imperial presidency.

Of course she would be challenged legally and called all sorts of nasty names. She doesn’t care. She would create urgency and momentum around solving the problem.

Biden would ring up his friend Mitch and see if maybe we could do a little something on student debt, creating nary a ripple in public opinion. There’s an upside to that; his presidency would be calmer and, I think, less consequential. You support one approach, I support another. Vive la difference.

Powers we handed to Obama and his predecessors are being used quite well by Trump to destroy the country.

What is the point in running?

until Trump makes him Joe’s running mate and themes his whole convention around it. Biden is a piñata waiting to happen in the general.

Meantime, if student debt wasn’t next to impossible to discharge via bankruptcy maybe Warren wouldn’t have to contemplate such a step. Thanks, Congress. Thanks, Joe.

and it is talked about on a regular basis.

There's nothing like reinforcing a false narrative. I remember during the 2016 primaries, a MSNBC host actually said, "Clinton email scandal". I don't think it was intentional, but it had become accepted that a perceived controversy WAS a scandal.

Warren even bringing up the DNA test. Idiocy.

The Hunter problem that even Trump's own staff tried to tell him was a debunked conspiracy theory?

That Hunter problem?

In case you haven't noticed, Trump has already been trying to use it as a weapon. Thus far, it seems to be rather ineffective, probably because his motives are rather transparent and even his own staff knows it's fabricated.

pushed by Trump and the GOP?

trying to suggest through some strained logic that the reason Kerry and Clinton lost the general election was that vote.

If their votes had been a serious problem, it would have hurt them in the Democratic primary more than in the GE.

It’s has been investigated during the Obama years (an administration without scandal), military aide withheld, Russian hacking, RUDY and still nothing.

Trump is corrupt.
Joe Biden is not corrupt.

Hunter Biden is not running for President. I have children that are now adults that I have no control over other than them willing to listen to me.

Coal miners should find a new trade? Maybe installing solar panels I don’t care but the future is not coal. Radical I know...HER EMAILS!

Don Jr, Ivanka, Jared, the rest of the mafia family but the MNBA gig huh huh. Both sides are the same!

If you cannot contrast and compare these things then you maybe blind to reason. Purity first!

You will say “cat shit vs. dog shit” like so many did in 2016 and it will bring Trump to a full autocratic.

Biden will win WI, MI, PA, OH and his coattails will bring us full control of Congress to clean this mess up. I love Liz but don’t think she can win the EC.

Both Bernie and Biden voted yes on it. It’s fairly easy to name a Democrat who voted against that. Her name is Barbara Lee. Now we have to overturn it.

And we had two fine Secretaries of State, HRC and John Kerry, who voted the same way.

They all acted as statesmen who made the right vote for the right reasons.

When is the last time we elected an isolationist America First type on a Democratic presidential ticket?

even try to use it...Trump's shit. It is not much different than what I witnessed on twitter last night with Sanders's supporters calling Warren a liar and bringing up Pocahontas and the DNA shit. But of course they are going after Warren not an adult child of Warren which is even worse IMHO. I still think both are wrong in a Democratic Primary.

I personally think both Warren and Sanders have tainted themselves so much that they have become untenable in Wisconsin and possibly Michigan. Their plans will go over even less well in Arizona and Florida. Where will the votes to win the election come from?

Will still support them in the general election, but I have a bad feeling about this.

Yet no one actually backs or attempts to implement a unitary executive like Republicans.

My jaw dropped.

the 276 EOS that President Obama issued while Joe Biden was Veep, mustn't you?

Because no matter how the elections turn out this fall, there will be quite of few of the same obstructionist GOPers in office, especially in the Senate.

Or is it just that you have problems when Elizabeth Warren states that she will do something that could help a lot of people right out of the starting gate?

One, wouldn't even try to work with Congress first.

He would never have been elected if he had done anything so foolish.

into office.

He then ran into the obstructionist wall built by Mitch McConnell. No previous President had EVER had such an experience. It was literally unimaginable. But now we know exactly to what depths GOPers will sink.

Warren understands the nature of today's GOPers. No matter how well the elections turn out for Dems (and we ALL hope that they do), there will still be a considerable number of today's GOPers - who are NOT profiles in courage - in office, especially in the Senate.

These GOPers will NOT change their spots overnight, if ever. Is there anything other than fantastical hope to believe otherwise? Even if McConnell goes - and he MUST, IMO - there'll still be LOTS of others left, each one trying to outdo the others in how they can best screw the 99% and help the One Percent. If you don't believe this, then I can suggest some nice swampland in FL that you might want to look into purchasing,

Warren recognizes that fact and would like to do something to help vulnerable people right from the get-go. If she does get Dem majorities in both Houses of Congress, so much the better. And I totally agree, that would be the optimum.

**********

As for Prez O's EOs, which he had to use lavishly or not be able to govern at all, you can find them, their descriptions, and their dispositions at this site: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html

authoritarian who doesn't care about Congress.

From Day One.

You're going to see that this was a tremendously bad move.

But hey, don't listen to me. As I recall, no Warren supporters here believed me when I pointed out she'd have to roll out a plan to pay for MFA, months before she finally did. I kept getting told how absolutely brilliant she was to avoid mentioning taxes.

Sigh.

I don't care if she destroys her own campaign.

I do care that she's created a problem for other Democratic politicians and lawmakers, who are likely to be asked how they feel about bypassing Congress on Day One.

into what she's saying than what she is actually saying.

This announcement will really hurt her.

I just hope it doesn't hurt other Democrats as well.

Easy answer.

