Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[starlord]

I disagree because at the end of the day they are all good Nazi soldiers. During the Trump years all they did was talk behind the scenes but they did jack shit to stop him or hold him into account. I am sure there were plenty of people horrified by Hitler behind the scenes too but at the end they were all culpable.

They are all cowards who fall in line behind the dear leader no matter what shit he pulled including trying to overthrow democracy. Look at Moscow Mitch he is back in line fully supporting Trump, they all sold their souls to the devil they don't get the benefit of the doubt.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course we should fight but the outcome is predisposed 5-4 in favor of stealing the election.

trump's not in charge anymore; they got steamrolled in the last midterms in and lost after 1 term, then had a national scandal with his supporters storming the WH. he's old news, and bidens known most of the repubs in congress long before trump.
trumps influence won't disappear overnight but i wouldn't put as much weight on it as before.

a lot of you guys don't seem to get that a lot of votes are all theater. these things don't happen spontaneously on the floor, its all planned out beforehand who will vote what for whatever outcome is desired by the party's leadership. this applies to both repubs and dems.

[Fugus]

Unfortunately, what the Constitution DOES say is that states are empowered to conduct elections in whatever manner they see fit. Loathsome as these bills are, they are unlikely to be unconstitutional.

Not without HR1 from what I know as the Constitution does give the federal government the authority when it comes the federal elections but if they don’t chime in then they let when the state want go which is why I keep asking this question trying to get a answer.

[Breccia]

Of course we should fight but the outcome is predisposed 5-4 in favor of stealing the election.

SCOTUS avoided the last election case like the plague. I don't think they're really interested in saying "the Constitution allows you to throw away perfectly good votes".

Unfortunately, what the Constitution DOES say is that states are empowered to conduct elections in whatever manner they see fit. Loathsome as these bills are, they are unlikely to be unconstitutional.

I object to the bolded. SCOTUS recently ruled on voter ID, for example, by allowing a federal court's ruling to stand and denying their appeal.

And we've seen bits of laws being unConstitutional before. The discussion started with, amongst other things, the discussion that Georgia could simply throw out votes they don't like. I believe the Constitution will take a dim view on this. We've already seen more and more GOP members, including SCOTUS, back away from "just give Trump the win Because Reasons".

Now, will SCOTUS allow Georgia to, for example, eliminate voting sites that just happen to be in mostly minority neighborhoods, or change the dates of early voting? Almost certainly. That "firing the SecState if they refuse to certify" thing might have to get field-tested, too. But flat-out throwing away votes because they feel like it, as was originally said? Again, not even Trump appointees are going to jump at that one.

In the meanwhile, I still say that these measures should be opposed at every realistic level. The election isn't tomorrow, but it is on the way. If the GOP are putting up obstacles to prevent voting, this proves they know how the honest vote would be. Activists must organize so that even a biased election still works out in their favor. It's hard to overrule massive turnout. And while there's leeway on how states run election, election fraud is still a federal issue. At some point, even cheating won't let you win. Democrats, independents, and others must take active, aggressive measures to throw out anyone who tries to take their vote from them.

If they choose not to do that, they get what they deserve.

[Draco-Onis]

trump's not in charge anymore; they got steamrolled in the last midterms in and lost after 1 term, then had a national scandal with his supporters storming the WH. he's old news, and bidens known most of the repubs in congress long before trump.
trumps influence won't disappear overnight but i wouldn't put as much weight on it as before.

a lot of you guys don't seem to get that a lot of votes are all theater. these things don't happen spontaneously on the floor, its all planned out beforehand who will vote what for whatever outcome is desired by the party's leadership. this applies to both repubs and dems.

What are you smoking? Trump is wildly popular with the base, they all went to Florida to kiss the ring. The vast majority of Republicans think Trump won the election. All of right wing media is echoing him, I am not sure if you are in denial or simply denying the reality.

We passed the rubicon unless you can change right wing media this only gets worse.

[Breccia]

I agree that it should be opposed but that wasn’t what I was asking.

Yes it was.

You were asking "what if all these horrible things happen and nobody stops them?"

My answer to that remains "don't let these horrible things happen, stop them." In the case of Georgia, bring 71% to the table.

There is far more to the laws shown in this link and also this link.

More Power for State Lawmakers and the State Election Board

The law would enable the State Election Board to, under certain conditions, remove and replace local election superintendents.

Critics worry that the board, which is currently Republican-controlled, could interfere with how elections are run, particularly in populous counties that lean Democratic. “That is the most concerning provision,” Rev. James Woodall, state president for the Georgia NAACP, said on a recent press call.

Defenders say the board could only take such action if there is a clear record of wrongdoing or incompetence in a county and that it will help hold local election officials accountable. “It’s not just, ‘We don’t like the way the vote turned out,’” Republican Mike Dugan, Georgia’s Senate majority leader, said in an interview.

