7 ms·

Democrats haven’t had the courage to take a real position for a long time. Their program is basically to run as the slightly better Republicans. Obama wrote a

Democrats haven’t had the courage to take a real position for a long time. Their program is basically to run as the slightly better Republicans. Obama wrote a really nice article a few days ago. But when he was running things he basically did nothing to improve the situation although the issues with police were well known.

mschuster91 6y ago
> But when he was running things he basically did nothing to improve the situation although the issues with police were well known. Because police laws and funding is a state matter where the federal government can't do anything, and to top that Obama was locked by a Republican HoR in 6 of his 8 years.
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  He didn’t even try.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    That's nonsense. He directed his DOJ to avoid prosecuting low level drug crimes (which Trump immediately reversed), his budgets were the first since Carter that proposed spending more on treatment than on criminalization, thousands of Federal drug prisoners were granted early release, he did a ton that apparently people choose to ignore.. https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/12/19/13903532/obama-war-on-drugs-legacy https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/12/19/13903532/obama-war...
  - AtHeartEngineer 6y ago
    Ya that's a battle he probably should have picked
  - agustif 6y ago
    blindless Bi-partidism never brought much democracy anywhere
- cwhiz 6y ago
  Donald Trump declared a national emergency so he could bypass Congress and raid the military budget to build a wall. The idea that Obama had his hand tied is ludicrous. Obama chose not to take action. We can debate why he chose not to take action but it was a choice he alone made. Obama had absolute direct authority over drug classification. At minimum he could have moved marijuana off of schedule 1. Not to mention his direct authority over the FBI, DEA, DoJ, and other federal agencies. Even if you want to argue that an emergency declaration is unlawful, there were still numerous changes that he could have made within the confines of existing law and precedent. He didn’t and that is on him and him alone.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > Obama chose not to take action. Obama's use of executive orders was widely criticized as "undemocratic" back then, by Republicans and even some Democrats, and that for stuff that actually made sense and was legal to do via EOs. Trump? He can trample over legal issues and the Republicans won't even act like they'd even want to hold him accountable.
    - cwhiz 6y ago
      That is why I said even within existing precedent there were plenty of actions Obama could have taken. Obama was in charge of the entire executive branch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_executive_departments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_executiv... It's a real cop-out to say his hands were tied. He had wide latitude and authority to implement changes within the executive branch.
      - mschuster91 6y ago
        > Obama was in charge of the entire executive branch. Obama was in charge of the entire federal executive branch. The problem at the core of anti-police protests is not the FBI and not any other federal branch (okay, a bit the DEA/ICE), it is local police and sheriffs!
        6y ago
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  That is not entirely true. A very large portion of police funding comes directly or indirectly from the federal government, and a lot of that comes under control of the executive too.
- gowld 6y ago
  This is extremely false. Obama's DoJ signed 26 consent agreements with PDs, under the authority of the 1994 crime bill.
germinalphrase 6y ago
The Obama administration was supportive of consent decrees which force reforms (with penalties) on otherwise recalcitrant police departments. The current justice department will not such consent decrees, and this is exactly the wall we in Minnesota are going to run into As we attempt to force change on our police department.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The current justice department will not such consent decrees Well, plus the current administration outright abandoned investigations and publicly stated that it opposed the idea of investigating local law enforcement for systematic issues. It's not just an issue of neglecting an important tool of enforcement when the department now fairly overtly opposes the idea of enforcement.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    Can't Minneapolis do its own investigation? And institute the reforms it needs?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      To the extent that it is a systemic problem in Minneapolis, self-investigation would be compromised. Could Ferguson have investigated itself? Sure, and it did. Unsurprisingly, that investigation by the system that the federal investigations found deeply and thoroughly broken somehow missed the problems with the same system that the federal investigation found. But, yes, and the State of Minnesota could also investigate.
      - pnw_hazor 6y ago
        Hire outside investigators, appoint/deputize independent lawyers to be special prosecutors, etc. Most states of cities with police problems have very strong civil rights laws (often stronger than federal protections) -- they have the legal tools to make real change happen. They don't need the DOJ to fix their problems. Relying on the DOJ makes sense if the local government is supportive of the bad policing -- like back in the civil rights/segregation era. Some states would not comply so the feds had to make things happen. You don't have that situation today.
thawaway1837 6y ago
The federal government stopped giving the police military weapons. They also had consent degrees with several departments that helped improve things. These and others are all things the current administration has reversed and is almost certainly playing a huge role into why things have gotten so bad.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  They were giving weapons to... someone though? Seems I remember Republicans going on and on about that to this day. Fast and Furious something?
  - fatbird 6y ago
    Fast and Furious was a DEA operation to allow gun dealers to sell weapons to straw purchasers in the U.S., knowing and hoping they'd go to Mexican cartels, allowing them to legally go after the cartels. The Obama admin was responsible in "the buck stops here" sense, but this wasn't about admin policy.
