Politics The Joe Biden Thread (3 Viewers)

[BigGameDamian]

 

[barfo]

I don't think Joe Manchin is interested in hurting himself.

Right, well at least we can agree on that much

I think Biden was absolutely forced to do the covid-19 releif plan. We're in a pandemic. Not doing enough on covid-19 was the lynch pin that cost Trump the election.

Biden is doing the minimum that the population will accept.

Yes, he was forced to by the pandemic. If there wasn't a pandemic, I'm sure he would not have proposed a pandemic relief plan.

That said, what Congress passed was Joe's proposal, more or less. Do you really think that was the minimum people would have accepted?

I think it was the maximum (more or less) that he could have gotten through Congress.

If he was really motivated the way you suggest, why propose $1.9T? Why the child tax credits, why the aid to state and local governments, etc?
Why wouldn't he have proposed something much smaller, like the $600B the republicans wanted? Or something in between?

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Right, well at least we can agree on that much



Yes, he was forced to by the pandemic. If there wasn't a pandemic, I'm sure he would not have proposed a pandemic relief plan.

That said, what Congress passed was Joe's proposal, more or less. Do you really think that was the minimum people would have accepted?

I think it was the maximum (more or less) that he could have gotten through Congress.

If he was really motivated the way you suggest, why propose $1.9T? Why the child tax credits, why the aid to state and local governments, etc?
Why wouldn't he have proposed something much smaller, like the $600B the republicans wanted? Or something in between?

barfo

This was in between what Republicans and most Democrats wanted. Majority of democrats wanted recurring payments through the end. Or at least $600 in unemployment throughout, and retroactive.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[barfo]

This was in between what Republicans and most Democrats wanted. Majority of democrats wanted recurring payments through the end. Or at least $600 in unemployment throughout, and retroactive.

What matters is what 50 senators will agree to. That's all that matters. It doesn't matter what a 'majority of democrats' want, whether you meant senators or voters.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

What matters is what 50 senators will agree to. That's all that matters. It doesn't matter what a 'majority of democrats' want, whether you meant senators or voters.

barfo

But we don't know how they'd vote on a full $2k check because they didn't get a chance. And as such, we as voters can't hold them accountable for it as easily.

 

[Hoopguru]

Glad Joes President but

I remember in 2016 Hillary had guards encompass with rope her while she walked so reporters and others would bother her.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Sorry, but that is just a silly take. If you say I am not one or the other - do not come and complain you can not vote in their primaries. If Bernie fans want to influence the Democratic primaries - where Bernie runs - they should register as Democrats. It is not an unreasonable idea.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are married to the idea that you are not an independent - do not complain about the Democratic party primaries. If you care about what happens there - register as one.

So the 25% to 30% of the population who don't like the platform of either the Republicans or Democrats should just shut up and pick one?

That's your idea of Democratic? That, by definition puts control of the country in the hands of a minority. Not a majority, as the definition of democracy would suggest.

 

[andalusian]

So the 25% to 30% of the population who don't like the platform of either the Republicans or Democrats should just shut up and pick one?

First, I have no idea where the 25% or 30% came - but I will ignore that for now - what I am saying is that you can not criticize who the Democratic party chooses if you do not want to be a part of the selection process. If it is more important to you to register independent than to vote for Bernie who you support - that is running as a democrat - you lose the right to complain about the Democratic party choosing someone else.

As for the 2 parties vs. multiple parties argument - I always think it is a stupid argument as well.

Basically, you replace a hierarchical selection process with a flat one. You still have the same selection options - only you think we should have them all at once instead of having a preliminary stage. There is no difference. The same options are available.

Basically, a simplified selection process of:

Trumper vs. traditional conservative for the republican party nomination against a centrist (Biden ) vs. very progressive (say, Bernie) for the democratic nomination, is the same as these 4 candidates going all at once for one vote takes all. The only difference is that you have to vote twice, once in the republican or democratic primary, followed by a vote at the national level. It is still the same candidates and the same options - the process is different. That's all.

