Weak, Joe Biden, weak.

[Pin]

So President Biden has the authority to get legislation accomplished that would essentially eliminate corruption from U.S elections but he decided that he just can't do it. What?!?! You're the most powerful man in the world and you can't accomplish your legislative agenda? This is some weak stuff man.

It makes me wonder if he really cares about the issues he campaigned upon. It makes me wonder who his campaign donors are and why they're giving him money. It makes me wonder who his biggest campaign contributors are. How big are his largest contributions?

I mean damn, this is just shameful.

 

[SpecialEdition]

So President Biden has the authority to get legislation accomplished that would essentially eliminate corruption from U.S elections but he decided that he just can't do it. What?!?! You're the most powerful man in the world and you can't accomplish your legislative agenda? This is some weak stuff man.

It makes me wonder if he really cares about the issues he campaigned upon. It makes me wonder who his campaign donors are and why they're giving him money. It makes me wonder who his biggest campaign contributors are. How much are his largest contributions recurved?

I mean damn, this is just shameful.

Sorry, isn't stopping just short of doing anything that actually matters the foundation that USA politics is built on?

 

[Pin]

Sorry, isn't stopping just short of doing anything that actually matters the foundation that USA politics is built on?

It is for Democrats, while Republicans just fling shit at the wall. Basically, imagine an armed monkey in a cowboy hat.

Spoiler

 

[SpecialEdition]

It is for Democrats, while Republicans just fling shit at the wall. Imagine an armed chimp in a cowboy hat.

Well they literally did that on Jan 6th, so I guess you're right.

 

[Reason]

Whoever is in charge in that administration is definitely not weak. They are in the unenviable position of selling that id to vote is racist but id + vaccination to eat at a restaurant is fine.

That's a tough sell because of how nonsensical it is.

 

[Pin]

Whoever is in charge in that administration is definitely not weak. They are in the unenviable position of selling that id to vote is racist but id + vaccination to eat at a restaurant is fine.

That's a tough sell because of how nonsensical it is.

I'm neutral about the voter ID question but I would wonder if there is a historical context for why some people think it's racist or has racist implications. It's a legitimate question in the context of U.S history.

I take a harder line on vaccine protocol. I do believe that vaccination or recent test proof should be necessary to eat in a public place.

 

[Reason]

I'm neutral about the voter ID question but I would wonder if there is a historical context for some people think it's racist or has racist implications.

The idea is that black people are too poor to have cars and by extension driver's licenses and too stupid to get any other form of I.d. So we should just drop the requirements altogether. I don't agree with that premise at all.

I take a harder line on vaccine protocol. I do believe that vaccination or recent test proof should be necessary to eat in a public place.

I'm glad we live in separate states where we can each get what we want. If one set of lockdown rules was enforced nationwide that would be tyrannical.

 

[Pin]

The idea is that black people are too poor to have cars and by extension driver's licenses and too stupid to get any other form of I.d. So we should just drop the requirements altogether. I don't agree with that premise at all.

Too poor and stupid? That's an argument in bad faith. However, there may be merit to the question of who has the higher quantity of driver's licenses statistically.

I am saying that given the history of the United States where there have been active attempts to intimidate and terrorize African-Americans as well as limit their political involvement, it's really not an improbable presumption.

Given that recent context, I don't believe that the push for voter ID is driven out of a concern for the political involvement of African-Anericans.

 

[Reason]

Too poor and stupid? That's an argument in bad faith. However, there may be merit to the question of who has the higher quantity of driver's licenses statistically.

I am saying that given the history of the United States where there have been active attempts to intimidate and terrorize African-Americans as well as limit their political involvement, it's really not an improbable presumption.

Given that recent context, I don't believe that the push for voter ID is driven out of a concern for the political involvement of African-Anericans.

I don't think the push against voter ID is for their benefit either. Who benefits from being impersonated and turning up to the polls only to be told "you already voted, sorry".

There is a reason the corporate press is trotting this out now though. Less transparency and less failsafes make fraud easier. I don't agree with commentators that this would ensure the perpetual victory of the Democratic party in every election though. What it would actually do in my estimation is boost every corporatist candidate in either party.

 

[Pin]

I don't think the push against voter ID is for their benefit either. Who benefits from being impersonated and turning up to the polls only to be told "you already voted, sorry".

There is a reason the corporate press is trotting this out now though. Less transparency and less failsafes make fraud easier. I don't agree with commentators that this would ensure the perpetual victory of the Democratic party in every election though. What it would actually do in my estimation is boost every corporatist candidate in either party.

Fair, I think that if the federal government ensures that everyone has the necessary ID it wouldn't be the worst proposal. I care more about the policy outcome than the rhetoric. I don't trust certain states with a strong history of voter suppression on racial grounds to implement a policy like that adequately.

The policy idea itself is neutral, the roll-out? I doubt it will be benign especially for black voters in specific areas.

 

[Pin]

@Reason

What if we validate people's identities through ID and their ballot is rejected on racial grounds in certain areas? I think that's a benefit to the status quo that we have now especially with mail-in ballots which don't require photo ID.

Racism and voter suppression on that basis is a legitimate concern in the United States of America. The United States has a history of domestic terrorism against African-Americans and our policies should acknowledge that history.