  - coderintherye 6y ago
    You're thinking of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal It started in 2006 under Bush and continued under Obama.
    - masonic 6y ago
      It started in 2006 under Bush That very Wikipedia link clearly affirms that the operation that came to be known as Fast and Furious began in October 2009.
      - coderintherye 6y ago
        It's literally in the first sentence of the article: between 2006 and 2011. The initiative ran from 2006-2011. Operation Wide Receiver was the first operation that ran 2006-2008. Operation Fast & Furious was a subset that ran 2009-2011. This information is readily seen by anyone who actually clicks the link. Regardless, the facts are not political no matter how much you may want to make them. The initiative began under the Bush admin and continued under Obama. Arguably, neither had much to do with it as it was mostly the work of the ATF and its leadership.
phkahler 6y ago
IMHO it's not going to work. I saw a lot of Bloomberg ads and the message was undeniably "Trump sucks, vote for me" and he dropped out. "Not Trump" just isn't enough, just like "I'm a woman" wasn't enough. Stand for something that people want and feel will positively affect their world.
- daseiner1 6y ago
  better yet, stand against what people don’t want and feel will negatively affect their world. fear’s a stronger motivator than love.
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  100% true. The amazing thing is that Clinton’s program of “I am a woman. I am not Trump. It’s my turn.” already won the popular vote. Now imagine if they had a candidate who people actually wanted to vote for.
  - karatestomp 6y ago
    I didn't like W and don't like Trump but you can't draw meaningful conclusions from the popular vote in an election that's not decided by popular vote, because knowledge of that fact affects campaigning and voter turnout in various ways. There's no meaningful "winning" of such a vote, in terms of popular vote. It's truly trivia.
    - Ididntdothis 6y ago
      Winning the popular vote means that a lot of people voted for that candidate. To me it indicates that it was a very close election.
      - karatestomp 6y ago
        With winner-take-all state elector selection plus elector counts that favor lower-population states there are huge distortionary effects on voter turnout, the actual choices a voter makes in the voting booth, and campaigning, including GOTV efforts. The nationwide popular vote therefore has little meaning, not just on the actual outcome (plainly irrelevant for that) but even as some kind of score-keeping or "what if" thought experiment.
newacct583 6y ago
> Democrats [...] run as the slightly better Republicans. Obama [...] basically did nothing to improve the situation That doesn't seem consistent with facts on the ground. I know what you're saying is that he wouldn't take firm policy stances, but neither did he gas protestors. The ability of the executive branch to control national discourse, find compromise and defuse division is important. And we have one party that tries that, however flawed the results might be. And another the runs the government for the parochial benefit of their own voters only, basically laughing at the rest of the citizens whose needs aren't being heard. And you can see the results. That doesn't look very similar to me.
syshum 6y ago
You do know that most Republicans feel the same way about Republican politicians "Republicans haven’t had the courage to take a real position for a long time. Their program is basically to run as the slightly better Democrats".
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  There was the tea party movement that did shift the GOP and then later there was the election of Trump as well. These were reactions against the RNC establishment. The democratic establishment has not had to deal with any thing like this. With the rise of AOC, Sen. Warren, and Sanders it seemed like the DNC was going to lose some power, but alas. Nominating Biden for President is the same as if the GOP nominated Jeb Bush. A clear sign that change is not on the horizon. Edit-to-add: I guess the election of President Obama was a reaction against the DNC somewhat and even Bill Clinton as well. But, in the end neither moved the needle.
  - karatestomp 6y ago
    Obama's pushing in the media as an "up and comer" felt like typical party messaging and positioning. I think he just surprised them when he "up and came" faster than they wanted him to, but I suspect his prominence in the first place was planned and intended by party insiders. [EDIT] I mean the messaging concerning him and his prominence before he announced a Presidential run. It's no accident that there was a lot of chatter about him well before that on national media, all the sudden. Felt like official party grooming via the media.
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  “You do know that most Republicans feel the same way about Republican politicians” I know that. And that’s what gave us Trump. Both parties have to pretend doing something for the little guy while being dependent on pleasing their big money donors. That’s why they can’t take a clear position. Trump just upped the game with his rhetoric. Most Trump voters I know like him because they think he isn’t part of the corrupt establishment. You can argue whether that’s true or not but that’s what people think.
knowaveragejoe 6y ago
This is a completely uninformed take. The Biden platform is by far the most progressive to ever reach the general election. Just because it doesn't go as far as medicare 4 all and completely ending the war on drugs doesn't mean it's "slightly better Republicans". Seriously, go look at it some time. The GOP wouldn't support any of it. The whole "both sides are the same" needs to stop. The entirety of the GOP's governing philosophy is based on conspiracy. The hardcore Trump cult itself is completely disconnected from reality, thanks to 30+ years of scams and conspiratorial media that has demonized everything that made the country they claim to love what it is. The contrast between the Dems and GOP should be stark for anyone who actually cares to look: https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2kaubu/just_a_reminder_of_what_the_senate_was_doing_the/cljns3q/ https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2kaubu/just_a_remi...
- anewdirection 6y ago
  Just check bidens voting record in office. Very, very far from progressive. He has always run as the law and order guy, and helped push many of the laws enabling police misconduct today, such as mandatory minimums, 10x tougher crack sentancing, etc. I want to move forward too, but he is not the guy.