Also under the new law, the state legislature will select the chairman of the State Election Board. The secretary of state previously was the chairman but will now be a nonvoting member of the board, whose duties include examining allegations of fraud or irregularities.

The shuffle comes after Mr. Trump and some other Republicans repeatedly assailed Georgia’s secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, as they alleged that widespread fraud tilted the presidential election result. No evidence of widespread fraud emerged in the 2020 election, and Mr. Trump and his allies lost dozens of lawsuits around the country seeking to reverse the results or call them into question.

In a statement, Mr. Raffensperger, who has defended several of the other new rules, said the change is “clearly political backlash for my unwillingness to overturn the election for President Trump.” He said, “I am opposed to putting unelected appointees with no accountability to the voters in charge of such important decisions about the administration of Georgia’s elections.”

There was no clear record in 2020 and they went lookin'. If the board simply said "yeah, but we're going to decide that's fraud anyhow" it would then still have to get past the courts. And if that happened it would still end up in federal court, then SCOTUS, both of which we've seen say "oh HELL no" on related matters.

You have my answer. Stop asking "what if they buff warlocks 50% and nerf mages 50%" and get angry when I say "flood Blizzard with complaints because that's not fair". You already know what happens if the GOP applies a bunch of unfair, unConstitutional laws and nobody does anything about it.

[Milchshake]

Yes it was.

You were asking "what if all these horrible things happen and nobody stops them?"

My answer to that remains "don't let these horrible things happen, stop them." In the case of Georgia, bring 71% to the table.

I get this behavior from immature students a few times a year.
Repeatedly asking the same question over and over; expecting a different answer.
Slightly rewording the same question over and over; expecting a different answer.

Im wondering if there's an idiom for this kind of bad faith tactic? Is it just plain immaturity or a bad case of Gamer Brain.

These are simply the facts, not the Loot Table on your fave dungeon boss. Different answers wont drop out of me randomly.

[starlord]

What are you smoking? Trump is wildly popular with the base, they all went to Florida to kiss the ring. The vast majority of Republicans think Trump won the election. All of right wing media is echoing him, I am not sure if you are in denial or simply denying the reality.

We passed the rubicon unless you can change right wing media this only gets worse.

Which is why they will always try and make at least the appearance of appeasing the base. Fake news and bluster takes care of that. To appease the college educated suburbanites etc who swung to biden and are salivating at the thought of "childcare subsidies" and "family tax cuts" require different tactics. Bidens also directly going for the working class with as well, so its a heavy assault on all fronts for repubs.

[Breccia]

I get this behavior from immature students a few times a year.

Okay, but @Fugus is nto being immature. At least I don't think so. They want to know if there's a magic bullet that ends the nightmare.

[Milchshake]

Okay, but @Fugus is nto being immature. At least I don't think so. They want to know if there's a magic bullet that ends the nightmare.

Is there a point when an adult should stop believing in magic bullets or Santa Clause of Vermont?

Or stop following podcasters that also indulge in magical thinking. But they keep going back to them for that dopamine hit .... oh I see.

[Ripster42]

Unfortunately, what the Constitution DOES say is that states are empowered to conduct elections in whatever manner they see fit. Loathsome as these bills are, they are unlikely to be unconstitutional.

It goes on to say that the federal gov't can supersede the voting laws of states.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

[Felya]

I think this might have slipped under the radar... but, no more smoking Newport’s for this smoker... thanks Biden...

Don’t really care... even as a menthols smoker, I don’t care...

[Milchshake]

I think this might have slipped under the radar... but, no more smoking Newport’s for this smoker... thanks Biden...

Don’t really care... even as a menthols smoker, I don’t care...

Im pretty bummed. A few times a year I like to hang out with friends and drag on a nice Chesterfield.

We recreate the Dennis Hopper - Christopher Walken scene from True Romance.

[Breccia]

no more smoking Newport’s for this smoker

It didn't slip under my radar, as much as "I don't know how important this is". I don't smoke. None of my colleagues at work do. None of my family does, my maternal grandfather was the last and he died of cancer 30 years ago. I have few smoking friends and it's mostly pot.

But, yeah, it made a bunch of headlines. Someone thinks it's important, at least.

[Felya]

Im pretty bummed. A few times a year I like to hang out with friends and drag on a nice Chesterfield.

We recreate the Dennis Hopper - Christopher Walken scene from True Romance.

“I feel sorry for suckers still puffing away...”

[Fugus]

Okay, but @Fugus is nto being immature. At least I don't think so. They want to know if there's a magic bullet that ends the nightmare.

