Cont: The Biden Presidency Part II

[Cain]

There are signs of Trump's support slowly slipping. I just saw, I think a week ago, that 61% of Republicans now want somebody else in their party to run next time.

I've currently bet money that Trump will not be elected president in 2024. I suspect Republicans vying for the nomination have a better understanding how to deal with him. There's also a chance he has a health problem, plus he'd have to win the general election.

The latest couple of interviews I've seen with rally-goers about the coup attempt were especially revealing...

One simply stated that her proof that the J6 rioters couldn't possibly have been real Republicans was that, quite simply, no Republican would act that way.[/quote]

I've seen similar clips. It's like people who couldn't believe young American soldiers would commit atrocities in Vietnam. It's a dumb kind of intuition that infuriates me. "I'm rich, so why would I steal from poor people." Except that we know rich people really do steal from poor people. "I studied, so why would I cheat?" Polarization is so not much ideological as it is epistemological. Libertarian Julian Sanchez said Bush-supporters suffer from "epistemic closure," but it now feels much, much worse.

 

[Aridas]

To poke on the current events side of the Biden Administration -

'We're not neutral on Nazism,' Indiana teacher says. Republican state senator disagrees

Teacher -

“For example, it’s the second semester of U.S. history, so we're learning about the rise of fascism and the rise of Nazism right now,” Bockenfeld said at a committee hearing on the bill. “And I'm just not neutral on the political ideology of fascism. We condemn it, and we condemn it in full, and I tell my students the purpose, in a democracy, of understanding the traits of fascism is so that we can recognize it and we can combat it.”

Republican Senator -

Baldwin took exception to that. “I have no problem with the education system providing instruction on the existence of” Nazism, fascism, or Marxism, he said. “I believe that we've gone too far when we take a position on those isms ... We need to be impartial.”

He later tried to backtrack a little, trying to claim that he only meant US political parties, but when your answer to a question about Nazis, specifically, is to say that we shouldn't allow a position to be taken and when your proposed bill makes no meaningful distinction there, that's a stretch.

That's not all of the wonder to be found in his bill, of course -

But Baldwin’s bill doesn’t just ban teachers from teaching that Nazism is bad. It also allows parents “to opt into or out of certain educational activities and curricular materials under certain conditions,” potentially forcing teachers to constantly adjust the curriculum for multiple individual students based not on legitimate educational needs but on the particular prejudices of their parents. LGBTQ students are omitted from the list of protected categories that includes Nazis. Schools are forbidden to “provide or administer certain mental, social-emotional, or psychological services to a student” without parental permission. (Those last two things are related, since we know that many LGBTQ kids need support in part because of stresses they face at home.) It creates a “curricular materials advisory committee” to be comprised of 40% parents, 40% teachers and administrators, and 20% “interested community members.” It removes protections for libraries facing lawsuits if kids access materials considered harmful.

I wonder whether this will elicit comment from the Biden Administration.

 

[Bob001]

I've currently bet money that Trump will not be elected president in 2024. I suspect Republicans vying for the nomination have a better understanding how to deal with him. There's also a chance he has a health problem, plus he'd have to win the general election.
....

But if there is no federal law to protect voting rights, numerous Republican states will in effect be able to name Trump the winner, either by suppressing non-Trump votes or by the legislature declaring a winner despite the popular vote. This is not a trivial matter. Trump could win in 2024, by hook or by crook.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/democracy-could-die-2024/619390/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-republican-plot-to-steal-the-2024-election/ar-BB1g6fnY
https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/reading-the-republican-autopsy

 

[Venom]

Love how they always feel the need to throw in "Marxism" as a (missed) shot against the left.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But if there is no federal law to protect voting rights, numerous Republican states will in effect be able to name Trump the winner, either by suppressing non-Trump votes or by the legislature declaring a winner despite the popular vote. This is not a trivial matter. Trump could win in 2024, by hook or by crook.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/democracy-could-die-2024/619390/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-republican-plot-to-steal-the-2024-election/ar-BB1g6fnY
https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/reading-the-republican-autopsy

Why is this a problem?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Conflict is a-brewin'

Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., plans to introduce a bill barring members of Congress and their immediate families from trading individual stocks in the stock market but is awaiting bipartisan support from Republicans, according to a congressional aide familiar with the bill.

This bill comes after a December investigation by Business Insider revealing that 52 members of Congress violated the federal STOCK Act meant to prevent conflicts of interest and stop insider trading by government officials.

