedian to dub his Immigration Minister, the execrable Peter Dutton, P-Diddy. As you can imagine, ScoMo has spawned many variations. My favorite is Scotty from Marketing.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I want Biden to do really well but I get the impression that he is scared to punish Trump for fear of his mad followers
    I don't think that it is that he is "scared" so much as it may be better for the healing of the country not to "punish" Trump or the people who voted for him. It would not surprise me if, once he is inaugurated, Biden pardons many (if not all) of those who invaded the Capitol. Pardon them, even though they think he is The Great Satan. That would probably blow their minds.

    I have frequently mentioned that the scary part of the Lord's Prayer (a.k.a. the "Our Father") is that is does NOT ask God to forgive us absolutely. It literally asks God to forgive us only to the extent that "we forgive those who trespass against us." I suspect that Biden will forgive those who have trespassed against him. Many of the far left liberals will be angry about that, because they want blood. They want Trump and his supporters to suffer. But that is not the Christian way and, unlike Trump, I think Biden is a Christian.

    But I have been wrong before.
    These people and Trump have committed sins against the Country

  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    My post was poorly structured, so let me try again:

    I doubt that Biden will pardon Trump. I do think he will pardon the protesters who stormed the Capitol although, as @Gramps49 suggested, that will probably wait until the Justice Department has begun processing some of them. Also, it will depend on what specific actions the individuals took. A police officer was killed and those most directly connected to that loss of life will need to be looked at closely.

    And, yes, forgiveness often looks like weakness. That is why it takes great strength to do it. But I think that Biden will consider it a path to heal the nation. Like it or not, a large amount of people did vote for Trump. Treating them in a Trumpian manner (i.e., being "strong" and try to crush them) will not restore the nation.

    Oh, and @Golden Key, my apologies. When I said I could be wrong, I didn't mean that I could be wrong about Biden's faith. I have known of Joe Biden since his first wife taught at the elementary school I attended (although she died before I was a taught by her). I know his faith (we are both Catholic) and I have seen the man in person many times over decades. What I may be wrong about is my guess at how he will handle things. I could be completely wrong. But it would not surprise me if he pardoned the protesters (but not Trump himself).
  • If the NY authorities have the nice long chat with Mr Trump about his finances that they have been threatening, that would probably deal with that problem for Mr Biden. I think that a lot of those wanting the book thrown at the current President would settle for the Al Capone solution.

    I agree with Hedgehog that apart from those who are arrested for bombs/weapons offences, or causing serious injuries, most people will probably get some form of legal slap on the wrist.
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    If the NY authorities have the nice long chat with Mr Trump about his finances that they have been threatening, that would probably deal with that problem for Mr Biden. I think that a lot of those wanting the book thrown at the current President would settle for the Al Capone solution.

    My worry with that is it will be seen as persecution, as a sign that he didn't do anything wrong as president. What he did needs to be dragged into the light and scrutinised. Ironically one advantage of a blanket pardon is that it would largely strip him of being able to take the 5th and hence mean he can be compelled to testify.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    The people that the protestors were threatening to murder were the Senate and Congress, and specifically Mike Pence. Biden was safely elsewhere.
    Croesos has pointed out that pardoning or otherwise not prosecuting people to heal the nation is a tactic that has been tried, and it does not seem to have worked.
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited January 10
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Enough of Trump

    Biden has been making nominations of whom he would like to have to work for him in the cabinet and other executive offices, What do you think of the nominations so far?

    He has said his first priority is to get the pandemic under control. How should the new administration do that?

    What else should be taken up first?

    I like the fact Biden is saying the Attorney General will not be his attorney, but the people's attorney.

    I have also noticed he has been nominating people of a strong middle class and union background. He has said it was the union that built the middle class. I like that.

    So back on topic: what policies might Biden and Harris pursue? Clearly there's lots to do regarding the pandemic and its repercussions like the economy, rebuilding the restoring the country and its place in international bodies such as WHO, Paris Accord.

