The Biden Presidency

[Nick Danger]

If we didn't already know this man is pathologically delusional we might think he is sending himself up.

Sorry, bronco, I just love that quote of yours so much I have to keep citing it.

Oh Flighty, stop being so warm and fuzzy, goddammit, you're giving me feels.

You'd like it if I were delusional, wouldn't you. That would bring the whole picture into focus for you, all that misinfo and disinfo that comprises your political philosophy would suddenly coalesce into a cogent truth.

475 cases of election fraud isn't astronomical, but it's a lot. Many of those cases don't involve just one vote either, so your little homemade statistic there is well off the mark. There have only been 21 cases of Treason in all of U.S. history, does that mean we should just go ahead and legalize it, or stop taking measures to stop it?

But since you're being all sentimental and I've had a few beverages, let's just go ahead and say that yes, the Republicans would certainly PREFER if fewer blacks voted, and some of the electoral legislation they introduce is intentionally targeted toward that goal. Frankly, if you took the black vote out of the picture, there would not be a Democratic Party at all. I'm sure there would be something to oppose conservatism, but as the Buddhists say, if you remove the left, the right ceases to exist as well.

It's only politics. But NO ONE IS BEING DISENFRANCHISED via Republican efforts. The will to vote still gives you the right to vote no matter who or where you are. It actually is not at all unreasonable to insist that voters identify themselves, it's more than reasonable, and whatever the Republican motive might be for strongly supporting such legislation, preventing election fraud is an absolutely plausible reason to give the public. In fact, the only reason I can imagine for being opposed to such a measure is if your constituency consists of a large number of people who don't exist or shouldn't be voting. Is not being able to identify oneself even a thing in modern society? I'm sure it definitely is a thing among the masses of illegal immigrants currently being bused or flown under cover of night to undisclosed (but undoubtedly electorally strategic) locations all around the country by our own President. Now THAT defies plausible explanation. Which might clarify why no one in the administration is even making the slightest effort to try to explain it.

Your hopes for the future of the Biden administration are admirable and cute, Flighty. But it's over. He doesn't care about liberal issues. If he did, where's the legislation? If there's systemic racism and it's this big huge problem and we elected Biden to confront it, why has he never even said the words "systemic racism" as President? There's nothing pending, nothing under discussion, nothing, nothing, nothing. And his window of opportunity to address, well, anything at all that he was elected to address, is quickly closing. You're no dummy, Flighty, you know what's going to happen in November and you know what that means. If Biden is going to keep any of his promises he has to do it NOW. But he's not going to. Instead he's pushing for something no American wants - suffrage for illegals.

So you tell me, Flighty - what happens next?

[Stavros]

In fact, I think he has claimed that being dishonest, unscrupulous and amoral were ideal qualities in a leader. Strange that he now complains about Biden being allegedly a liar.

It is a pity that Machiavelli is so misunderstood. He did argue that a political leader, a 'Prince' in his pamphlet, should sometimes be 'dishonest, unscrupulous and amoral' -but only when such behaviour was deemed necessary either for personal survival or for 'reasons of State'. There have also been interpretations which argued Machiavelli was being satirical or at times sarcastic in his mos famous work. If more people read his other work, for example the Discourses, they might find some interesting, even important ideas about Citizenship, a concept, indeed a Practice that was important to both the Greeks and the Romans, but one which contemporary Capitalist Economies have undermined compared to a Moral Economy where the values are different, even when trade itself is not compromised.

It is rather extraordinary, is it not, that the Americans who rebel against the Federal Governent which it claims has become a 'Tyranny' -hence the Oathkeepers plans for January 6th which included the positioning of Quick Response Forces, armed, 'locked and loaded' at strategic points of Washington DC- that these same people who refuse to be Vaccinated because they don't want their Liberty 'taken away' by the snooping, prying, interfering 'Feds', insist at the same time that if you don't submit your personal information to the Fed or the State then you should not be able to Vote. The demands made in effect mean handing over all the information about you the 'Government' wants, bar DNA samples.