It also comes at the heels of the Monday resignation of Richard Clarida, the second highest official in the Federal Reserve, over questionable trading activity early in the pandemic.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has spoken out against barring individual stock trades by members of Congress and the Senate, and reports by Business Insider show that Pelosi's husband had holdings in various tech companies that spend millions lobbying the government, including corporations like Tesla, Disney, Alphabet (formerly Google) and Meta (formerly Facebook).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/10/bill-bar-congress-trading-stocks/9159830002/

Looking forward to establishment dems deciding that naked self-dealing is more important than scoring an easy political win that the public resoundingly supports.

 

[Tero]

The flibuster is going to go. As soon as one party repeals it for a number of laws, there is no reason for the other to continue the scherade. MCConnel took it out for the 3 Trump judges.

It is strictly a Senate thing. It is not in the constitution, no other agency can control it. It was put in (as it is now) sometime early 1900s, the 60 vote rule, because every single law was filibustered.

 

[Paul2]

The flibuster is going to go. As soon as one party repeals it for a number of laws, there is no reason for the other to continue the scherade. MCConnel took it out for the 3 Trump judges.

It is strictly a Senate thing. It is not in the constitution, no other agency can control it. It was put in (as it is now) sometime early 1900s, the 60 vote rule, because every single law was filibustered.

I think the filibuster is worth sacrificing to pass voting rights bills that will prevent the Repubs - or anyone else - from stealing an election. But what will be the result of the filibuster dying?

1. For those parties that control all 3 branches of the fed. gov., they will have their heart's desire.

2. For parties that lack control of the House and/or the Pres., they will still be stymied. The crucial negotiation will not be between parties in the Senate, it will be between the senate and one o both of the other branches.

 

[Delvo]

I think the filibuster is worth sacrificing to pass voting rights bills that will prevent the Repubs - or anyone else - from stealing an election.

That's an interesting subject. It might seem like it would be pretty high on people's priority lists, but it isn't. So if the party devotes a bunch of effort to that, it won't draw many votes to them... which might seem like they should emphasize something else instead... except that then it won't matter how many people vote for them. (The solution is to remember that a party can do, and call attention to, more than one thing at a time, but there's a tendency to insist that 1 is the limit.)

But what will be the result of the filibuster dying?

1. For those parties that control all 3 branches of the fed. gov., they will have their heart's desire.

They already can, by just dropping the filibuster whenever they feel like it. Leaving the filibuster intact is an entirely optional exercise in voluntary autopodal ballistics for a party that actually has a majority in the Senate (which the Democrats don't right now, no matter how common it is to say they do).

2. For parties that lack control of the House and/or the Pres., they will still be stymied. The crucial negotiation will not be between parties in the Senate, it will be between the senate and one o both of the other branches.

Leaving the filibuster intact makes that more drastic, not less, so getting rid of it would reduce it, not increase it.

 

[Paul2]

That's an interesting subject. It might seem like it would be pretty high on people's priority lists, but it isn't. So if the party devotes a bunch of effort to that, it won't draw many votes to them... which might seem like they should emphasize something else instead... except that then it won't matter how many people vote for them. (The solution is to remember that a party can do, and call attention to, more than one thing at a time, but there's a tendency to insist that 1 is the limit.)

So the rational thing - heh, look at me using the word “rational” in regard to politics! - would be to secure votings rights, and then message what is high priority on people’s minds.

They already can, by just dropping the filibuster whenever they feel like it. Leaving the filibuster intact is an entirely optional exercise in voluntary autopodal ballistics for a party that actually has a majority in the Senate (which the Democrats don't right now, no matter how common it is to say they do).

I confess I haven’t studied autopodal ballistics so I’m a little rusty. What is that? ; )

Leaving the filibuster intact makes that more drastic, not less, so getting rid of it would reduce it, not increase it.

Makes which more drastic?

 

[Delvo]

The filibuster makes stymification more drastic (because even 59 can get stymied, not just 49; it takes only 41 to stymy the other side instead of 50/51).

Getting rid of it would yield less stymying.

 

[Stacyhs]

Your claim has been that it's about Bernie. Where's the part where criticizing Biden has anything to do with that?
Your claim has been that it's about Bernie. Where's the part where criticizing Biden has anything to do with that?