joncrane 6y ago
He was really working on Obamacare. That was his pet project and what he believed was the best impact he could make. I don't know enough to judge if he was right or wrong, but it's pretty clear that was his #1 baby.
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  I watched closely when Obamacare was debated. If Obama had only had had the courage to pound the table and tell his democratic senators to get in line, maybe Obamacare could actually have worked. Instead it turned into a half assed attempt that was flawed from the start. Same with the bank bailouts. He was in an excellent position to get some real change but chose to keep Geithner who gave the banks what they wanted. And a precondition for anybody who administered the bailouts was to have worked for an investment bank.
  - eppsilon 6y ago
    IIRC the so-called "blue dog" Democrats in the House were the main obstacle preventing Obamacare from being more progressive. Unfortunately, they were right to be afraid...many of those Democrats lost their seats in the following years. In retrospect the Democrats' window of complete control of the federal government was going to close no matter what they did (due to the GOP's obstructionism and unity in hating anything Dems did), and perhaps they should have passed more ambitious reforms while they had the chance.
bredren 6y ago
Obama's AG Eric Holder "barred state and local police from using federal law to seize cash and other property without criminal charges or warrants." "Since 2008, thousands of police agencies had made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program, which allowed local and state police to make seizures and then share the proceeds with federal agencies." Jeff Sessions reversed this policy in 2017[0]. Eric Holder described it as an "extremist action." [1] "A Washington Post investigation[2] in 2014 found that state and local police had seized almost $2.5 billion from motorists and others without search warrants or indictments since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Post series revealed that police routinely stopped drivers for minor traffic infractions, pressed them to agree to searches without warrants and seized large amounts of cash when there was no evidence of wrongdoing. Police then spent the proceeds from the seizure with little oversight, according to the Post investigation. In some cases, the police bought luxury cars, high-powered weapons and armored cars." [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-greenlights-police-to-increase-seizures-of-cash-and-property-from-suspected-criminals/2017/07/19/3522a9ba-6c99-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessi... [1] https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/887070460306915328 https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/887070460306915328 [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/stop-and-seize-2/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.1cf960315661 https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/s...
- throwaway060320 6y ago
  So after 6 years at his position, Holder put restrictions on a certain type of civil asset forfeiture that was (according to the article you linked to) "a small total of assets seized by federal authorities, so the overall impact on forfeiture practices was relatively muted." It's not nothing, but I don't think it does much to contradict the parent comments remark about Democrats being slightly better Republicans. I think one of the big problems with these systemic problems is that the partisan nature of American politics makes most people blind to the failures of "their team." Any failure is handwaved away, excuses are made, and nothing gets done. The only answer seems to be "vote for my team," even after decades of doing that have failed to make the changes that people want.
jimbokun 6y ago
> But when he was running things he basically did nothing to improve the situation although the issues with police were well known. How can you be so spectacularly uninformed to say this? Many other responses have pointed out the multitude of actions Obama took, yet you believe Obama "did nothing" simply because you did not put the slightest effort into finding out what he did or didn't do, and what maybe he tried to do but was blocked by Congress or courts or other government actors. I really believe our democracy is failing in large part because of people like yourself believing farcical claims without doing the slightest bit of research or investigation to determine basic facts.
ssalazar 6y ago
Not totally inaccurate, but I would take "no improvement" over actively undermining American government and society. For better or for worse Obama pinned his legacy on healthcare reform, and being a symbol of improving racial justice rather than actual change. Republicans have tried to undermine that legacy ever since.
standardUser 6y ago
You must not have watched the Democratic presidential primary debates, when candidates spoke to a national audience about reparations for slavery, drug legalization, sex work legalization, a universal basic income, wealth taxes, banning private health insurance and so much more. Obama was a transitionary figure who oversaw a lot of changes (like same sex marriage, marijuana legalization, the rise of BLM and the Me Too movement) but the party as a whole has kept running downfield, leaving President Obama in the dust. If you watched those debates - or paid close attention to the direction the Republican party has been moving - you'd understand why your argument that they are "slightly better Republicans" sounds outdated to the point of absurdity.
- jdkee 6y ago
  I watched those debates. Reparations and free healthcare for illegal aliens. The stupidest possible positions to take, as those talking points will be replayed ad nauseam in the Swing states starting in September.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Talking is easy, particularly at primary debates. Doing something is difficult and the Democratic party has been fairly ineffectual.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    The party has shifted considerably in the last 4-6 years. Democrats have had virtually no power at the national level during that time. At the state and local level, we have seen significant changes towards things like drug laws, climate change, minimum wage, healthcare, etc.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      I really, really, really hope so. (I'm in a very Republican state, so I haven't noticed.) That would be great, and just how that kind of change will have to happen. But watching the primary process, I still don't see it.
- 6y ago

