The Biden Cabinet and Transition Thread (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ok the rules:

• Your post can only contain one department and guess.
• You may post more than once for different departments.
• Post can contain comments about previous guesses.
• Guesses for one department can be used for other departments.
• Minds can, of course, be changed.

I will kick things off first...

Secretary of State: Susan Rice

This is as clear a choice as there can be. She has all of the credentials and rep to begin healing as relationships with our allies.

 

[SystemShock]

Don't agree. Republicans didn't get Biden elected. But I'm not looking to rehash that argument.

Like it or not, and argument can be made that Republicans voting against Trump, not voting Trump, or voting for Jo Jorgensen in battleground States helped Biden get elected.

But that is not the point.

It is not about rewarding anyone or who helped elect who... it is about the next round of elections and maintaining control of the government. There is a reason why there was no blue wave in Congressional elections, but rather the Democrats lost seats. That reason doesn't go away because Biden won the election.

Biden ran on a platform of uniting the country. If he goes far from center, the divide stays intact. And next time, there may be a less polarizing figure running as the GOP candidate, and then it is back to square one.

 

[MT15]

Spite is a shirtty way to run the government.

According to a different tweet, if he tries to take that money that is already earmarked, it will be a violation of the CARES Act, which stipulates the funds will remain available until 2026, IIRC.

So it could be that the Biden administration can successfully get the funds transferred back.

 

[TaylorB]

But they investigated Flynn because he was supposedly undermining the US government while talking to foreign governments during the transition. Biden isn't President yet. Can you explain the difference?

It's pretty clear Flynn was undermining US foreign policy by promising removal of the penalties the Obama admin had literally just imposed. I don't see how Biden is undermining current foreign policy in any of these calls, which are, as smartly noted by other posters, not being conducted in secret or being lied about.

Also, its amazing how all the talk about Russian disinformation or interference disappeared as soon as Biden pulled ahead in the electoral college.

The primary Russian disinformation campaigns in 2020 (that we know of) were run via Giuliani's Ukrainian connections, and that plan was blown up when we learned via a whistleblower that Trump was soliciting bribes from Ukraine to make that happen. After that, their only backup plan for a big "October surprise" was the Biden laptop story, but the public and the media were so well-prepared for it that it just didn't work this time. No one except the most extreme outlets would run the story, and *everyone* saw it for what it was. Trump and his team simply lacked the imagination to change up their playbook -- a microcosm of their incoherent campaign in general.

The "Russia investigation" with all its tentacles wasn't perfect, but many, many Americans -- myself included -- learned a whole lot about how disinformation works, and we were prepared this time. That doesn't mean the Russians didn't meddle, or try to meddle, it just means it didn't work this time, at least with respect to the presidency.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Like it or not, and argument can be made that Republicans voting against Trump, not voting Trump, or voting for Jo Jorgensen in battleground States helped Biden get elected.

But that is not the point.

It is not about rewarding anyone or who helped elect who... it is about the next round of elections and maintaining control of the government. There is a reason why there was no blue wave in Congressional elections, but rather the Democrats lost seats. That reason doesn't go away because Biden won the election.

Biden ran on a platform of uniting the country. If he goes far from center, the divide stays intact. And next time, there may be a less polarizing figure running as the GOP candidate, and then it is back to square one.

I won't blame progressives on the Democratic reduction in seats in the House or the Senate (IIRC, all progressive incumbents and the majority of the candidates won their campaigns). Those seats were lost because those candidates didn't get their message across appropriately if people were calling them socialist and progressives.

 

[Saintman2884]

I won't blame progressives on the Democratic reduction in seats in the House or the Senate (IIRC, all progressive incumbents and the majority of the candidates won their campaigns). Those seats were lost because those candidates didn't get their message across appropriately if people were calling them socialist and progressives.

