The Biden Presidency

[Skeptic Ginger]

Lots of voter advocacy and assistance. Even with access to the voting both limited unfairly, there are lots of ways to get people through the excess of red tape anyway.

And it could just backfire, stirring ethnic minorities to vote rather than discouraging them.

 

[gnome]

Indeed

 

[Paul2]

Something I've noticed not getting enough attention is the full court press that Republican state legislatures are making for reducing voting access as a result of the Biden win.

Using the "stolen election" myth as a pretext, Republican controlled states across the country are passing restrictive voting laws intended to drive down voter participation. High voter turnout almost always benefits Democratic candidates.



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/after-2020-loss-gop-targets-voting-restrictions-n1261080

The current SCOTUS will not overturn these restrictions.

The Biden presidency, despite being generally popular, may very well be the last Democratic presidential victory in the foreseeable future. The Republicans are moving hard to entrench themselves as a permanent ruling minority.

I know I'm quite vocally critical of Biden here, but I'm not entirely sure what, if anything, he and the rest of the Democratic party can actually do here.

I believe many things in HB1, the Voting Rights bill, will push back against those state-level suppression efforts.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I believe many things in HB1, the Voting Rights bill, will push back against those state-level suppression efforts.

So the question becomes will the Democratic party be stymied by the conservative wing of their party once again.

 

[bruto]

And it could just backfire, stirring ethnic minorities to vote rather than discouraging them.

That would be my hope. I think that even if one disapproves heartily of the process that brings that suppression about, it would be wise for advocates of the disenfranchised to put a hard effort into the non-abstract end of it. Go out and help voters register. If there's money to be spent, spend it on the ground, getting them whatever ID's they need, getting transportation, and such. If there's a move to disenfranchise native Americans because they don't have a street address, send someone out with a GPS and identify their location the nearest ten feet on earth. Get the vote suppressors to specify exactly on paper what they require, and then make sure your people meet that standard, and hold them to it.

I hate the game the conservatives are playing, but if they're going to play it, others had better beat them at it.

e.t.a. Interestingly, I was listening, as usual, to the semi-weekly press conference held by our rogue Republican governor here in Vermont. Back in summer, he was pretty well against universal mail-in voting, afraid it would be chaotic and open to fraud. He was overruled by the legislature. Asked today whether he favored doing it again, he said yes. It worked very well, he said, and he'd encourage it, his only reservation being that since it worked so well for the general election it ought to be extended to the biennial State elections as well. Of course it might factor in that he won that last election, but it does look as if some people, at least, are capable of learning.

 

[acbytesla]

You have to remember though that the Republicans had spent 30 years working hard to get people to hate Hilary for no real rational reasons, even to the point that a number of democrats hated her, and even then they needed a massive Russian smear campaign and the whole Emails saga to squeak out one of the narrowest victory margins in US history.

I remember. Hillary was a government super wonk. She could get down in the weeds with the best of them. And contrary to the Republican hate that was sold to the public, actual Republican leaders liked her because she was a no nonsense hard worker.

 

[acbytesla]

As far as racist, we did elect Obama, so there’s that.

As far as misogynistic, that’s possible, but I think selecting a woman VP as a running mate was likely a net positive. And more than 50% of the US population is female. I guess women can be misogynistic as well, but I don’t think that’s all that common.

I do too, but I'm not syre that will make her road to the White House any easier,

 

[Segnosaur]

I believe many things in HB1, the Voting Rights bill, will push back against those state-level suppression efforts.

The upcoming voting right's bill might push back on suppression efforts. But, I think the likely result is that the supreme court will treat it as they did the Voting Rights act... that "It isn't needed/we can trust the states".

 

[PhantomWolf]

So the question becomes will the Democratic party be stymied by the conservative wing of their party once again.

You are aware that taking the $15 minimum wage out of the Covid package allowed them to pass it without needing to get Republican votes right? The minimum wage increase needs 60 votes to pass and keeping it in would have either held up the Covid Relief indefinitely or had it prevented entirely.

Is that what you really would have wanted?

 

[SezMe]

I don't think it has to be a "half Republican". In fact I think policy has little to do with it. It's about people feeling comfortable with their choice. I think the country is more misogynistic than racist. People absolutely hated Hillary and mostly for reasons they never would have used against a man.

The first female President is going to have to be very charismatic.

There is an important difference. The GOP spent decades (literally) going after both Clintons. Hell, Ken Starr spent five years going after Slick finally only to get him for lying about a hummer. The GOP mounted SEVEN investigations regarding Benghazi (BENGHAZI!!!) all to no avail but the constant drumbeat eventually took its toll.

Harris doesn't face that ginormous uphill climb. Sure, they'll treat the next candidate like dirt but they'll do that no matter who heads the ticket.

ETA I see PhantomWolf and bruto wrote similar, brilliant posts.

 

[SezMe]

How is it a spiral when they're "having families"? The whole reason that immigrants are needed is because USians *aren't* having enough families to replace all the workers.

What's the difference between too many immigrants and too many natives? It's the same death spiral.