In any event, another poster here has pointed out that there is already authority for the Secretary of Education to do this.

So, if a Secretary can, why not a President?

Here is the link: https://prospect.org/day-one-agenda/cancel-student-debt-dept-education/

It's a very interesting article.

The Obama Admin expanded the power of the Secretary of Education in this respect.

In fact, Betsy DeVos got in trouble because of it. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/25/773334681/devos-held-in-contempt-of-court-ed-department-fined-100-000-in-student-loan-case

the Department of Education, as he was doing in January 2017:

https://www.theregreview.org/2017/01/04/herrine-the-department-of-educations-power-to-cancel-student-debt/


This is all basically wishful thinking by activists.

Herrine's response, which I found first:

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/student-debt-cancellation-department-of-education-law


And the argument he's trying to counter, and IMO doesn't:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/12/executive-orders-supreme-court-law-college-debt

Remember, this is Jacobin and the arguments are both from the left.

Obviously I wouldn't see Sanders' tactics as the best alternative to Warren's.

But Ryan Doerfler, the author of that second piece (chronologically first), is right on one major point:

Legislative action is better than executive action. And for that you need to change public opinion enough to sway Congress.

IMO, the minute you announce you're just going to bypass Congress, you've pretty much given up all chance of doing that.

The authority exists.

I am.

as explained at the end of the article.

Since you're a lawyer, you're well aware there are different interpretations of laws.

He pointed out that what Warren's planning has little chance of surviving review in the courts.

He's also pointing out the importance of legislation, as opposed to executive action based on a "clever" reinterpretation of executive power.

can use it. Period.

And you and I concur on the importance of legislation as opposed to executive action.

back him up.

We put the country through whiplash if we go back and forth between polarized parties acting as if winning the White House is an excuse to push interpretations of executive power way past the point most people would consider reasonable.

I don't think there's any chance most Democrats, let alone Republicans, would think it's sane to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars of student debt on Day One, with no way to pay for it.

And announcing a plan to do that in advance is IMO really foolish, unless Warren's ONLY goal with this announcement is to snag enough of Sanders' supporters to ensure that if only one leftwing candidate survives the early primaries, it will be her and not Sanders. She might be hoping it will help with that, and hoping that other people will forget the promise later on. But the attack ads from the GOP on this plan of hers write themselves.

If a president feels it's necessary to bypass Congress, it had better be after a real effort to work with them -- an effort which will also help sell the president's goals not just to her or his base, but to the American people in general.

An "Oh, hell, I'm not even going to try to work with Congress" attitude simply looks bad.

And polling has shown that Democratic voters want our nominee to try to work with Republicans.

with Trump in this case - conveniently overlooking the fact that EOs were used lavishly and effectively by President Obama, literally because he had to?

You refuse to accept the context. That context has not changed and will not. Today's GOP is literally insane. It has been trending that way definitely since 1994, possibly even since Reagan, although not quite as overtly then as since 1994 with Newt & Co. Mitch McConnell's actions during the Obama Era are inexcusable, but they were perhaps foreseeable. How the GOP-Majority Senate reacts during Trump's impeachment is already largely predictable.

Even in the most rosy Democratic electoral scenario (WH and both Houses of Congress) and no matter which Dem candidate prevails, today's GOP simply cannot change, even if they all suddenly turned sane overnight (pure fantasy!). Their positions are too entrenched. You can continue to posit that it WILL change and cite polls in support of having Dems reach across the aisle until you are blue in the face. But it simply will not change.

Reaching across the aisle has already been tried multiple times and ALL of that reaching has been done by Dems. NONE by GOPers. Warren, as the current Vice Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus, knows exactly what she is dealing with. All the same, she has also been remarkably effective at working in a bipartisan manner, second only to Amy Klobuchar among Dem candidates who are/were in the race, possibly third if one includes Biden's Senate record - which is not a laudable one for the vulnerable and will most certainly be used against him if he is the Dem nominee. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/04/29/elizabeth-warren-republicans

Elizabeth Warren is a pragmatic realist who wants to do what she can for vulnerable persons ASAP. That is laudable to most. But apparently not if you don't like Warren. And that is perfectly apparent in your case. But also OK. We agree on more than we disagree. But definitely not on primary candidates.

Now I'm done with this subject. You seem to love always having the last word, so please do go ahead. But I'm done for now.

It is a different world ...

Link to tweet

route.

probably be our only remedy. Remember what happened to President Obama when they took back control of Congress in 2010? You better believe that Mitch and the boys would do everything in their power to thwart any Democratic president. Of course taking back the Senate would be a huge step in the right direction.

helped make it so with Stein and Gore for that matter and this pretty much ends any hope of passing our progressive policy unless we have the Senate and everything will now be subject to a court challenge. as I told one poster last time who said she/he was sick of hearing about the courts, courts matter. So if we get the Senate and pass our agenda or if we try through executive order, Much of it will be shot down, and it is a damned shame. We really have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in numerous elections.

The damage he has done with his reactionary federal court picks will be felt for decades. But surely you would agree with my contention that taking back the Senate would be a step in the right direction. Yes, maybe it would be just a baby step but we have got to start somewhere.

that...there will never be a judge confirmed unless the President's party also has the Senate. Thanks to fucking McConnell who really has destroyed the Senate and in some ways or Republic.

EO from a Democrat the the GOP wants them to.

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2020, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

How is that bypassing Congress when the authority has already been granted? Or is it only a problem because some do not want to implement a progressive goal, knowing that it will die in Congress, especially in a Republican Senate?

Without clearing it with the guys first.