It may have hurt them in terms of their GOP candidates effectively using misinformation or not clearly articulated slogans or ideas by BLM activists, who lack necessary political acumen, like "Defend the Police" to form a radical, untrue narrative about augmenting funds to help law enforcement like mental health, social work initiatives, or improving Police/community relations. Some of these Dems lost their seats because their opponents painted them as sympathetic or tacitly supportive of some proposals "The Squad" or Bernie advocate. AOC doesn't have to worry about her messages being rejected or Sanders facing a formidable Democratic primary challenger or a decent GOP opponent, their in ultra-safe deep-blue Democratic districts, like Dennis Kucinich was 10-15 years ago in his Cleveland-area congressional district. Virginia or NC Dems who fighting for re-election in House seats that still have significantly large red areas, especially a thinly-red state like North Carolina.

. Despite what Sanders likes to claim or argue on MSNBC or CNN, majority of Americans don't support or believe his economic policies would be effective or productive even in the long-term. That majority derives from a demographics in the Midwest, South, Plains states, even Democratic strongholds like Colorado or Nevada which while socially liberal are mostly fiscal conservative in terms of their state economies.

 

[J-DONK]

It may have hurt them in terms of their GOP candidates effectively using misinformation or not clearly articulated slogans or ideas by BLM activists, who lack necessary political acumen, like "Defend the Police" to form a radical, untrue narrative about augmenting funds to help law enforcement like mental health, social work initiatives, or improving Police/community relations. Some of these Dems lost their seats because their opponents painted them as sympathetic or tacitly supportive of some proposals "The Squad" or Bernie advocate. AOC doesn't have to worry about her messages being rejected or Sanders facing a formidable Democratic primary challenger or a decent GOP opponent, their in ultra-safe deep-blue Democratic districts, like Dennis Kucinich was 10-15 years ago in his Cleveland-area congressional district. Virginia or NC Dems who fighting for re-election in House seats that still have significantly large red areas, especially a thinly-red state like North Carolina.

. Despite what Sanders likes to claim or argue on MSNBC or CNN, majority of Americans don't support or believe his economic policies would be effective or productive even in the long-term. That majority derives from a demographics in the Midwest, South, Plains states, even Democratic strongholds like Colorado or Nevada which while socially liberal are mostly fiscal conservative in terms of their state economies.

I feel like some of you guys must live in a different universe.

Every single swing state rep that supported M4A won their district.

Which one of sanders core economic policies isn't popular with the public? Higher minimum wage, M4A, and anti-free trade are all popular

Look at Virginia, a state that is completely run by Democrats but is almost dead last in every single metric for workers. Maybe, these people aren't as dumb as Democrats think they are, and a bunch of token cultural issues don't mean much when you can't pay your rent.

My hot take is people didn't vote for Biden, but against Trump. If they want to win midterms, and in 2024 they better find some kind of populist agenda so the public votes FOR YOU instead of AGAINST TRUMP.

P.S. I believe there were a ton of attack ads this cycle attacking any relationship incumbents have with Pelosi. I don't see any blame being thrown at Pelosi, for huge gaffs like getting caught going to a salon during the lockdown, or holding up stimulus money.

 

[PurpleReign]

Anyone seeing this "presser"? Not sure what to call it, but Biden is introducing nominees for his Cabinet. I like it so far. I never thought of Kerry as a big climate advocate, so idk about his choice. Most of the others seem to be good picks. I feel like this is a pretty competent bunch. Let's hope that prevails when the rubber meets the road.

I watched most of it. I found it slow, boring, and I fell asleep during it. Talk about a welcome breath of fresh air. This is exactly what I’ve been missing for the last 4 years.

 

[DaveXA]

I watched most of it. I found it slow, boring, and I fell asleep during it. Talk about a welcome breath of fresh air. This is exactly what I’ve been missing for the last 4 years.

I said in another thread somewhere. After Trump, boring is good. I'll take boring every day and twice on Sunday.

 

[PurpleReign]

I said in another thread somewhere. After Trump, boring is good. I'll take boring every day and twice on Sunday.

Yeah, I’m ready for a President who takes daily naps and leaves Twitter to the grandkids.

 

[SystemShock]

I won't blame progressives on the Democratic reduction in seats in the House or the Senate (IIRC, all progressive incumbents and the majority of the candidates won their campaigns). Those seats were lost because those candidates didn't get their message across appropriately if people were calling them socialist and progressives.