Finally, the entire argument is funny because Bernie seems to be delighted with this bill:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/09/politics/what-matters-march-9/index.html

That's your idea of Democratic? That, by definition puts control of the country in the hands of a minority. Not a majority, as the definition of democracy would suggest.

There are around 200 million people eligible to vote in the USA, there were over 150 million that voted in the last election - definitely the majority of the eligible voters - so I call nonsense on that as well - and even if these that did not vote are not for either Biden or Trump - they could still vote for a 3rd, 4th or 5th candidate - but chose not to do so.

 

[Phatguysrule]

First, I have no idea where the 25% or 30% came - but I will ignore that for now - what I am saying is that you can not criticize who the Democratic party chooses if you do not want to be a part of the selection process. If it is more important to you to register independent than to vote for Bernie who you support - that is running as a democrat - you lose the right to complain about the Democratic party choosing someone else.

As for the 2 parties vs. multiple parties argument - I always think it is a stupid argument as well.

Basically, you replace a hierarchical selection process with a flat one. You still have the same selection options - only you think we should have them all at once instead of having a preliminary stage. There is no difference. The same options are available.

Basically, a simplified selection process of:

Trumper vs. traditional conservative for the republican party nomination against a centrist (Biden ) vs. very progressive (say, Bernie) for the democratic nomination, is the same as these 4 candidates going all at once for one vote takes all. The only difference is that you have to vote twice, once in the republican or democratic primary, followed by a vote at the national level. It is still the same candidates and the same options - the process is different. That's all.

Finally, the entire argument is funny because Bernie seems to be delighted with this bill:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/09/politics/what-matters-march-9/index.html



There are around 200 million people eligible to vote in the USA, there were over 150 million that voted in the last election - definitely the majority of the eligible voters - so I call nonsense on that as well - and even if these that did not vote are not for either Biden or Trump - they could still vote for a 3rd, 4th or 5th candidate - but chose not to do so.

About 30% (actually closer to 35%, but I was just spit balling earlier) of registered voters are independent. There are just as many people who dislike both Democrats and Republicans as there are people who like one or the other.

You're suggesting that everybody pick one of those two parties in the primaries and shut up.

If you don't understand how that tilts the scales I'm just going to have to assume it's deliberate.

 

[stampedehero]

Oh FOR SURE!
Biden is 1000% better than Trump. And that's likely an understatement.

But he's still part of the same problem that gave us Trump. Imagine if Trump were not just a useful idiot for the right wing or Russia, or whatever. Imagine if he had a high IQ.

The thought terrifies me.

I lived through the Nixon years and he was a smart scoundrel. He was as close to high IQ levels because he was sinister and Knew what he was talking about. Trump was and is still just a vain old wind bag.

 

[andalusian]

About 30% (actually closer to 35%, but I was just spit balling earlier) of registered voters are independent. There are just as many people who dislike both Democrats and Republicans as there are people who like one or the other.

You're suggesting that everybody pick one party or the other in the primaries and shut up.

If you don't understand how that tilts the scales I'm just going to have to assume it's deliberate.

I suggest that many people who are registered independents do not care enough to participate in primaries and are centrists who are willing to vote for the better of the 2 options, I am certainly one of them.

Registered independents to me is just as likely to signify willing to consider both based on issues than despise both.

The voting records in general elections seem to align with that notion

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

 

[barfo]

But we don't know how they'd vote on a full $2k check because they didn't get a chance.

You can make an assumption with a high degree of confidence that it would not have passed. Things that don't come up for a vote don't come up for a vote because they won't pass.

And as such, we as voters can't hold them accountable for it as easily.

That's true. But there is very little evidence that most voters hold their senators accountable even for the votes that do happen.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I suggest that many people who are registered independents do not care enough to participate in primaries and are centrists who are willing to vote for the better of the 2 options, I am certainly one of them.

Registered independents to me is just as likely to signify willing to consider both based on issues than despise both.

The voting records in general elections seem to align with that notion

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

Right. I should have said they like both parties so much they choose to align with neither.