Oh, I dunno. How about here:

Oh, please! A couple people here are continually ragging on Biden because they're disaffected Bernie supporters, including you. You've been doing it since the primaries with accusations of Biden having dementia. Hell, you and some of the others even claimed his family and former Dem primary candidates who later endorsed him knew he had dementia but were that scared of Sanders winning! (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13013917#post13013917)
There were claims that Biden lied about his first wife's accident, and this same group was all over the Tara Reade story. This continual crap about Biden is because some people can't let the fact Bernie lost go, as your ludicrous remark that "Bernie was who people actually wanted" supports.
Don't pee on my leg and tell me I'm the one doing it.

And here:

As I already said, it's the continual bad mouthing of Biden by people like Suburban Turkey as quoted above that I respond to. That is the only time I refer to getting over Bernie. I think I've said it a total of two or three times in 77 pages. SB doesn't need to refer to Sanders by name to know why he, et al. are doing this. Do you think I say "Some people need to get over Bernie losing" just for the hell of it for no reason?

I said it here, too, because of the constant bad mouthing of anything Biden does or doesn't do by the same lot of Berne Bros who were claiming he has dementia and a conspiracy against Sanders by Biden's family, the Dem Party, and former primary candidates to put him in the White House.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13578613#post13578613


You continue the nonsense with your claims that 'Bernie was who the people really wanted" and that it was the "Dem Party" who prevented him from getting the nomination. Why not go all the way again and tell us there was a conspiracy against Sanders by them and prominent Democrat Congress members to put a knowingly dementia riddled man in the Oval Office instead?

And here:

I see you, et al. do one thing consistently for going on two years which is to bash Biden for everything he does starting with the primaries and the idiotic claims of dementia and an anti-Sanders conspiracy among his family, the DP and Congress members to recently telling us that Sanders is 'who the people really wanted' and call it what it is. Your disdain comes out in almost every post you et al. make. " The Great And Holy Biden", "Some people need to get over the fact that Bernie was who people actually wanted. (...and/or the fact that Biden keeps proving us right.)", "The latest news with the Big Bad Blunder bill is that, not only has Biden done the hatchet job on it that was predictable from him since before the election", etc. About the only thing I haven't seen you snipe at Biden about is the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Yeah, it's always been about the constant bashing.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I see you, et al. do one thing consistently for going on two years which is to bash Biden for everything he does... About the only thing I haven't seen you snipe at Biden about is the Afghanistan withdrawal.

That's a rather quick turnaround from the initial lie to disproving your own lie yourself.

LOL. As I've shown above, it was always about the constant bashing and why. Or do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Lessee here, in the first highlighted you say that I think I can read minds and that 'reading minds' is not a reason. You immediately follow that up with two claims of being able to read my mind and to know what I'm thinking

.

Am I to believe that you seriously fail to comprehend the difference between coming up with possible things somebody else might be thinking (which are based on his/her actual behavior), and claiming certainty that one particular thing you came up with yourself is what they simply must be thinking (including when it has nothing at all to do with his/her actual behavior in any way)?

Am I to believe that you seriously fail to comprehend that's a bunch of bull? You claimed:

"I'm so obsessed with Bernie and/or the last primaries that I can't imagine the possibility of a thought process that doesn't involve Bernie hiding behind every bush so that must be how other people's minds work too" is not a reason.

"I just hate progressives so much I'll latch onto any recurring anti-progressive meme I can find to lash out at progressives with" is not a reason.

I don't think either of those things, but you sure assigned them to me! The problem with that is that I don't dislike Progressives. I have some very Progressive beliefs myself like universal health care.

Coming up with one's own thoughts to ascribe to others is a perfectly normal human thing, but then failing to imagine even the possibility that they might think differently from that would be a fairly common human misconception. So it's actually possible that you're honestly representing your real, actual, fundamentally flawed mentality here. But you lie so much (especially to me about myself, which is weird because you know you can't fool me about myself) that I can't presume the former over the latter.

What lies? You mean like the one you claimed above that I proved was a bunch of crap?

You've pulled that particular stunt too many times for it not to be perfectly transparent by now what it really is:

I'm entitled to change my mind. If you don't like it; tough ****. I've done it too many times? Like when?

an attempt to get out of a false position you've put yourself in and can't defend at all, dressed up in a Trumpian attempt to claim superiority as cover.

I've defended it quite well including exposing your lie that my "claim has been that it's about Bernie. Where's the part where criticizing Biden has anything to do with that?"...which I supplied. I can't help it if you either can't comprehend what you read or have a memory problem.

I don't claim to know why that's what you do when you get yourself stuck in untenable positions, but it is what you do when you get yourself stuck in untenable positions... so now it's become just a signal, intentional or not, that you've realized how untenable your position is.