... which should tell you something.

But hey, sure, let Biden bring Sanders. While he's at it, let him bring Hillary, give a cabinet position to AOC, and make Hunter Sr. Advisor and charge him with achieving peace in the ME.

Just don't be too surprised when the Democrats lose even more seats 2 years from now.

 

[Saintman2884]

I feel like some of you guys must live in a different universe.

Every single swing state rep that supported M4A won their district.

Which one of sanders core economic policies isn't popular with the public? Higher minimum wage, M4A, and anti-free trade are all popular

Look at Virginia, a state that is completely run by Democrats but is almost dead last in every single metric for workers. Maybe, these people aren't as dumb as Democrats think they are, and a bunch of token cultural issues don't mean much when you can't pay your rent.

My hot take is people didn't vote for Biden, but against Trump. If they want to win midterms, and in 2024 they better find some kind of populist agenda so the public votes FOR YOU instead of AGAINST TRUMP.

P.S. I believe there were a ton of attack ads this cycle attacking any relationship incumbents have with Pelosi. I don't see any blame being thrown at Pelosi, for huge gaffs like getting caught going to a salon during the lockdown, or holding up stimulus money.

Being anti-free trade or advocating protectionism isn't a policy that both parties really follow anymore and honestly, gets in the way of a more globalized, interconnected economy, sorry but that's here to stay and no amount of left-wing rhetoric from Sanders or AOC is realistically going to stop it because it would be a long-term disaster. Sanders views on the issue are based around an idealistic view of Scandinavian Nordic social democracies of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Jonk, he has this romanticized view of how efficient it really was and still is but its not as effective, again efficient as he and progressives fond over. In many respects, Scandinavian Nordic social democracies worked well when they allowed more businesses and multi-nationalist corps a freer hand at the table and didn't start over-taxing them to fund ever-expanding Socialized UHC, which alongside UK, used to have some of Western world's well-run, well-funded welfare states, but by late 70s and early 80s when a worldwide recession caused by OPEC oil shocks began running both their economies(Google Winter of Discontent of 1978-79 if you don't believe me) and a lot of those high income tax rates began bitting businesses who are suffering from lower returns who were being used to help fund and regulate a bloated, badly regulated welfare state. A lot of businesses either left UK or Scandinavia or became tax exiles and both countries social programs' took a huge hit in funding, corruption and newer political leaders who viewed these services as a costly burden than a social, humanistic need. Sweden, Norway and UK arent at the top anymore, necessarily as they used to be 40 years ago and if Sanders and many Americans want a universal health care service, hey, that's great, I'm all in but I'll say the same thing to you that I said to SR members during the Obama are debates a decade ago, I'm concerned more about quality long-term in terms of a helpful UHC, a well-planned, well-articulated service that works and is durable long-term and how we define the success of large welfare state in most countries is how long it lasts, 30-40 years down the road when Mr. Billionaire Class Crab man won't be alive anymore. Any UHC can't be a long-term drain on too many corps or small or big businesses whose income tax rates are the lifeblood of funding it. If the worldwide economy stays decent or we don't experience too many severe recessions that could hurt funding of UHC or social services, then it's a sign to me, its durable and resilient and effective.

Do we want a repeat of multi-millionaires or billionaires or multinational corporations fleeing as tax exiles because they felt UK's or Denmark's high income tax laws are too exorbitantly high, is next to impossible to pay?

Of course, GOP incumbents are going to attack their Democratic opponents for ties to Pelosi or Schumer or national DNC views on abortion, death penalty, or further gun restrictions, because their the leaders of the party or hugely influential members and even if a centrist or moderate Democrat like Doug Jones or Beta O'Rourke are seen to be following the party line a bit too much because they'll jump up enough times Pelosi or Schumer expect them too, irregardless of what they've done for their state constituents. Certainly Doug Jones or O'Rourke don't strike me as political types who kiss anyone arses but there are situations when even if they disagree with an issue DNC supports, their more then likely going to vote Yay anyway to preserve "party unity" or "harmony".