Wasn't be immature. Just to me, that doesn't seem like some unlikely hypothetical like you were describing. I was taking what the Republicans attempted in the 2020 elections and combining it with the laws they are trying to pass since. Also, I am resident of North Carolina where I have seen them force us to vote on districts the Supreme Court had already ruled illegal by them refusing to fix them till after the election by drawing equally illegal districts and them holding an unscheduled vote on the date of the 9/11 memorial trying to overturn one of Coopers veto in congress and then when it hit the Senate, they had scheduled it multiple times and then refused to hold the votes because the Democrats showed up. Then we got the whole Maricopa County thing going on as well. So my views on this are a little jaded.

To me, I don't see this as a what if we buffed and nerfed stuff. To me, I was asking more along the lines of "If things continue the route they are going".


As for the links you gave. The Secretary of State has been replaced with a group of members appointed by the General Assembly and are banned from working in multiple areas. This gives the Republicans who lead it even MORE power and the members who are in it aren't allowed to serve in the legislature. The link says they are to be non-partisan but doesn't really say HOW this would do so. If it is appointed by the General Assembly without some more rules behind it, that potentially makes them MORE partisan as they are not elected by the general population at all and unless they have some rule that requires both parties consent to them, they will be unaccountable partisans at that. They tried to get the Secretary of State to refuse to certify, what keeps this group from doing it?

And as for them talking about removing people at the local level due to incompetence or wrongdoing, couldn't that have already been done through the courts if they could prove it? So with this one, who/what do they have in place to ensure that the burden is actually real and met instead of them just claiming it and removing them? And we already know they won't apply it fairly, but what keeps them from applying it incorrectly unless it goes to the courts first which would effectively render this as a redundant law. Or they could have them removed and then have them fight it in court but by the time it is resolved it would be too late anyways and could be an effectively way to intentionally replace fair officials with the incompetent ones that fish for what they want and then after the court case just wave their hands and say, "Well, its too late now, the votes have been done".

This is what I am thinking and worrying about, have a long history of laws being claimed for one thing and applied to another or sworn it won't be used for situation and then get used specifically for it. If they aren't made illegal before hand, by the time it even gets to a court room, it could already be too late if it even did.


Edit: Your WSJ link, I could not read, the thing requires I sign in, even with incognito mode.

Edit again: AFK again. First time response I had posted actually was on my phone and then had my signal blink right as I hit send and actually took the whole site out just long enough to lose the response. Why it took me so long to write back. Sorry for the delay.

[Breccia]

Wasn't be immature.

Good, I didn't think so.

Just to me, that doesn't seem like some unlikely hypothetical like you were describing.

And this is the gap we're having trouble with. You were asking about every GOP-led state immediately doing stuff that's arguably unConstitutional, and all of them getting away with it. I think it's far healthier to discuss how we ensure this never comes to pass.

Basically, I'm going to keep recycling, going easy on the red meat, and walking any distance under half a mile, while other people say "the planet is already doomed, run for your lives".

[Adam Jensen]

It's refreshing to hear the President actually admit that trickle down does not work.

Maybe this'll finally be the start of the end of that bullshit myth.

[Felya]

It's refreshing to hear the President actually admit that trickle down does not work.

Maybe this'll finally be the start of the end of that bullshit myth.

Not just admit, but make it a point... yeah... I think the kids call it... “based”...

[Draco-Onis]

Which is why they will always try and make at least the appearance of appeasing the base. Fake news and bluster takes care of that. To appease the college educated suburbanites etc who swung to biden and are salivating at the thought of "childcare subsidies" and "family tax cuts" require different tactics. Bidens also directly going for the working class with as well, so its a heavy assault on all fronts for repubs.

They aren't doing any of that, that's why they are passing voter suppression bills. Don't you get it? the GOP is not going to cater votes outside of their base they are rigging the system to win. Biden can go for whatever appeal he wants, the GOP has not won the popular vote in about three decades yet they have maintained power. These Jim Crow 2.0 bill is to cement minority rules, it doesn't matter how many suburbanites they lose they can just throw out their votes.

- - - Updated - - -

SCOTUS avoided the last election case like the plague. I don't think they're really interested in saying "the Constitution allows you to throw away perfectly good votes".

The reason is simple timing which is why they haven't thrown Roe V. Wade under the bus already, the SCOTUS right wing extremists are simply waiting for the opportune moment.

[starlord]

They aren't doing any of that, that's why they are passing voter suppression bills. Don't you get it? the GOP is not going to cater votes outside of their base they are rigging the system to win. Biden can go for whatever appeal he wants, the GOP has not won the popular vote in about three decades yet they have maintained power. These Jim Crow 2.0 bill is to cement minority rules, it doesn't matter how many suburbanites they lose they can just throw out their votes.

hm well now you're into "sky is falling" territory. I think Breccia's already covered that angle pretty well. the "Jim Crow 2.0" wont help in every situation or state even and has the potential for huge backlash as we've already seen. its a desperate play.