In 2020 approx 5.2 million or 2.3% of the Voting Public were denied the Vote in States where citizens with a conviction were not allowed to vote, even though more States have repealed such legislation. And is it any surprise that the most affected States are those in the former Confederacy where voting laws were created in the last quarter of the 19th century to deny the vote, and to remove Black Americans from elected office?

• "One in 16 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate 3.7 times greater than that of non-African Americans. Over 6.2 percent of the adult African American population is disenfranchised compared to 1.7 percent of the non-African American population.
• African American disenfranchisement rates vary significantly by state. In seven states – Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming – more than one in seven African Americans is disenfranchised, twice the national average for African Americans."
• https://www.sentencingproject.org/pu...ny-conviction/

[broncofan]

475 cases of election fraud isn't astronomical, but it's a lot. Many of those cases don't involve just one vote either, so your little homemade statistic there is well off the mark.

A crime can be worth punishing even if its overall effects are a wash but I'm curious how many of these cases of voter fraud benefitted Republicans and how many benefitted Democrats.

The reason I say this is that institutional remedies should not exact a greater cost than they are trying to avoid. The cost of voter fraud is especially obvious if it can be done systematically and change the outcome of an election.

Nobody is saying that voter fraud should not be punished. It is a crime and when it's detected the people engaged in it are prosecuted.

What we are saying is that if the overall impact of voter fraud on elections is minor, we should not alter voting requirements in a way that suppresses thousands and thousands of votes. Unless of course your object is to fashion a "remedy" for something that does not hurt your chances of winning elections by instituting changes that make you more likely to win.

[Nick Danger]

It is a pity that Machiavelli is so misunderstood. He did argue that a political leader, a 'Prince' in his pamphlet, should sometimes be 'dishonest, unscrupulous and amoral' -but only when such behaviour was deemed necessary either for personal survival or for 'reasons of State'. There have also been interpretations which argued Machiavelli was being satirical or at times sarcastic in his mos famous work. If more people read his other work, for example the Discourses, they might find some interesting, even important ideas about Citizenship, a concept, indeed a Practice that was important to both the Greeks and the Romans, but one which contemporary Capitalist Economies have undermined compared to a Moral Economy where the values are different, even when trade itself is not compromised.

It is rather extraordinary, is it not, that the Americans who rebel against the Federal Governent which it claims has become a 'Tyranny' -hence the Oathkeepers plans for January 6th which included the positioning of Quick Response Forces, armed, 'locked and loaded' at strategic points of Washington DC- that these same people who refuse to be Vaccinated because they don't want their Liberty 'taken away' by the snooping, prying, interfering 'Feds', insist at the same time that if you don't submit your personal information to the Fed or the State then you should not be able to Vote. The demands made in effect mean handing over all the information about you the 'Government' wants, bar DNA samples.

In 2020 approx 5.2 million or 2.3% of the Voting Public were denied the Vote in States where citizens with a conviction were not allowed to vote, even though more States have repealed such legislation. And is it any surprise that the most affected States are those in the former Confederacy where voting laws were created in the last quarter of the 19th century to deny the vote, and to remove Black Americans from elected office?

• "One in 16 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate 3.7 times greater than that of non-African Americans. Over 6.2 percent of the adult African American population is disenfranchised compared to 1.7 percent of the non-African American population.
• African American disenfranchisement rates vary significantly by state. In seven states – Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming – more than one in seven African Americans is disenfranchised, twice the national average for African Americans."
• https://www.sentencingproject.org/pu...ny-conviction/

Stavros, you speak as if we're just randomly disenfranchising blacks. The ones who have been disenfranchised have done it to themselves, they're criminals. Evil men. Felons. And plenty of whites and Hispanics fall into that category too, but unfortunately, blacks commit a lot more crimes per capita than the other groups, so more of them lose the right to vote. They can get it back. There's an application process.