mschuster91 6y ago

> But when he was running things he basically did nothing to improve the situation although the issues with police were well known. Because police laws and funding is a state matter where the federal government can't do anything, and to top that Obama was locked by a Republican HoR in 6 of his 8 years.

Ididntdothis 6y ago
He didn’t even try.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  That's nonsense. He directed his DOJ to avoid prosecuting low level drug crimes (which Trump immediately reversed), his budgets were the first since Carter that proposed spending more on treatment than on criminalization, thousands of Federal drug prisoners were granted early release, he did a ton that apparently people choose to ignore.. https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/12/19/13903532/obama-war-on-drugs-legacy https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/12/19/13903532/obama-war...
- AtHeartEngineer 6y ago
  Ya that's a battle he probably should have picked
- agustif 6y ago
  blindless Bi-partidism never brought much democracy anywhere
cwhiz 6y ago
Donald Trump declared a national emergency so he could bypass Congress and raid the military budget to build a wall. The idea that Obama had his hand tied is ludicrous. Obama chose not to take action. We can debate why he chose not to take action but it was a choice he alone made. Obama had absolute direct authority over drug classification. At minimum he could have moved marijuana off of schedule 1. Not to mention his direct authority over the FBI, DEA, DoJ, and other federal agencies. Even if you want to argue that an emergency declaration is unlawful, there were still numerous changes that he could have made within the confines of existing law and precedent. He didn’t and that is on him and him alone.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > Obama chose not to take action. Obama's use of executive orders was widely criticized as "undemocratic" back then, by Republicans and even some Democrats, and that for stuff that actually made sense and was legal to do via EOs. Trump? He can trample over legal issues and the Republicans won't even act like they'd even want to hold him accountable.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    That is why I said even within existing precedent there were plenty of actions Obama could have taken. Obama was in charge of the entire executive branch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_executive_departments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_executiv... It's a real cop-out to say his hands were tied. He had wide latitude and authority to implement changes within the executive branch.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > Obama was in charge of the entire executive branch. Obama was in charge of the entire federal executive branch. The problem at the core of anti-police protests is not the FBI and not any other federal branch (okay, a bit the DEA/ICE), it is local police and sheriffs!
      - 6y ago
sudosysgen 6y ago
That is not entirely true. A very large portion of police funding comes directly or indirectly from the federal government, and a lot of that comes under control of the executive too.
gowld 6y ago
This is extremely false. Obama's DoJ signed 26 consent agreements with PDs, under the authority of the 1994 crime bill.