Doug Jones was a moderate Democrat in a blood-red state who won in 2017 because his opponent, Roy Moore, was an idiotic, rash, impulsive incompetent fool who was accused of sexually molesting and harassing young, teenage girls in Gadsden shopping malls in late 70s as a young prosecutor and then had the temerity to deny these assaults ever occured when so many women came forward. Jones supported abortion and some tougher gun restrictions, issues that are not very popular in a red state like Alabama. O'Rourke has very close to winning national office, but being close on the losing end does hurt or question your political party's faith or belief that you can be a viable, winnable candidate. He lost to Cruz in 2018 in close race, he lost again IIRC this year in a close race.

 

[samiam5211]

Like it or not, and argument can be made that Republicans voting against Trump, not voting Trump, or voting for Jo Jorgensen in battleground States helped Biden get elected.

But that is not the point.

It is not about rewarding anyone or who helped elect who... it is about the next round of elections and maintaining control of the government. There is a reason why there was no blue wave in Congressional elections, but rather the Democrats lost seats. That reason doesn't go away because Biden won the election.

Biden ran on a platform of uniting the country. If he goes far from center, the divide stays intact. And next time, there may be a less polarizing figure running as the GOP candidate, and then it is back to square one.

I believe that our only true enemy is extremism.

To me, going from Biden to Romney, or Adam Kinzinger, or John Kelly would be a win for democracy.

 

[J-DONK]

Being anti-free trade or advocating protectionism isn't a policy that both parties really follow anymore and honestly, gets in the way of a more globalized, interconnected economy, sorry but that's here to stay and no amount of left-wing rhetoric from Sanders or AOC is realistically going to stop it because it would be a long-term disaster.

What are your thoughts on Trump running on a anti-free trade platform in 2016? What about his renegotiation of NAFTA to help car industry, and American's get cheaper prescription medication, amongst other benefits? Do you think this may have played a part on why Trump was viewed as better on the economy, or his support amongst the non-college degree demographic?

Sanders views on the issue are based around an idealistic view of Scandinavian Nordic social democracies of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Jonk, he has this romanticized view of how efficient it really was and still is but its not as effective, again efficient as he and progressives fond over. In many respects, Scandinavian Nordic social democracies worked well when they allowed more businesses and multi-nationalist corps a freer hand at the table and didn't start over-taxing them to fund ever-expanding Socialized UHC, which alongside UK, used to have some of Western world's well-run, well-funded welfare states, but by late 70s and early 80s when a worldwide recession caused by OPEC oil shocks began running both their economies(Google Winter of Discontent of 1978-79 if you don't believe me) and a lot of those high income tax rates began bitting businesses who are suffering from lower returns who were being used to help fund and regulate a bloated, badly regulated welfare state. A lot of businesses either left UK or Scandinavia or became tax exiles and both countries social programs' took a huge hit in funding, corruption and newer political leaders who viewed these services as a costly burden than a social, humanistic need. Sweden, Norway and UK arent at the top anymore, necessarily as they used to be 40 years ago and if Sanders and many Americans want a universal health care service, hey, that's great, I'm all in but I'll say the same thing to you that I said to SR members during the Obama are debates a decade ago, I'm concerned more about quality long-term in terms of a helpful UHC, a well-planned, well-articulated service that works and is durable long-term and how we define the success of large welfare state in most countries is how long it lasts, 30-40 years down the road when Mr. Billionaire Class Crab man won't be alive anymore. Any UHC can't be a long-term drain on too many corps or small or big businesses whose income tax rates are the lifeblood of funding it. If the worldwide economy stays decent or we don't experience too many severe recessions that could hurt funding of UHC or social services, then it's a sign to me, its durable and resilient and effective.

This is an argument called moving the goal post. You now want to argue about social democracy, the point was about if Bernie Sanders's policies are popular, and they are. Every other first world country in the world has UHC, it's not a radical idea. For profit healthcare doesn't work. We pay more for worse outcomes.