    I'd like to see him move to limit presidential powers like an end to pardons (ie overturning the outcome of the legal system) and the use of Executive Orders limited to genuinely exceptional circumstances with some constraints. Changes to the electoral system to clamp down on gerrymandering, and ensure anyone restricting voters' rights being imprisoned and barred from future gov or state employmnet. Also limit business lobbying - in fact put lobbyists out of business and new rules on campaign finance.

    (Please don't let Biden/Harris be distracted by trump and his goons. That should be left to the legal system to prosecute as necessary without political interference. Someone could start a thread about what legal sanctions should apply to trump and his gullible, thuggish, anti-democratic moron-followers.)
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I think pardoning the rioters (note: not protesters) en masse now is a terrible idea. I think it would do nothing more than encourage them and demonstrate to others that committing violence to overturn an election is now an acceptable act with no consequences - and that even committing a murder in the attempt is potentially OK.

    It's a great mistake to confuse punishing people who commit crimes with crushing all Trump voters; this is exactly the kind of conflation that the radical right propagates. Let them face trial like anyone else accused of a crime.

    There's no reason to think that a wave of mass pardons would lead to a change of heart among Trump voters, but it would look like a terrible betrayal to a great many Biden voters.
  • From the clips of Mr Biden's recent speeches that I've seen, he appears to be clearly focused on dealing with the pandemic, and with the economy. I assume Ms Harris thinks the same way, too.

    I guess they're both happy (not perhaps the best word) to leave the legal stuff to the experts, for the moment, at least. Let the coup ringleaders, especially Trump, be dealt with swiftly and severely, and let the rest of the mob be rounded up, charged, fined, put in jail, or whatever is most appropriate, in due course.

  • I'd like to see him move to limit presidential powers like an end to pardons (ie overturning the outcome of the legal system) and the use of Executive Orders limited to genuinely exceptional circumstances with some constraints. Changes to the electoral system to clamp down on gerrymandering, and ensure anyone restricting voters' rights being imprisoned and barred from future gov or state employmnet. Also limit business lobbying - in fact put lobbyists out of business and new rules on campaign finance.

    Yes to all of those. But I have to say that I doubt that much will happen. Biden might be able to do something about Presidential pardons, but that's really a relatively minor thing. He is likely to be blocked (esp. by the Supreme Court) if he tries to interfere with how states run elections and also with any attempt to regulate campaign financing.

    I would also like to see him move to make the Supreme Court less political. First of all, add new members to counter the overt right wing nature it now has. Then create a new system for appointing members that tries to ensure impartiality. Again, though, It Ain't Gonna Happen (IAGH).

    In fact, even with Harris's casting vote in Senate, I think that IAGH is a phrase we will need to get used to.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Dave W wrote: »
    I think pardoning the rioters (note: not protesters) en masse now is a terrible idea. I think it would do nothing more than encourage them and demonstrate to others that committing violence to overturn an election is now an acceptable act with no consequences - and that even committing a murder in the attempt is potentially OK.
    All the more reason to remove you-know-who NOW before he gets any more bright ideas.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Fugitive Gander wrote:
    I'd like to see him move to limit presidential powers like an end to pardons (ie overturning the outcome of the legal system) and the use of Executive Orders limited to genuinely exceptional circumstances with some constraints. Changes to the electoral system to clamp down on gerrymandering, and ensure anyone restricting voters' rights being imprisoned and barred from future gov or state employmnet. Also, limit business lobbying - in fact put lobbyists out of business and new rules on campaign finance.

    As I understand it, there are procedures regarding the use of presidential pardons. Under the old system, there was a pardon board that would review cases and, based on certain criteria, would recommend pardoning individuals. Trump ignored that whole system. I think Biden will return to it.

    The electoral system is largely the state's responsibility but I do think the incoming administration should bring up a new Voting Rights Act that addresses why the Supreme Court struck down parts of the previous Voting Rights Law.

    We do need prison reform on federal and state levels. Ms Harris has already made this a priority I believe. I think we need to look at the issue of restorative justice rather than retribution.