germinalphrase 6y ago

The Obama administration was supportive of consent decrees which force reforms (with penalties) on otherwise recalcitrant police departments. The current justice department will not such consent decrees, and this is exactly the wall we in Minnesota are going to run into As we attempt to force change on our police department.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The current justice department will not such consent decrees Well, plus the current administration outright abandoned investigations and publicly stated that it opposed the idea of investigating local law enforcement for systematic issues. It's not just an issue of neglecting an important tool of enforcement when the department now fairly overtly opposes the idea of enforcement.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  Can't Minneapolis do its own investigation? And institute the reforms it needs?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    To the extent that it is a systemic problem in Minneapolis, self-investigation would be compromised. Could Ferguson have investigated itself? Sure, and it did. Unsurprisingly, that investigation by the system that the federal investigations found deeply and thoroughly broken somehow missed the problems with the same system that the federal investigation found. But, yes, and the State of Minnesota could also investigate.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      Hire outside investigators, appoint/deputize independent lawyers to be special prosecutors, etc. Most states of cities with police problems have very strong civil rights laws (often stronger than federal protections) -- they have the legal tools to make real change happen. They don't need the DOJ to fix their problems. Relying on the DOJ makes sense if the local government is supportive of the bad policing -- like back in the civil rights/segregation era. Some states would not comply so the feds had to make things happen. You don't have that situation today.

thawaway1837 6y ago

The federal government stopped giving the police military weapons. They also had consent degrees with several departments that helped improve things. These and others are all things the current administration has reversed and is almost certainly playing a huge role into why things have gotten so bad.

mythrwy 6y ago
They were giving weapons to... someone though? Seems I remember Republicans going on and on about that to this day. Fast and Furious something?
- fatbird 6y ago
  Fast and Furious was a DEA operation to allow gun dealers to sell weapons to straw purchasers in the U.S., knowing and hoping they'd go to Mexican cartels, allowing them to legally go after the cartels. The Obama admin was responsible in "the buck stops here" sense, but this wasn't about admin policy.
- coderintherye 6y ago
  You're thinking of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal It started in 2006 under Bush and continued under Obama.
  - masonic 6y ago
    It started in 2006 under Bush That very Wikipedia link clearly affirms that the operation that came to be known as Fast and Furious began in October 2009.
    - coderintherye 6y ago
      It's literally in the first sentence of the article: between 2006 and 2011. The initiative ran from 2006-2011. Operation Wide Receiver was the first operation that ran 2006-2008. Operation Fast & Furious was a subset that ran 2009-2011. This information is readily seen by anyone who actually clicks the link. Regardless, the facts are not political no matter how much you may want to make them. The initiative began under the Bush admin and continued under Obama. Arguably, neither had much to do with it as it was mostly the work of the ATF and its leadership.

phkahler 6y ago

IMHO it's not going to work. I saw a lot of Bloomberg ads and the message was undeniably "Trump sucks, vote for me" and he dropped out. "Not Trump" just isn't enough, just like "I'm a woman" wasn't enough. Stand for something that people want and feel will positively affect their world.

daseiner1 6y ago
better yet, stand against what people don’t want and feel will negatively affect their world. fear’s a stronger motivator than love.
Ididntdothis 6y ago
100% true. The amazing thing is that Clinton’s program of “I am a woman. I am not Trump. It’s my turn.” already won the popular vote. Now imagine if they had a candidate who people actually wanted to vote for.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  I didn't like W and don't like Trump but you can't draw meaningful conclusions from the popular vote in an election that's not decided by popular vote, because knowledge of that fact affects campaigning and voter turnout in various ways. There's no meaningful "winning" of such a vote, in terms of popular vote. It's truly trivia.
  - Ididntdothis 6y ago
    Winning the popular vote means that a lot of people voted for that candidate. To me it indicates that it was a very close election.
    - karatestomp 6y ago
      With winner-take-all state elector selection plus elector counts that favor lower-population states there are huge distortionary effects on voter turnout, the actual choices a voter makes in the voting booth, and campaigning, including GOTV efforts. The nationwide popular vote therefore has little meaning, not just on the actual outcome (plainly irrelevant for that) but even as some kind of score-keeping or "what if" thought experiment.

