Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Shadowferal]

I was Irish for one day a couple of months ago, and today I'm Mexican. (ok...the door's open. Go ahead)

[Edge-]

It's Taco night in America!

I'm still furious we don't have taco trucks on every corner. Biden needs to get on delivering on that threat from Republicans, I don't have a single decent taco spot near me. Just a garbage Taco Bell. It's really a travesty.

[Breccia]

I was Irish for one day a couple of months ago, and today I'm Mexican. (ok...the door's open. Go ahead)

Were you a Jedi yesterday?

Biden set to flex clemency powers

The White House held a Zoom call last week to discuss criminal justice reform with advocates and formerly incarcerated people, some of whom are pressing Biden to use his powers to free people jailed on drug offenses and sick and elderly people who pose no threat to society.

While the White House did not signal any imminent moves, officials indicated that Biden will not hold off until later in his term to issue pardons or commutations.

“It was clear that they are working on something,” said Norris Henderson, founder and executive director of New Orleans-based Voice of the Experienced, who participated in the call. “They are looking at that right now as an avenue to start doing things.”

Didn't Obama do this to a large number of people arrested for 10g of pot, or something?

[Shadowferal]

Were you a Jedi yesterday?

Actually I was feeling kinda Sithy yesterday.... confused...nah, I don't wanna talk about it.

[tehdang]

Nah, it wasn't a tough choice for you, that's simply an attempt to shed responsibility. I've watched Trumpsters bend over backwards for years, to justify their choices and actions.

Meanwhile, when they turn around and try and complain, the detest that it co tinues to get poi Ted out to them.

I guess you weren't displeased.

I stand by my voting choices. Go make a thread about me if you want. For this thread, you should demonstrate that you can separate personal voting choices and voters at large. For example, because you are a libertarian, your own logic would say you can’t speak about Republican and Democratic voting determinations, since your views differ.

[AntiFascistVoter]

It’s cinco de Mayo everywhere...

Even in Canada? They're still monarchist simps. They have no Battle of Puebla or Battle of Ticonderoga to celebrate.

Props or Aboriginal Day though!

[Machismo]

I stand by my voting choices. Go make a thread about me if you want. For this thread, you should demonstrate that you can separate personal voting choices and voters at large. For example, because you are a libertarian, your own logic would say you can’t speak about Republican and Democratic voting determinations, since your views differ.

Not at all, I'm simply pointing out that you were not displeased, and you willingly and knowingly voted for an outright terrible human being.

Many voters are displeased, and good for them. I know I certainly wouldn't vote for a racist sexual predator.

On that note, at least we are returning to a point of normalcy, and we get to see how truly out of touch they always were.

[Breccia]

Federal judge overturns CDC's eviction ban.

I mean...I'm disappointed, but the decision of the court stands. Hopefully, it helped for as long as it was allowed to last.

- - - Updated - - -

Biden's plan will cost far more than advertised, says a study by Wharton.

"Whoa, Wharton? Isn't that Trump's school?"

(a) they're a good business school and (b) they fucking hate Trump. The study is fine.

In a study out this week, a big part of the $900 billion difference cited by the Penn Wharton researchers appears to be what the American Families Plan will spend on education efforts.

The Biden administration is proposing to fully fund two years of universal pre-K for three- and four-year-olds and make two years of community college free for whoever wants it. The Penn Wharton researchers said both of those programs will cost significantly more than the White House estimates, although the research team didn't specify how much more. The researchers also said proposed tax credits for children and low-income families and spending to fund health insurance premiums will be more costly than the White House estimates.

In all, the researchers said Mr. Biden's plan will spend $2.5 trillion on programs and tax credits, compared to the White House's estimate of $1.8 trillion.

On taxes, the Biden administration said the plan will bring in $1.5 trillion for the government by imposing more taxes on Americans who make more than $400,000 a year. Not included in the American Families Plan or the Wharton analysis is the White House's proposal to raise corporate taxes by $2.1 trillion and spend more than $2 trillion in infrastructure, both of which are part of a different Biden plan.

The Penn Wharton researchers, though, said they believed Mr. Biden's American Families Plan would bring in $1.3 trillion over the next decade, or $200 billion less than what the Biden administration predicts. The primary difference has to do with how much money the administration believes it can bring in by beefing up the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Biden has proposed spending $80 billion in the next 10 years to increase the agency's staff and improve its audit powers. The White House predicted increased tax compliance will add $700 billion in revenue over the next decade.

The Wharton researchers put that estimate at $480 billion, which is still higher than others have said. A study by the Congressional Budget Office last year suggested that investing $80 billion in the IRS would generate about $200 billion in additional tax revenue over a decade.

Now, maybe other studies will come out later, but this isn't great news for the plan.

"Okay, but why post this? I thought you liked Biden?"