Do we want a repeat of multi-millionaires or billionaires or multinational corporations fleeing as tax exiles because they felt UK's or Denmark's high income tax laws are too exorbitantly high, is next to impossible to pay?

You do understand that corporations already do this? You also realize for a billionaire to escape U.S. taxes they have to renounce U.S. citizenship?

Of course, GOP incumbents are going to attack their Democratic opponents for ties to Pelosi or Schumer or national DNC views on abortion, death penalty, or further gun restrictions, because their the leaders of the party or hugely influential members and even if a centrist or moderate Democrat like Doug Jones or Beta O'Rourke are seen to be following the party line a bit too much because they'll jump up enough times Pelosi or Schumer expect them too, irregardless of what they've done for their state constituents. Certainly Doug Jones or O'Rourke don't strike me as political types who kiss anyone arses but there are situations when even if they disagree with an issue DNC supports, their more then likely going to vote Yay anyway to preserve "party unity" or "harmony".

Doug Jones was a moderate Democrat in a blood-red state who won in 2017 because his opponent, Roy Moore, was an idiotic, rash, impulsive incompetent fool who was accused of sexually molesting and harassing young, teenage girls in Gadsden shopping malls in late 70s as a young prosecutor and then had the temerity to deny these assaults ever occured when so many women came forward. Jones supported abortion and some tougher gun restrictions, issues that are not very popular in a red state like Alabama. O'Rourke has very close to winning national office, but being close on the losing end does hurt or question your political party's faith or belief that you can be a viable, winnable candidate. He lost to Cruz in 2018 in close race, he lost again IIRC this year in a close race.

Democrats aren't going to win states like Alabama normally, and shouldn't be a focus. Texas is slowly trending towards a battleground states. Of course Texas has a growing latino population that is economically more progressive, and socially conservatives. That's almost the opposite of the current DNP. The one race that really hurt in 2020 was Collins in Maine. The only seat Republicans successfully defended in a state that Trump lost in 2016. The general consensus I've read on that lost? A flawed campaign that focused on "not being Susan Collins".

 

[RobF]

The argument about Biden going all progressive and far from center is, I think, clearly dud, because he already hasn't. That's not going to happen.

And the argument against Biden including some progressive members of his cabinet I think is backwards; doing so will, IMO, benefit the chances of re-election, rather than hinder them. Essentially, the opposition will paint Biden and the Democrats as 'socialist' and socialist as 'bad', no matter what they do. Excluding progressive members from the cabinet boosts that attack overall rather than counters it. Because doing so sends the message, "Yes, you're right, progressives are socialist and bad, see, we have excluded them," and the tag on, "So look, they're not completely in charge of us," isn't really compelling.

Basically, "They're socialist and socialism is bad, so you must not vote for them," is more effectively countered by, "This is what we actually are, these are our policies, and this is why they are both good and popular," than it is by, "Yes some of us are and yes it is, but we're only a bit socialist really so you can still vote for us? Please?"

That doesn't mean Biden should appoint progressive representatives for the sake of it, but I think actively avoiding doing so is more likely to backfire than not.

 

[Dragon]

Being anti-free trade or advocating protectionism isn't a policy that both parties really follow anymore and honestly, gets in the way of a more globalized, interconnected economy, sorry but that's here to stay and no amount of left-wing rhetoric from Sanders or AOC is realistically going to stop it because it would be a long-term disaster. Sanders views on the issue are based around an idealistic view of Scandinavian Nordic social democracies of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Jonk, he has this romanticized view of how efficient it really was and still is but its not as effective, again efficient as he and progressives fond over. In many respects, Scandinavian Nordic social democracies worked well when they allowed more businesses and multi-nationalist corps a freer hand at the table and didn't start over-taxing them to fund ever-expanding Socialized UHC, which alongside UK, used to have some of Western world's well-run, well-funded welfare states, but by late 70s and early 80s when a worldwide recession caused by OPEC oil shocks began running both their economies(Google Winter of Discontent of 1978-79 if you don't believe me) and a lot of those high income tax rates began bitting businesses who are suffering from lower returns who were being used to help fund and regulate a bloated, badly regulated welfare state. A lot of businesses either left UK or Scandinavia or became tax exiles and both countries social programs' took a huge hit in funding, corruption and newer political leaders who viewed these services as a costly burden than a social, humanistic need. Sweden, Norway and UK arent at the top anymore, necessarily as they used to be 40 years ago and if Sanders and many Americans want a universal health care service, hey, that's great, I'm all in but I'll say the same thing to you that I said to SR members during the Obama are debates a decade ago, I'm concerned more about quality long-term in terms of a helpful UHC, a well-planned, well-articulated service that works and is durable long-term and how we define the success of large welfare state in most countries is how long it lasts, 30-40 years down the road when Mr. Billionaire Class Crab man won't be alive anymore. Any UHC can't be a long-term drain on too many corps or small or big businesses whose income tax rates are the lifeblood of funding it. If the worldwide economy stays decent or we don't experience too many severe recessions that could hurt funding of UHC or social services, then it's a sign to me, its durable and resilient and effective.