newacct583 6y ago

> Democrats [...] run as the slightly better Republicans. Obama [...] basically did nothing to improve the situation That doesn't seem consistent with facts on the ground. I know what you're saying is that he wouldn't take firm policy stances, but neither did he gas protestors. The ability of the executive branch to control national discourse, find compromise and defuse division is important. And we have one party that tries that, however flawed the results might be. And another the runs the government for the parochial benefit of their own voters only, basically laughing at the rest of the citizens whose needs aren't being heard. And you can see the results. That doesn't look very similar to me.

syshum 6y ago

You do know that most Republicans feel the same way about Republican politicians "Republicans haven’t had the courage to take a real position for a long time. Their program is basically to run as the slightly better Democrats".

pnw_hazor 6y ago
There was the tea party movement that did shift the GOP and then later there was the election of Trump as well. These were reactions against the RNC establishment. The democratic establishment has not had to deal with any thing like this. With the rise of AOC, Sen. Warren, and Sanders it seemed like the DNC was going to lose some power, but alas. Nominating Biden for President is the same as if the GOP nominated Jeb Bush. A clear sign that change is not on the horizon. Edit-to-add: I guess the election of President Obama was a reaction against the DNC somewhat and even Bill Clinton as well. But, in the end neither moved the needle.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  Obama's pushing in the media as an "up and comer" felt like typical party messaging and positioning. I think he just surprised them when he "up and came" faster than they wanted him to, but I suspect his prominence in the first place was planned and intended by party insiders. [EDIT] I mean the messaging concerning him and his prominence before he announced a Presidential run. It's no accident that there was a lot of chatter about him well before that on national media, all the sudden. Felt like official party grooming via the media.
Ididntdothis 6y ago
“You do know that most Republicans feel the same way about Republican politicians” I know that. And that’s what gave us Trump. Both parties have to pretend doing something for the little guy while being dependent on pleasing their big money donors. That’s why they can’t take a clear position. Trump just upped the game with his rhetoric. Most Trump voters I know like him because they think he isn’t part of the corrupt establishment. You can argue whether that’s true or not but that’s what people think.

knowaveragejoe 6y ago

This is a completely uninformed take. The Biden platform is by far the most progressive to ever reach the general election. Just because it doesn't go as far as medicare 4 all and completely ending the war on drugs doesn't mean it's "slightly better Republicans". Seriously, go look at it some time. The GOP wouldn't support any of it. The whole "both sides are the same" needs to stop. The entirety of the GOP's governing philosophy is based on conspiracy. The hardcore Trump cult itself is completely disconnected from reality, thanks to 30+ years of scams and conspiratorial media that has demonized everything that made the country they claim to love what it is. The contrast between the Dems and GOP should be stark for anyone who actually cares to look: https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2kaubu/just_a_reminder_of_what_the_senate_was_doing_the/cljns3q/ https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2kaubu/just_a_remi...

anewdirection 6y ago
Just check bidens voting record in office. Very, very far from progressive. He has always run as the law and order guy, and helped push many of the laws enabling police misconduct today, such as mandatory minimums, 10x tougher crack sentancing, etc. I want to move forward too, but he is not the guy.

joncrane 6y ago

He was really working on Obamacare. That was his pet project and what he believed was the best impact he could make. I don't know enough to judge if he was right or wrong, but it's pretty clear that was his #1 baby.