 

[Reason]

their ballot is rejected on racial grounds

So the ballot counter just breaks the law and throws the vote away? This is where the transparency comes in so you can see them break the law and then jail them for fraud. Destruction of votes works better with just dumping the ballots before they get to the polling place or by finding technicalities and will be done over party lines not so much racial. A white vote for a candidate counts the same as a black vote and there is equal reason to suppress it for personal gain or perceived person gain.

 

[Pin]

So the ballot counter just breaks the law and throws the vote away?

Yes.

This is where the transparency comes in so you can see them break the law and then jail them for fraud.

That would be ideal assuming that the regional law enforcement doesn't have the same agenda as the corrupt ballot counter.

Destruction of votes works better with just dumping the ballots before they get to the polling place or by finding technicalities and will be done over party lines not so much racial.

The parties that people vote for in certain parts of the country are frequently split upon racial lines. That's why the destruction of ballots and political chicanery has racist implications even if one's intention in doing so is purely partisan.

A white vote for a candidate counts the same as a black vote and there is equal reason to suppress it for personal gain or perceived person gain.

Yes, but in certain areas Black people are far more likely than White people to vote Democrat. Ergo, suppressing Black votes is to suppress Democrat votes if a higher proportion of those votes are likely to be Democrat.

Policies can easily have racist implications without intent.

 

[Reason]

Yes.
That would be ideal assuming that the regional law enforcement doesn't have the same agenda as the corrupt ballot counter.
The parties that people vote for in certain parts of the country are frequently split upon racial lines. That's why the destruction of ballots and political chicanery has racist implications even if one's intention in doing so is purely partisan.
Yes, but in certain areas Black people are far more likely than White people to vote Democrat. Ergo, suppressing Black votes is to suppress Democrat votes if a higher proportion of those votes are likely to be Democrat.

Policies can easily have racist implications without intent.

So you agree with me that transparency up to a point is very good and necessary to expose these bad behaviors?

 

[Pin]

So you agree with me that transparency up to a point is very good and necessary to expose these bad behaviors?

Absolutely.

 

[Reason]

Absolutely.

Glad to hear it. Let's make everything highly visible and as easy as possible to audit and track without publicizing people's specific votes.

 

[Pin]

Glad to hear it. Let's make everything highly visible and as easy as possible to audit and track without publicizing people's specific votes.

Sounds good to me.

What I don't like is how the mainstream media shuts down every single policy alternative unless it has something to do with a war or corporate bailout.

 

[Reason]

Sounds good to me.

What I don't like is how the mainstream media shuts down every single policy alternative unless it has something to do with a war or corporate bailout.

Things will get better once the American people view corporate journalists the same as they view tobacco executives.

 

[Pin]

Things will get better once the American people view corporate journalists the same as they view tobacco executives.

Absolutely.

 

[aeon]

Weak? No, I don’t think so. Noble-minded and astoundingly foolish? Absolutely.

He doesn’t want to use executive privilege to make voting reform happen for two reasons: First, the reforms could then be just as easily undone by any future president. Second, he has some kind of ideal that a consensus can (and should) be had in regards to legislation affecting a fundamental element of the nation.

The first reason makes sense. The second I can understand and appreciate for its high-mindedness. I also think it makes him a fool. It is as if he doesn’t understand the game as it is played today. This is not the Senate of years past that he knows so well. His peers in the Senate from that time were high-minded, yet reasonable, and could give a little to get a little. Most of them are dead.

I also think most Dems are damned fools for their “strategy” of combining and splitting apart bills/proposed legislation. They are just shooting themselves in the foot, over and over. The John Lewis Voting Rights Act had bipartisan support that would have enabled it to be passed, but the Dems decided to treat it as an ingredient in a larger shit sandwich.

Their reach exceeds their grasp, that is for sure.

And splitting apart Build Back Better and the infrastructure bill...aside from the progressives, the Dems could not see, or were unwilling to admit, that it would mean the infrastructure bill would easily pass (cash-grab that it is) and Build Back Better never would.

But also, are they so unwilling to compromise on the inclusion of the child tax credit that they are willing to throw the rest away? How noble, and what idiocy.

I mean, I get that many want to make that part of the bill non-negotiable. That ensures a no from Manchin and Sinema, so they lose everything else as a result.

That means they are not doing the job they were elected to do.

Weak? No.

Oblivious, inflexible, foolish, shambolic, uncaring, and wilfully impotent? Yes, all of these things, and more besides. They present as rank amateurs.

Get passed what you can, Dems, while you have the chance. Get rid of that which causes BBB to be stillborn. Your games are not amusing. We’re out here, and you don’t give a fuck. Any of us would have been fired from our jobs long ago had our performance been as that of yours.

I’m watching it all go by, waiting for the bloodbath that will be 2022 midterms. Dems, you couldn’t have screwed the pooch any harder if you had tried.

The other reason that it is important to present legislation that will secure the votes to pass is because there are other pressing matters. Get it done so you have enough time and resources to come up with an actual COVID plan of action. And on that point, crack the whip and muzzle the CDC until they pull their thumb out of their ass. It’s like a slow-motion car crash. Honor the science, be consistent, and stop changing recommendations upon imagining a ray of hope. This isn’t over, far from it.

WTF,
Ian