Do we want a repeat of multi-millionaires or billionaires or multinational corporations fleeing as tax exiles because they felt UK's or Denmark's high income tax laws are too exorbitantly high, is next to impossible to pay?

Of course, GOP incumbents are going to attack their Democratic opponents for ties to Pelosi or Schumer or national DNC views on abortion, death penalty, or further gun restrictions, because their the leaders of the party or hugely influential members and even if a centrist or moderate Democrat like Doug Jones or Beta O'Rourke are seen to be following the party line a bit too much because they'll jump up enough times Pelosi or Schumer expect them too, irregardless of what they've done for their state constituents. Certainly Doug Jones or O'Rourke don't strike me as political types who kiss anyone arses but there are situations when even if they disagree with an issue DNC supports, their more then likely going to vote Yay anyway to preserve "party unity" or "harmony".

Doug Jones was a moderate Democrat in a blood-red state who won in 2017 because his opponent, Roy Moore, was an idiotic, rash, impulsive incompetent fool who was accused of sexually molesting and harassing young, teenage girls in Gadsden shopping malls in late 70s as a young prosecutor and then had the temerity to deny these assaults ever occured when so many women came forward. Jones supported abortion and some tougher gun restrictions, issues that are not very popular in a red state like Alabama. O'Rourke has very close to winning national office, but being close on the losing end does hurt or question your political party's faith or belief that you can be a viable, winnable candidate. He lost to Cruz in 2018 in close race, he lost again IIRC this year in a close race.

Billionaires and multi-milionaires are not a tax assets. They hire people to ensure that they do NOT pay taxes.

A strong, well-educated middle class of mainly white-colar profession has far higher tax value than a few mulitimilionaires.
And that the taxes in Scandinavia is Exorbiant high is another myth when you compare the cost of living for a middleclass american familiy with a middleclass scandinavian family and add in all expenses - health insurance, college funds, retirement home payments, child care etc.. you will find that the Scandinavian model is actually "cheap" compared to the US

 

[Saintman2884]

Billionaires and multi-milionaires are not a tax assets. They hire people to ensure that they do NOT pay taxes.

A strong, well-educated middle class of mainly white-colar profession has far higher tax value than a few mulitimilionaires.
And that the taxes in Scandinavia is Exorbiant high is another myth when you compare the cost of living for a middleclass american familiy with a middleclass scandinavian family and add in all expenses - health insurance, college funds, retirement home payments, child care etc.. you will find that the Scandinavian model is actually "cheap" compared to the US

But you do admit that over the past 20-30 years in countries like Sweden, and Norway their once solid, well-funded social welfare programs have declined or experienced problems as it relates to funding, corruption, less-then-honest politicians who's main primary interests weren't focused at helping or benefitting their elected constituents. And you didn't exactly answer my question about corporations or multi-national corps relocating or moving most of their main home operations base away from their home bases? That has happened as a trend in Scandinavian countries as well as the UK, especially since the late 70s?