Ididntdothis 6y ago
I watched closely when Obamacare was debated. If Obama had only had had the courage to pound the table and tell his democratic senators to get in line, maybe Obamacare could actually have worked. Instead it turned into a half assed attempt that was flawed from the start. Same with the bank bailouts. He was in an excellent position to get some real change but chose to keep Geithner who gave the banks what they wanted. And a precondition for anybody who administered the bailouts was to have worked for an investment bank.
- eppsilon 6y ago
  IIRC the so-called "blue dog" Democrats in the House were the main obstacle preventing Obamacare from being more progressive. Unfortunately, they were right to be afraid...many of those Democrats lost their seats in the following years. In retrospect the Democrats' window of complete control of the federal government was going to close no matter what they did (due to the GOP's obstructionism and unity in hating anything Dems did), and perhaps they should have passed more ambitious reforms while they had the chance.

bredren 6y ago

Obama's AG Eric Holder "barred state and local police from using federal law to seize cash and other property without criminal charges or warrants." "Since 2008, thousands of police agencies had made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program, which allowed local and state police to make seizures and then share the proceeds with federal agencies." Jeff Sessions reversed this policy in 2017[0]. Eric Holder described it as an "extremist action." [1] "A Washington Post investigation[2] in 2014 found that state and local police had seized almost $2.5 billion from motorists and others without search warrants or indictments since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Post series revealed that police routinely stopped drivers for minor traffic infractions, pressed them to agree to searches without warrants and seized large amounts of cash when there was no evidence of wrongdoing. Police then spent the proceeds from the seizure with little oversight, according to the Post investigation. In some cases, the police bought luxury cars, high-powered weapons and armored cars." [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-greenlights-police-to-increase-seizures-of-cash-and-property-from-suspected-criminals/2017/07/19/3522a9ba-6c99-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessi... [1] https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/887070460306915328 https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/887070460306915328 [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/stop-and-seize-2/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.1cf960315661 https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/s...

throwaway060320 6y ago
So after 6 years at his position, Holder put restrictions on a certain type of civil asset forfeiture that was (according to the article you linked to) "a small total of assets seized by federal authorities, so the overall impact on forfeiture practices was relatively muted." It's not nothing, but I don't think it does much to contradict the parent comments remark about Democrats being slightly better Republicans. I think one of the big problems with these systemic problems is that the partisan nature of American politics makes most people blind to the failures of "their team." Any failure is handwaved away, excuses are made, and nothing gets done. The only answer seems to be "vote for my team," even after decades of doing that have failed to make the changes that people want.

jimbokun 6y ago

> But when he was running things he basically did nothing to improve the situation although the issues with police were well known. How can you be so spectacularly uninformed to say this? Many other responses have pointed out the multitude of actions Obama took, yet you believe Obama "did nothing" simply because you did not put the slightest effort into finding out what he did or didn't do, and what maybe he tried to do but was blocked by Congress or courts or other government actors. I really believe our democracy is failing in large part because of people like yourself believing farcical claims without doing the slightest bit of research or investigation to determine basic facts.

ssalazar 6y ago

Not totally inaccurate, but I would take "no improvement" over actively undermining American government and society. For better or for worse Obama pinned his legacy on healthcare reform, and being a symbol of improving racial justice rather than actual change. Republicans have tried to undermine that legacy ever since.

standardUser 6y ago

You must not have watched the Democratic presidential primary debates, when candidates spoke to a national audience about reparations for slavery, drug legalization, sex work legalization, a universal basic income, wealth taxes, banning private health insurance and so much more. Obama was a transitionary figure who oversaw a lot of changes (like same sex marriage, marijuana legalization, the rise of BLM and the Me Too movement) but the party as a whole has kept running downfield, leaving President Obama in the dust. If you watched those debates - or paid close attention to the direction the Republican party has been moving - you'd understand why your argument that they are "slightly better Republicans" sounds outdated to the point of absurdity.

jdkee 6y ago
I watched those debates. Reparations and free healthcare for illegal aliens. The stupidest possible positions to take, as those talking points will be replayed ad nauseam in the Swing states starting in September.
mcguire 6y ago
Talking is easy, particularly at primary debates. Doing something is difficult and the Democratic party has been fairly ineffectual.
- standardUser 6y ago
  The party has shifted considerably in the last 4-6 years. Democrats have had virtually no power at the national level during that time. At the state and local level, we have seen significant changes towards things like drug laws, climate change, minimum wage, healthcare, etc.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    I really, really, really hope so. (I'm in a very Republican state, so I haven't noticed.) That would be great, and just how that kind of change will have to happen. But watching the primary process, I still don't see it.
6y ago