I do. And I'd prefer if his statements and estimates were on target. I don't think he outright lied here, but biased stats are still unhelpful.

[Felya]

Actually I was feeling kinda Sithy yesterday.... confused...nah, I don't wanna talk about it.

The start of May is a turbulent week for identity... you start out a communist, then end black out drunk... it’s USSR in 5 days...

[tehdang]

The bold part that I responded to, was not an assertion of your personal voting considerations... it’s defining Perot voters as showing displeasure. You didn’t just say you don’t put the onus on third party voters, you defined them while saying it.

Look again. I said it was the highest voter turnout for third parties since Perot. I did not speculate on what Perot voters were voting for at the time. I can provide a link to the original post of that would be helpful.

- - - Updated - - -

Not at all, I'm simply pointing out that you were not displeased, and you willingly and knowingly voted for an outright terrible human being.

Many voters are displeased, and good for them. I know I certainly wouldn't vote for a racist sexual predator.

On that note, at least we are returning to a point of normalcy, and we get to see how truly out of touch they always were.

Ok, maybe next time start with the point that you’re critical of my voting choices. It’s dumb to try to generalize it to third parties in general, and then flee the assertion as soon as it’s challenged.

[Machismo]

Look again. I said it was the highest voter turnout for third parties since Perot. I did not speculate on what Perot voters were voting for at the time. I can provide a link to the original post of that would be helpful.

- - - Updated - - -


Ok, maybe next time start with the point that you’re critical of my voting choices. It’s dumb to try to generalize it to third parties in general, and then flee the assertion as soon as it’s challenged.

Oh, that was already covered.

[Felya]

Look again. I said it was the highest voter turnout for third parties since Perot. I did not speculate on what Perot voters were voting for at the time. I can provide a link to the original post of that would be helpful.

Oh, I’ll be even more helpful...

A little off topic, but that was in the context of my voting decisions. I don't put that on other voters that express their displeasure by going third party. I can appreciate their choices and why they made them without demanding they also align with my choices on the matter.

“Their” displeasure is your assertion about their intent, not yours.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, maybe next time start with the point that you’re critical of my voting choices. It’s dumb to try to generalize it to third parties in general, and then flee the assertion as soon as it’s challenged.

Yeah, let’s not do that...

- - - Updated - - -
@tehdang I refuse to believe that you don’t know the difference between...

I can’t say why third parties voted the way they did.

Versus...

I can’t say why third party voters expressing their displeasure.

You do understand that one of those statement is what you claimed to have said, while the other is a generalization that you did say?

[tehdang]

I mean, there's nothing really hypocritical about saying "There are people who don't like either major party, and voted for a third party that they liked significantly more. And while I personally also don't like either major party, I recognize that one of the two will win, so even though I'd RATHER the third party be in charge I'll hold my nose and vote for the major party I hate less."

In countries with more than 2 legitimate options, such strategic voting is quite common, to the point that many countries have revamped their voting systems so that people can safely vote their primary pick AND still gain the benefit of strategic voting in scenarios where their primary pick simply won't win.

I’m glad somebody gets it.

It’s common to become a Democrat in big blue cities to strategically vote in the primary, since the winner of the closed primary undoubtably wins the election, and they want to participate in the selection of the eventual mayor/representative.

[Edge-]

It’s common to become a Democrat in big blue cities to strategically vote in the primary, since the winner of the closed primary undoubtably wins the election, and they want to participate in the selection of the eventual mayor/representative.

Big 'ol citations needed for these claims*

[Benggaul]

Federal judge overturns CDC's eviction ban.

I mean...I'm disappointed, but the decision of the court stands. Hopefully, it helped for as long as it was allowed to last.

Goonies never say die:

Justice Dept. to appeal judge's order vacating CDC eviction moratorium

[Felya]

Big 'ol citations needed for these claims*

Here you go... Neither NY or California have open presidential primaries... not sure what big blue states are left... Washington?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_p..._United_States

[Edge-]

Here you go... Neither NY or California have open presidential primaries... not sure what big blue states are left... Washington?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_p..._United_States

In CA you can remain NPA (no party affiliation) and request a primary ballot for either party, and you don't even need to live in a big city for it.

[Zan15]

Federal judge overturns CDC's eviction ban.

I mean...I'm disappointed, but the decision of the court stands. Hopefully, it helped for as long as it was allowed to last.

.

Never understood how the CDC even had the power.

[Breccia]

Never understood how the CDC even had the power.

That sounds like the court's decision. Honestly, it's time "we have vague emergency powers" gets clarification. I'm done with National Security Lol being the answer to everything. The CDC should have emergency powers, but not vague ones.

[Mihalik]

Never understood how the CDC even had the power.

Well technically, considering it's the CDCs job to control disease, and population movement in the time of a major pandemic has a significant effect on its ability to control disease... It makes sense that the CDC could restrict the ability of landlords to forcefully displace people.