 

[Lapaz]

But you do admit that over the past 20-30 years in countries like Sweden, and Norway their once solid, well-funded social welfare programs have declined or experienced problems as it relates to funding, corruption, less-then-honest politicians who's main primary interests weren't focused at helping or benefitting their elected constituents. And you didn't exactly answer my question about corporations or multi-national corps relocating or moving most of their main home operations base away from their home bases? That has happened as a trend in Scandinavian countries as well as the UK, especially since the late 70s?

The U.S. Health care system has also suffered over the last 20 to 30 years with hyper-inflation, so most people pay higher deductibles and premiums compared to inflation rates for other products. So any funding issues experienced by countries with UHC pales in comparison to the problems we've experienced. Obamacare helped slow down the growth and allowed more people to afford health care, but we're still much worse off than other advanced democracies.

 

[Saintman2884]

What are your thoughts on Trump running on a anti-free trade platform in 2016? What about his renegotiation of NAFTA to help car industry, and American's get cheaper prescription medication, amongst other benefits? Do you think this may have played a part on why Trump was viewed as better on the economy, or his support amongst the non-college degree demographic?



This is an argument called moving the goal post. You now want to argue about social democracy, the point was about if Bernie Sanders's policies are popular, and they are. Every other first world country in the world has UHC, it's not a radical idea. For profit healthcare doesn't work. We pay more for worse outcomes.



You do understand that corporations already do this? You also realize for a billionaire to escape U.S. taxes they have to renounce U.S. citizenship?



Democrats aren't going to win states like Alabama normally, and shouldn't be a focus. Texas is slowly trending towards a battleground states. Of course Texas has a growing latino population that is economically more progressive, and socially conservatives. That's almost the opposite of the current DNP. The one race that really hurt in 2020 was Collins in Maine. The only seat Republicans successfully defended in a state that Trump lost in 2016. The general consensus I've read on that lost? A flawed campaign that focused on "not being Susan Collins".

There was also North Carolina, too and Cal Cunningham being predicted by most early polls, including Nate Silver's 538.com to win by a few percentage points over Thom Tillis. There's no secret Cunningham had more then a few flaws and a checky past, but more then a few Democratic pollsters, analysts that I saw interviewed on MSNBC or CNN or read articles about that said he had more then a decent chance. It was part of the pre-election "blue wave" electoral expectation by Dems that never happened that could've made them view their candidate's NC Senate chances a little too over-optimistingly. I myself thought Cunningham should've won, albeit it would've very close but if your overall margin of victory by votes is even 2-5,000 instead of hundreds like 2000 Bush vs. Gore, all the recounts money can buy aren't going to change the results.

Also, and maybe you've read this yourself, but one other possible factor working against Sara Gideon? A lot of Maine voters, including state Democrats, were upset at the very large amount of out-of-state donations coming in from donors or groups who were special interests priorities that weren't exclusively-related to Maine voters.

In the UK, not necessarily. The Inland Revenue, UK's IRS, has a policy they adopted or pushed through in 1970s for tax exiles that means they can work, live, or buy homes in other countries but still keep their citizenship as long they renew it once a year as a British consulate or embassy in whatever county their living in. No, that means of course they can't return to the UK over the course of that year, except for extenuating circumstances(death of a loved one, police wanting to ask them questions as a character witness or main suspect in a cold case re-investigated.) Not even for the briefest of moments.

Corporations aren't people, but individual CEOs, owners, high-ranking executives of ______ corps, investors, businessmen do count as actual people who run these companies and IIRC, their are laws similar to the UK's mentioned-above that do have same loopholes if you're in a certain high-income tax bracket in most Western countries, even Far East Asian countries like Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea.

About NAFTA and Trump's renegotiating some of the provisions he sought, what have most economists said about its long-term effects or him being an economic protectionist at heart raising tariffs in 2017 and 2018 which many economists said might be beneficial in the short-term but harmful in the longer run? You neglected to mention that part of the discussion, from an economic standpoint, and you don't need an M.A. in international politics or macroeconomics to realize what happens to a nation's GDP or its trade deficits if there's too many tariffs over-regulating the economy. Especially in a more, globalized economy of the 21st century. This isn't the late 19th century we're dealing with or working with anymore.