You don't know why? And here I thought you just said it was "an attempt to get out of a false position you've put yourself in and can't defend at all, dressed up in a Trumpian attempt to claim superiority as cover."

Hm. Maybe you do have a memory problem. But it's bad when you literally claim in one sentence why I do something and then say you don't claim to know why I do something in the next.

If I change my mind and respond to you, as I did, then that's my prerogative. Too bad for you.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think the filibuster is worth sacrificing to pass voting rights bills that will prevent the Repubs - or anyone else - from stealing an election. But what will be the result of the filibuster dying?

1. For those parties that control all 3 branches of the fed. gov., they will have their heart's desire.

2. For parties that lack control of the House and/or the Pres., they will still be stymied. The crucial negotiation will not be between parties in the Senate, it will be between the senate and one o both of the other branches.

The filibuster will die, the choice is whether the Democrats choose to kill it to keep elections fair and free or....

the Republicans kill it to keep power indefinitely. I'm 100% certain that the Republicans will kill the filibuster if/when they get the Senate.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The filibuster makes stymification more drastic (because even 59 can get stymied, not just 49; it takes only 41 to stymy the other side instead of 50/51).

Getting rid of it would yield less stymying.

This whole BBB/voting rights debacle is revealing that there is a nasty ideology within the conservative wing of the Democratic party that the legislative part of the government ought to be fairly inert. It's not just Manchin and Sinema, though I imagine the right wing of the party is happy these two are willing to be the public punching bags on this issue.

The idea that the filibuster is some hallowed tradition is total nonsense. It's a mechanism that makes all but the most uncontroversial bills impossible to pass, popular will be damned.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The filibuster will die, the choice is whether the Democrats choose to kill it to keep elections fair and free or....

the Republicans kill it to keep power indefinitely. I'm 100% certain that the Republicans will kill the filibuster if/when they get the Senate.

I'm increasingly wondering if all this is going to be a moot point. The Republicans will absolutely steal this election if they lose and gut the filibuster if they take a slim majority, but they may win such a resounding victory that it's not even necessary.

Another two years of uncontrolled covid and hamstrung Congress is going to be an absolute assault on the morale of anyone who isn't a right wing freak. Liberal and left political enthusiasm are going to be at all time lows.

The Democratic political coalition is totally unworkable, thanks entirely to an ideologically hardline center-right that sees an active government as an anathema. The party cannot meaningfully respond to the acute and long-term problems facing this country, and it really shows.

 

[Random]

The filibuster will die, the choice is whether the Democrats choose to kill it to keep elections fair and free or....

the Republicans kill it to keep power indefinitely. I'm 100% certain that the Republicans will kill the filibuster if/when they get the Senate.

There is a good chance that a Republican Majority will keep the filibuster in place. Not because of anything stupid like "Tradition", but because it so heavily favors them as a political tool. It stops Democrats from doing anything positive for Americans, and doesn't really harm the Republican policy agenda because they don't actually have one.

Think about it. What policies does the GOP want? Tax cuts for the rich? You can do that through reconciliation on a straight majority vote. Appointing right wing nutters to the bench? The filibuster has already been tossed aside for judicial appointments. Deregulation? Just use the filibuster to block funding for the agencies responsible.

Their policy cupboard is pretty much bare, as their little repeal Obamacare attempt showed. To say nothing of their complete inability over several decades to articulate their preferred immigration policies beyond "not that".

Don't get me wrong, if the filibuster was blocking the GOP from something that they really wanted they would toss it aside like a used Kleenex, but right now, there isn't anything that they want they can't get through other means.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

SINEMA: “While I continue to support these [voting rights] bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country. … There’s no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation."

https://twitter.com/RiegerReport/status/1481679189002657801

Federal voting rights bill dead on arrival. Biden should probably figure out how he wants to spend the rest of his term, because clearly he won't be passing any legislation.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The filibuster makes stymification more drastic (because even 59 can get stymied, not just 49; it takes only 41 to stymy the other side instead of 50/51).

Getting rid of it would yield less stymying.

Just write bills that get 60 votes. It is not hard.

 

[ZiprHead]

Just write bills that get 60 votes. It is not hard.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

President Biden in a moment of brutal honesty on Thursday admitted that his push to enact changes to voting laws and the Senate’s filibuster rule may be doomed.

“The honest-to-God answer is I don’t know whether we can get this done,” Biden admitted after leaving a more-than-hourlong meeting with Senate Democrats to persuade them to change the Senate’s rules.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/589635-biden-i-dont-know-if-we-can-get-this-done