    Golden Key: The fact is you used both Mr. Biden's and Ms Pelosi's last names in your post. But you used only Ms Harris' first name. The only difference between the three people, other than gender, is the color of their skin. You say because Ms Harris was a prosecutor in San Fransico that gives you permission to you her first name. Well, Ms Pelosi is also from San Fransico. I do not see you referring her by first name in your post.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited January 10
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Ms Pelosi is also from San Fransico. I do not see you referring her by first name in your post.
    She did; she used first name and surname. I think the convention is that women are referred to by first name alone if that is sufficient to identify them, and first name surname if first name alone is not; whereas men are referred to my surname alone if that is sufficient and first name surname if not.

    I think it's a bad convention and I try to use surname as the default for both genders, but it is a convention.

  • I try to use the surname-only convention (much like the New York Times, albeit without the courtesy prefix), but Hillary presents a problem because "Clinton" automatically means her husband to a lot of people.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    mousethief wrote: »
    Hillary presents a problem because "Clinton" automatically means her husband to a lot of people.

    Whereas "Mrs. Clinton" would mean her husband's mother, I suppose?
  • Re name usage:

    --I sometimes have referred to Nancy Pelosi as "Nancy" on the Ship, and that's the way I usually think of her. (FYI: in her underlying job as a representative from California, she also happens to be the rep for my district.) I was specific, in that case, because--of the many, many things I try to juggle when I post here--I don't expect non-Americans to know/remember names of American politicians. And, in that moment, I juggled *that* ahead of approval and sense of familiarity.

    --One exception to my meanderings is the women justices of the US Supreme Court. I've generally had some respect for Supremes, in general, partly because ISTM they were there to straighten out the mess that the other branches and levels of gov't made. My respect went wayyy down due to Bush v. Gore.

    But--and this goes way back--I hold the women Supremes in special respect and awe, particularly Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It was so hard for them to get there, and they worked so hard on behalf of women, and they were brilliant. I've occasionally called them by their first names, at least in private conversations. Once I knew of the RBG meme, I mostly switched to that for Justice Ginsburg.

    I rarely hear anything about the other women Supremes, though I was thrilled when they made it.

    --I've mostly been on a first-name basis with everyone, all my adult life--bosses and teachers included. That was what was done. Sometimes with women doctors, by their permission or because that's what they preferred.

    --IME and IMHO: there are *so* many things to keep in mind when I post: different knowledge, perspectives, cultures; trying to keep in mind the "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" of that; concern about whether how something I say to support someone is going to be perceived by someone else; whether I might unintentionally offend lurkers I don't even know; etc.

    FWIW.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Hillary presents a problem because "Clinton" automatically means her husband to a lot of people.

    Whereas "Mrs. Clinton" would mean her husband's mother, I suppose?

    Presents a problem for just using last names. "Mrs. Clinton" is one potential solution.
  • Or "Ms.".
  • Or Mx.
  • Is that a non-binary version?
  • Yes. At least, invented and/or becoming popular in non-binary circles.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 10
    Yes, AIUI.

    How about:
    Mr (or President) Biden
    Ms (or Vice-President) Harris
    Mrs Hillary Clinton

    Simples!
  • Yes, AIUI.

    How about:
    Mr (or President) Biden
    Ms (or Vice-President) Harris
    Mrs Hillary Clinton

    Simples!

    Adding an honorific to the front doesn't change the problem, it just masks it. You're still left with Biden, Harris, and Hillary Clinton. Lastname, Lastname, and Fullname.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Mrs Hillary Clinton
    No. Her husband's name is William, or Bill for short.
  • Doesn't Hillary use Rodham-Clinton in some contexts?
  • At points in the past, yes. I think it took her a while to sort that all out.
  • Miss Amanda--
    Mrs Hillary Clinton
    No. Her husband's name is William, or Bill for short.

    Hmmm. It's been a long time since I've come across using "Mrs. (Husband-firstname) (Husband-LastName)". Most often: "(OwnFirstName) (Husband-LastName)", "Mrs. (OwnFirstName) (Husband-LastName)", "Ms. (OwnFirstName) (Husband-LastName)" OR "(OwnFirstName) (OwnLastName)".
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    I think pardoning the rioters (note: not protesters) en masse now is a terrible idea. I think it would do nothing more than encourage them and demonstrate to others that committing violence to overturn an election is now an acceptable act with no consequences - and that even committing a murder in the attempt is potentially OK.