If you ask me do I want felons voting I'd say no, because I know how most of them would vote, they'd be program (Democratic) voters because it's difficult for them to find a job. Also, I don't think disenfranchisement of felons is at all unreasonable, if we valued their opinions we wouldn't be keeping them in a 6'x9' cell. Yet we have indeed given them a path to re-enfranchisement, which, great, I don't know how that process works but I'd imagine it involves a waiting period and a certain number of years gone by without re-offending. My guess is that very few of America's felons actually give a shit about voting anyway.

Your logic doesn't stand. Disenfranchised blacks have not been disenfranchised because they're black, they've been disenfranchised because they've lost the public's trust.

[Nick Danger]

A crime can be worth punishing even if its overall effects are a wash but I'm curious how many of these cases of voter fraud benefitted Republicans and how many benefitted Democrats.

The reason I say this is that institutional remedies should not exact a greater cost than they are trying to avoid. The cost of voter fraud is especially obvious if it can be done systematically and change the outcome of an election.

Nobody is saying that voter fraud should not be punished. It is a crime and when it's detected the people engaged in it are prosecuted.

What we are saying is that if the overall impact of voter fraud on elections is minor, we should not alter voting requirements in a way that suppresses thousands and thousands of votes. Unless of course your object is to fashion a "remedy" for something that does not hurt your chances of winning elections by instituting changes that make you more likely to win.

I just have to ask, Bronco, how it is that the simple act of requiring legal identification to vote is problematic or disenfranchising to black people? I don't know a LOT of black people, but I'm pretty sure all the ones I do know can easily identify themselves when it's required of them, just as I can, and just as every other citizen of this country is required to do for one reason or another from time to time. This is not a rigorous demand.

Let's say you are a black person, and an election is coming up. To vote, you have to register, like everyone else. Then you have to go to the polling site. Then you vote. Are you telling me there are black people who will refuse to participate in that process if we add the simple matter of showing ID when you show up at the polling site to the process? I'll tell you right now, if there actually are people that moronic, or defiant, or whatever ridiculous form of protestation that type of action represents, I don't want them voting, yes, disenfranchise that utter retard. And I don't even say that from a Republican perspective, the retard vote could go either way.

Also, I'm asking you this question directly, Bronco - do you think illegal immigrants should have the right to vote?

[filghy2]

I know I have no real answer to the evidence you posted, but if I respond with some long-winded, evidence-free bluster that dodges the issue I may be able to divert attention from that and still tell myself I'm the winner (which is the only thing that really matters).

Bullshit and bluster. Dodge and deflect. Rinse and repeat. Boring and limited.

I'm still puzzling over the identity of the majority here who find you fair-minded and reasonable. Are there posters here that I can't see for some reason? Are people sending you PMs saying "I don't usually post here, but I just wanted to say that I admire how fair-minded and reasonable you are"?

[filghy2]

I'm bemused by the people complaining that Biden has not been a unifier; has not been sufficiently bipartisan. Are these people suggesting that he should have tried to legislate only things that a bunch of Republican moderates would be willing to support? That would not allow him to do much. Even on the infrastructure deal, which is popular with voters on both sides, only 32 Republicans voted for it in either house, and they've faced threats from their own side for doing so.

Are they suggesting he should turn the other cheek and remain silent when most Republicans continue to support the Big Lie and paper over what happened on January 6, while Republican-controlled states enact measures to manipulate future election results?

Where were these people when Bush and Trump made no attempt at bipartisanship? When the last Republican Congress rammed through tax cuts to benefit predominantly the wealthy and failed by only one vote to repeal Obamacare and leave millions without health cover? Where were they when Republicans obstructed everything Obama tried to do? When they stacked the Supreme Court by blocking Obama's nominee on a made-up pretext and then ramming through their own on the eve of an election?