So again, the largest segment of registered voters has to change their affiliation in order to support a candidate in a party which they are typically unwilling to remain a member of.

You're right. It's perfect!

 

[Phatguysrule]

You can make an assumption with a high degree of confidence that it would not have passed. Things that don't come up for a vote don't come up for a vote because they won't pass.



That's true. But there is very little evidence that most voters hold their senators accountable even for the votes that do happen.

barfo

Good point. Best to just keep it all swept neatly under the rug like whatever those priests and the alter boys were getting up to...

 

[barfo]

About 30% (actually closer to 35%, but I was just spit balling earlier) of registered voters are independent. There are just as many people who dislike both Democrats and Republicans as there are people who like one or the other.

You're suggesting that everybody pick one of those two parties in the primaries and shut up.

If you don't understand how that tilts the scales I'm just going to have to assume it's deliberate.

Primaries are party elections, by definition. I'm not sure what it is you are arguing for. Should parties be forbidden from choosing their candidates in a primary? Maybe smoke-filled rooms instead? Or is it that you want other voters to participate in the party primary? They can, simply by changing their registration. Or do you just want to do away with parties altogether? In which case, good luck with that.

barfo

 

[stampedehero]

Glad Joes President but

I remember in 2016 Hillary had guards encompass with rope her while she walked so reporters and others would bother her.

Maggie must be a slammed door in the face Trumplican. She is not president with the world' troubles on her sloping shoulders. {Joe cares more about his job than himself}<{Possible presidential phrase for his next election when he turns 83}. The former guy cared about himself so much that his routine was light weight. I remember about his 60% executive time per day during the last two months.
So fuckin what Maggie!. Go watch QVC and shut up.

(((I don't tweet,whistle,face.telegram or do comb overs)))-((If anyone here can contact her account and tell her this, I would appreciate that. Of course, the curse words are not advisable at this time.

 

[andalusian]

Right. I should have said they like both parties so much they choose to align with neither.

So again, the largest segment of registered voters has to change their affiliation in order to support a candidate in a party which they are typically unwilling to remain a member of.

You're right. It's perfect!

As the research I linked to shows - it seems to be the situation. If it is perfect, good, good enough, bad, or horrible - I would leave you to define as you wish - it is a judgement call.

The reality is that you are upset that not enough people want to follow a party and participate - yet you choose to register as independent instead of voting for Bernie which seems like you preferred candidate - so... you seem to be just as indifferent as the people you admonish for being so.

 

[stampedehero]

Oh FOR SURE!
Biden is 1000% better than Trump. And that's likely an understatement.

But he's still part of the same problem that gave us Trump. Imagine if Trump were not just a useful idiot for the right wing or Russia, or whatever. Imagine if he had a high IQ.

The thought terrifies me.

Trump vs. Biden............. (character reference)...

 

[Phatguysrule]

As the research I linked to shows - it seems to be the situation. If it is perfect, good, good enough, bad, or horrible - I would leave you to define as you wish - it is a judgement call.

The reality is that you are upset that not enough people want to follow a party and participate - yet you choose to register as independent instead of voting for Bernie which seems like you preferred candidate - so... you seem to be just as indifferent as the people you admonish for being so.

No, I definitely voted for Bernie in the primary. As well as in the general in 2016. But because I did doesn't mean others would or could.

It's not a good system just because I can navigate it. And no, I don't care about parties at all. Other than despising the 2 party system and the ignorance it perpetuates.

 

[andalusian]

No, I definitely voted for Bernie in the primary. As well as in the general in 2016. But because I did doesn't mean others would or could.

Agree about the would, disagree about the could. There is nothing magical about voting in the primaries.

And if you are worried it is hard to navigate, how would choosing from a plethora of obscure choices be any easier in the alternative you advocate for? It wouldn't...

 

[Phatguysrule]

Agree about the would, disagree about the could. There is nothing magical about voting in the primaries.

And if you are worried it is hard to navigate, how would choosing from a plethora of obscure choices be any easier in the alternative you advocate for? It wouldn't...