    That's right, a pardon now would send entirely the wrong message. What may be better is to allow all the most serious charges to proceed, but after those proceedings have been completed, to pardon those remaining.
  • Re use of names: Really? Kamala Harris used some campaign material in which she was identified as Kamala. Yes, using a female politician's first name only can be an implied diminishment of them, but please limit drawing that implication to situations where it is warranted. This is GOLDEN KEY. She is not noted for her tendency to disparage women. The discussion is petty and pitiful.

    I am thoroughly ashamed of you all.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Re use of names: Really? Kamala Harris used some campaign material in which she was identified as Kamala. Yes, using a female politician's first name only can be an implied diminishment of them, but please limit drawing that implication to situations where it is warranted. This is GOLDEN KEY. She is not noted for her tendency to disparage women. The discussion is petty and pitiful.

    I am thoroughly ashamed of you all.

    The discussion has turned into an academic discussion of how to refer to people, and is neither petty nor pitiful but interesting and informative. Nobody is saying ill of Golden Key.
  • Indeed not. My *simples* post merely tried to be respectful to Mr Biden, Ms Harris, and Mrs (Hillary) Clinton.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Miss Amanda--
    Mrs Hillary Clinton
    No. Her husband's name is William, or Bill for short.

    Hmmm. It's been a long time since I've come across using "Mrs. (Husband-firstname) (Husband-LastName)".

    Me too, but absence makes the heart grow fonder. I'll own as to how it does seem rather quaint, though.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    To me, pardoning people who stormed into the Capitol would not be a sign of "healing" - it would come across as a sign of weakness ("I really really don't want you to be angry with me").

    You don't want to give any hint that something as egregious as this can be brushed over. This is a time to make people understand that sedition is a serious matter. I hope Biden lets the course of justice run freely. All those who can be proved to have entered the Capitol should know that they will be spending a goodly amount of time behind bars.

    Totally agree. I think the rabid Trump supporters would take it as a sign of weakness, that it won't diminish their hatred, and they'd likely regroup and come back for more. The FBI is going to have to double down on their surveillance of possible domestic terrorists to head off more incidents. In a legal fashion of course, both for civil rights reasons and so anything they find can be used in court.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Re use of names: Really? Kamala Harris used some campaign material in which she was identified as Kamala. Yes, using a female politician's first name only can be an implied diminishment of them, but please limit drawing that implication to situations where it is warranted. This is GOLDEN KEY. She is not noted for her tendency to disparage women. The discussion is petty and pitiful.

    I am thoroughly ashamed of you all.

    The discussion has turned into an academic discussion of how to refer to people, and is neither petty nor pitiful but interesting and informative. Nobody is saying ill of Golden Key.

    Gramps49:
    "@Golden Key Take a look at what you wrote. You started out by mentioning Biden's last name. You used Nancy Pelosi's full name, but then, well, you went off the rails. "Kamala" has a full name too. Why did you drop her surname? Is it is because she is colored? Just asking.."

    Gramps49 did. He outright asked her if her reference to Kamala Harris as Kamala was because she is a person of color, implying that she was speaking from a racist viewpoint. And then he doubled down.

    "Golden Key: The fact is you used both Mr. Biden's and Ms Pelosi's last names in your post. But you used only Ms Harris' first name. The only difference between the three people, other than gender, is the color of their skin. You say because Ms Harris was a prosecutor in San Fransico that gives you permission to you her first name. Well, Ms Pelosi is also from San Fransico. I do not see you referring her by first name in your post."


    If that makes you ashamed of me, mt, so be it. I like hearing Gramps49"s point of view most times and I respect him. But his attack on Goldenkey shocked me.
  • Lyda wrote: »
    If that makes you ashamed of me, mt, so be it. I like hearing Gramps49"s point of view most times and I respect him. But his attack on Goldenkey shocked me.

    If you will read what you posted, it was SimonToad who said he was ashamed, not me. I was countering him and saying his shame was misplaced.
Sign In or Register to comment.