[filghy2]

A crime can be worth punishing even if its overall effects are a wash but I'm curious how many of these cases of voter fraud benefitted Republicans and how many benefitted Democrats.

Here's the source. It says there was a mixture of party affiliations, and they were all isolated cases. Most seem to have been just people trying to cast a second vote.
https://apnews.com/article/voter-fra...37c7601db3328f

[filghy2]

This looks like a good source on how voter suppression measures affect non-whites disproportionally. I haven't looked at the links closely, but I'm suspect they debunk much of the misinformation being presented here. As I said, voter ID is only one aspect of this.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...munities-color

[Nick Danger]

Bullshit and bluster. Dodge and deflect. Rinse and repeat. Boring and limited.

I'm still puzzling over the identity of the majority here who find you fair-minded and reasonable. Are there posters here that I can't see for some reason? Are people sending you PMs saying "I don't usually post here, but I just wanted to say that I admire how fair-minded and reasonable you are"?

I get dozens of PM's, Flighty. I'll share some excerpts with you.

User fuckmehardermommy: "Your posts are so fair-minded and reasonable that reading them has gradually straightened out my penis, which usually leans to the left. Thanks Nick."

User CockMcGlocklin: "I was watching Fox News today and they advertised that they were 'Fair and Balanced' and I immediately thought, 'Just like Nick Danger on that HA forum!'"

User Assmaster298: "It's as if the knowledge of the Easter Bunny and the wisdom of the Great Pumpkin are combined in one person. You are my hero, Nick, thanks for your courage and generosity."

User broncofan: "Hey Nick, just dropping a line to let you know that even though I do argue with you to maintain appearances in my liberal circles, I actually like you much better than I like that douchenozzle Flighty."

I'm bemused by the people complaining that Biden has not been a unifier; has not been sufficiently bipartisan. Are these people suggesting that he should have tried to legislate only things that a bunch of Republican moderates would be willing to support? That would not allow him to do much. Even on the infrastructure deal, which is popular with voters on both sides, only 32 Republicans voted for it in either house, and they've faced threats from their own side for doing so.

Are they suggesting he should turn the other cheek and remain silent when most Republicans continue to support the Big Lie and paper over what happened on January 6, while Republican-controlled states enact measures to manipulate future election results?

Where were these people when Bush and Trump made no attempt at bipartisanship? When the last Republican Congress rammed through tax cuts to benefit predominantly the wealthy and failed by only one vote to repeal Obamacare and leave millions without health cover? Where were they when Republicans obstructed everything Obama tried to do? When they stacked the Supreme Court by blocking Obama's nominee on a made-up pretext and then ramming through their own on the eve of an election?

It's called POLITICS, Flighty. And in politics you don't do what you can't do, you do what you can do. The BBB bill is a perfect example of the Biden administration's ineptitude. All along Joe Manchin was saying he wasn't going to vote for it. I believe the exact quote was, "I'm not going to vote for it!" The math is pretty simple, without Joe Manchin's vote it doesn't pass. So what does the Biden/Schumer/Pelosi Dream Team do? Make some changes? Put their dicks back in their pants and go back to the drawing board? Compromise? Nope, they ram it right through Congress as is, in the face of 100% certain failure, and now they'll whine about it forever. Because Democrats are children, Flighty, snotty-nosed, insider-trading children.

Republicans don't give a shit about bipartisanship. They don't run on that platform, so they don't have to coddle the children when they win. The Republican platform is, "We're going to win the White House, the Senate, and the HoR, then we're going to undo all the damage the shitheel Democrats have done, then we're going to lower taxes and de-regulate business, then we're going to twiddle our fingers under our chin and smile demonically like Mister Burns on The Simpsons."

Something for you to look forward to in 2024, Flighty.

What Biden should be looking for right now is some common ground, he should be begging for it. He's governing as if he's got a mandate to transition the USA to socialism. What he actually had a RAZOR-THIN mandate to do was to stop the Democrats from smashing all our windows. Windows are expensive.