 

[Delvo]

You are aware that taking the $15 minimum wage out of the Covid package allowed them to pass it without needing to get Republican votes right? The minimum wage increase needs 60 votes to pass

According to a Senate employee in a job that might as well not exist because Senators who are serious about actually getting something done simply routinely ignore it because it has no actual authority.

 

[acbytesla]

There is an important difference. The GOP spent decades (literally) going after both Clintons. Hell, Ken Starr spent five years going after Slick finally only to get him for lying about a hummer. The GOP mounted SEVEN investigations regarding Benghazi (BENGHAZI!!!) all to no avail but the constant drumbeat eventually took its toll.

Harris doesn't face that ginormous uphill climb. Sure, they'll treat the next candidate like dirt but they'll do that no matter who heads the ticket.

ETA I see PhantomWolf and bruto wrote similar, brilliant posts.

Look, I might be wrong. I hope that I am wrong. The GOP is going to start up their propaganda machine and will be taking whacks on her. I'm very worried about the next election could be the end of democracy since the GOP has doubled down on the madness.

I think Harris will make a great President. But I worry that this is the wrong time in history. When the opposition isn't so fascist I'd feel more comfortable with possibly losing.

 

[Paul2]

The upcoming voting right's bill might push back on suppression efforts. But, I think the likely result is that the supreme court will treat it as they did the Voting Rights act... that "It isn't needed/we can trust the states".

SCOTUS can do what it wants, surely, but the Election Clause of the Constitution (article 1 sec 4) says that Congress can overrule the states except, oddly, for the place for choosing Senators. Maybe that’s defunct now senators are popularly elected?

 

[acbytesla]

SCOTUS can do what it wants, surely, but the Election Clause of the Constitution (article 1 sec 4) says that Congress can overrule the states except, oddly, for the place for choosing Senators. Maybe that’s defunct now senators are popularly elected?

It's not. The laws of the state take precedence regarding how they choose Senators. But I don't see how they could obey the Federal law for Congress and have it be different for the Senate given the election is the same day.

 

[Aridas]

You are aware that taking the $15 minimum wage out of the Covid package allowed them to pass it without needing to get Republican votes right? The minimum wage increase needs 60 votes to pass and keeping it in would have either held up the Covid Relief indefinitely or had it prevented entirely.

Is that what you really would have wanted?

The argument that it couldn't be done via reconciliation is problematic. The argument that it couldn't be done simply because of Manchin, Sinema, and the Republicans is much more solid.

 

[Scopedog]

In this odd video, after approaching the microphones, his hands conspicuously pass in front of the microphones which should be smaller and in the foreground at least a few feet in front of him. Can this be accounted for by artefacting or video compression/rendering/interpolation or whatever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0139UytcR8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBPmaf7ffg8

Also, this is kind of old, but was the "plea sentence" audio at 1:16:35 that sounds somewhat like Hunter (he has a fairly distinctive voice) ever discussed here?

https://youtu.be/Ec3mkoSWf0A

Even if it's not Hunter I'm curious about theories of how that audio would end up there and if there are any other less potentially controversial examples. Is this a known and understood glitch in light of the sort of equipment the White House uses?

 

[Segnosaur]

The upcoming voting right's bill might push back on suppression efforts. But, I think the likely result is that the supreme court will treat it as they did the Voting Rights act... that "It isn't needed/we can trust the states".

SCOTUS can do what it wants, surely, but the Election Clause of the Constitution (article 1 sec 4) says that Congress can overrule the states except, oddly, for the place for choosing Senators. Maybe that’s defunct now senators are popularly elected?

I am not a constitutional expert.... however, you would think that if the supreme court found a way to sideline the previous Voting Rights act, they could find a way to block any potential Democratic bill.

(I believe the challenge to the voting rights act was because it contained information that was several decades old... the supreme court could probably do something similar with the upcoming "for the people" voting rights act.)

Of course, its probably all irrelevant anyways... as long as the filibuster is in place, the law will never pass the senate anyways.

 

[Ladewig]

I don't think it has to be a "half Republican". In fact I think policy has little to do with it. It's about people feeling comfortable with their choice. I think the country is more misogynistic than racist. People absolutely hated Hillary and mostly for reasons they never would have used against a man.

The first female President is going to have to be very charismatic.

I think a measurable segment of the population don’t vote for a candidate they like but rather vote for a candidate they dislike the least.

So it might just be a matter of being more charismatic than her opponent.

 

[acbytesla]

In this odd video, after approaching the microphones, his hands conspicuously pass in front of the microphones which should be smaller and in the foreground at least a few feet in front of him. Can this be accounted for by artefacting or video compression/rendering/interpolation or whatever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0139UytcR8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBPmaf7ffg8

Also, this is kind of old, but was the "plea sentence" audio at 1:16:35 that sounds somewhat like Hunter (he has a fairly distinctive voice) ever discussed here?

https://youtu.be/Ec3mkoSWf0A

Even if it's not Hunter I'm curious about theories of how that audio would end up there and if there are any other less potentially controversial examples. Is this a known and understood glitch in light of the sort of equipment the White House uses?

I really don't know what you're talking about or concerned with. I watched the first two videos. Why does this matter?