How would it be easier to fill out a form weeks in advance, only to have to change it back a few weeks later than just filling out a ballet once?

Are you kidding?

 

[stampedehero]

Totally agree with you here, but you're missing an extremely important ingredient that made Trump popular with his base: Trump's cult of personality. Trump's a very skillful conman. He knows and speaks the language of the people he wants to manipulate. I'll bet he doesn't believe 75% of the shit he's said, but he lies with such ease that his moronic base just eats it up.

In short, Trump is a moron, but a viciously skillful moron.

It still amazes me that anyone voted for him. I knew about him well before his name was on a primary. A self indulged narcissist personality with added bullshit was so obvious to us. He really is a circus act.

 

[Shaboid]

How would it be easier to fill out a form weeks in advance, only to have to change it back a few weeks later than just filling out a ballet once?

Are you kidding?

That's what I do and yeah, it is sort of a pain in the ass but I do it online so it's not that bad. In 2012 I actually registered as a republican in the primary because I knew my vote would have more value. But maybe that's not what you guys are talking about here.

 

[Phatguysrule]

That's what I do and yeah, it is sort of a pain in the ass but I do it online so it's not that bad. In 2012 I actually registered as a republican in the primary because I knew my vote would have more value. But maybe that's not what you guys are talking about here.

That's what I'm talking about. And again, some people can do it online. Some states don't allow that. But no matter what, it's an obstacle for 1/3 of voters.

 

[stampedehero]

Biden to announce deal for additional 100 million J&J Covid vaccine doses (msn.com)Amazing!

 

[Shaboid]

That's what I'm talking about. And again, some people can do it online. Some states don't allow that. But no matter what, it's an obstacle for 1/3 of voters.

I see it as a requirement for being an independent voter that wants to participate in a primary, just like initially registering is a requirement to voting in the first place.

 

[andalusian]

How would it be easier to fill out a form weeks in advance, only to have to change it back a few weeks later than just filling out a ballet once?

Are you kidding?

No, I think that a proper vote work is in analyzing the options and choosing among them, not in filling forms, even if it a pain. The current system works exactly because of that. People that care deeply will do the work and register for the primaries and vote. People that do not have a simple option of choosing from a reduced list.

There are tons of studies about it in UX design and the huge success of simplified interfaces (see apple, google etc) are the proof in the pudding.

It's not like we do have examples of countries with a flat voting system like the one you advocate for that show it is a bad system. Israel which employs this exact system is going for a 4th elections in less than 2 years because it is such an unstable outcome, and the orthodox party there has never been out of office despite the fact that they represent a tiny portion of the population because they are always needed to form a coalition, meaning they basically get favorable outcomes at all times.

 

[Lanny]

Oh FOR SURE!
Biden is 1000% better than Trump. And that's likely an understatement.

But he's still part of the same problem that gave us Trump. Imagine if Trump were not just a useful idiot for the right wing or Russia, or whatever. Imagine if he had a high IQ.

The thought terrifies me.

Trump's exceptionally low IQ is a mixed bag.

 

[Phatguysrule]

No, I think that a proper vote work is in analyzing the options and choosing among them, not in filling forms, even if it a pain. The current system works exactly because of that. People that care deeply will do the work and register for the primaries and vote. People that do not have a simple option of choosing from a reduced list.

There are tons of studies about it in UX design and the huge success of simplified interfaces (see apple, google etc) are the proof in the pudding.

It's not like we do have examples of countries with a flat voting system like the one you advocate for that show it is a bad system. Israel which employs this exact system is going for a 4th elections in less than 2 years because it is such an unstable outcome, and the orthodox party there has never been out of office despite the fact that they represent a tiny portion of the population because they are always needed to form a coalition, meaning they basically get favorable outcomes at all times.

When did I advocate for that? I simply said our current system is too exclusionary. I think the biggest problem is that we need to publicly fund elections and remove most of the corporate money from politics.

Opening the primaries and having a runoff between the top two vote getters (if 50% of the vote isn't attained) isn't asking too much either.