Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[PhaelixWW]

Republicans: BAN RUSSIAN OIL!

Biden: *bans Russian oil*

Republicans: HOW COULD BRANDON MAKE GAS EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE?!?!?!?!?!?

Fuckin absolutely dishonest clownshow.

Well, see, now, Trump would have banned Russian oil, while still creating peace in Ukraine through his perfect diplomacy, because Putin likes him...

...and he would have lowered taxes and inflation as well.

Clearly.


/s



But also, if Trump were president during this, I can guess what his reaction to the whole thing would have been:

"They shoulda built a wall and made Russia pay for it!"

[Edge-]

But also, if Trump were president during this, I can guess what his reaction to the whole thing would have been:

"They shoulda built a wall and made Russia pay for it!"

Naw, he'd be slobbering over Putin's knob like he was at the start of this, before he pivoted to calling it a "holocaust".

[Draco-Onis]

With the Democrats only have 2 flip, it isn't really much of a sign, its just enough to ensure they lose with a slight margin of error if one of them needs to put on a show. The more they had flip, the more their show falls apart and it looks intentional.

The last thing they want is a super majority of Democrats elected in where they can't play that show anymore. They try their best to lose on most things it seems like. They will intentionally be weak, intentionally allow the Republicans to control the messaging into the worst possible ways and intentionally try and give away power the moment they get it.

From the look of things, their only job feels like to act as a counter to the FAR right in the Republican party and do just enough to keep the ship from sinking but not to actually fix it. Outside of that, their job is just to prevent anyone actually willing to try from getting elected and prevent them from getting power if they do. Which is why the only time they have shown any real initiative is when AOC was elected to prevent more like her from getting in.

Part of me honestly feels that Elizabeth Warren complicit in it too given the last election, when the Democrats didn't dare do anything to put their fingers on the scale after the Clinton fiasco, she ran against the one person most like her and had the best chance at the start. In that election, it was like her main job was to poach votes from Sanders to keep him out. Then, when it looked like she was getting ahead and might actually stand a chance herself, she had to do something to stop it and started to waffle on healthcare (One of the key issues) to lose enough support to ensure that didn't happen either. Couldn't let Sanders win, but couldn't get enough ahead that potentially Sanders could bow out and back her.

I think that's going into conspiratorial thinking because you can reverse that and say Sanders could have easily backed her and consolidate the vote for the progressives. They both wanted to be president and didn't want to give in either way, it will be interesting in 2024 frankly I don't think Biden will run again I hope he doesn't. I am frankly tired of our elections featuring two guys with one foot in the grave.

[Fugus]

I think that's going into conspiratorial thinking because you can reverse that and say Sanders could have easily backed her and consolidate the vote for the progressives. They both wanted to be president and didn't want to give in either way, it will be interesting in 2024 frankly I don't think Biden will run again I hope he doesn't. I am frankly tired of our elections featuring two guys with one foot in the grave.

Except for the fact that Sanders had already ran before and despite how much they pulled, he was still very popular in that one by the end and was going into the new one even being hailed as "The most popular Senator in America" or something along those lines and he was known to be rerunning the entire time and stayed on his message the entire time.

Warren was the albatross who jumped in when the one most like her and with the best chance of winning was going and stayed in poaching votes which you could pass off as pure wanting to win on her part even if she had to risk either of them winning. She could have theoretically been willing to go with that Scorched Earth policy but, it doesn't really look like that.

If she was just going scorched earth where she wanted to win even at the cost of making sure neither of them did, she would have stayed on message but she didn't. The moment she actually started going and looked like she had a chance, she decided to take one of the single biggest issues in the election and the one of the huge issues that her and Sanders were popular for having, healthcare, and decided to change her stance on it to shed voters.

It was like she was willing to torpedo who own campaign at that point to make sure she didn't win but stayed in long enough to make sure Sanders couldn't either.

I know it sounds conspiratorial and is nothing that can be proven after the fact, but given the situation and her actions, honestly felt like she joined not to win, but to make sure that Sanders couldn't win. Her actions is a huge blatant example of why we need ranked choice voting so voting for her wasn't a vote against Sanders and voting for Sanders wasn't a vote against her so no poaching of votes was possible.

[Endus]

I don't see the proposed improvements as improvements at all. The removal of this from the legitimate political process is no guarantee that hidden bias and nonpartisan commissions is even an improvement, much less replacement with a worse system.

Districting being a non-partisan procedure is, pretty much definitionally, an improvement over any partisan version of the same.

Being partisan means being biased. While a nonpartisan committee may also be biased, making it nonpartisan has, at a minimum, removed partisan bias as a possibility.

You continue to misrepresent facts.

[Kaleredar]

Well, see, now, Trump would have banned Russian oil, while still creating peace in Ukraine through his perfect diplomacy, because Putin likes him...

...and he would have lowered taxes and inflation as well.

Clearly.


/s



But also, if Trump were president during this, I can guess what his reaction to the whole thing would have been:

"They shoulda built a wall and made Russia pay for it!"

If Trump were president (I think I just got a shiver up my spine) I wouldn't doubt that he would be talking about "how he's happy to help negotiate Ukraine's surrender to Russia so that Russia can feel more secure."

Trump was trying to tow the pro-Putin line after the invasion until even the GOP had to be like "uh what the fuck are you doing?" and even then he only gave a half-hearted "thots and pears" pseudo-retraction. I have no doubt that, were he in the unaccountable place of power that a second term president is in, he'd be spinning the entire conservative media sphere into being pro-Russia in this situation.

[Fugus]

If Trump were president (I think I just got a shiver up my spine) I wouldn't doubt that he would be talking about "how he's happy to help negotiate Ukraine's surrender to Russia so that Russia can feel more secure."

Trump was trying to tow the pro-Putin line after the invasion until even the GOP had to be like "uh what the fuck are you doing?" and even then he only gave a half-hearted "thots and pears" pseudo-retraction. I have no doubt that, were he in the unaccountable place of power that a second term president is in, he'd be spinning the entire conservative media sphere into being pro-Russia in this situation.

Of course, he was already doing that last time. Between withholding aid to Ukraine (Likely Putin's idea to help with this), trying to extort them to go after Biden's son (Again, likely Putin's idea to help his re-election in a way that helped Putin), he fawned over Putin, he cowered in front of Putin, he tried to open a hotel in Russia while actively running for president and lying about it, Russia's bank already had him by the balls, and all that isn't even including the potential pee tape or him trying to leave NATO and actively trying to fracture it or him sharing classified intel with them.

If this happened with him in office, he would have been cheering Russia while offering to negotiate Ukraine's surrender and even try to use Hunter Biden as a reason for not helping them and the moment they bogged down, Trump would try and send US soldiers to Ukraine to aid Russia while Putin dared NATO to do anything, especially since Trump would have withdrawn us from it and pledged our aid to Russia against NATO. At which point Russia would go from area to area trying to rebuild the Soviet Union, they would have owned Ukraine by now and probably already had Moldova toppled by now with the US going further into debt trying to help them fund it.

Sad thing is, I am not even playing or exaggerating here. Trump would at least attempt it while the GOP would largely hop like lemmings for fear of his base and them losing power.

[TexasRules]

pic.twitter.com/dG3afjAgRh

He came all the way to Texas to insult us. Not sure if that if bombing should be an appropriate metaphor here.

“The three congressman you have here, two of them look like they really could and did play ball and the other one looks like he can bomb you.”

[Edge-]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...-unity-agenda/

Anyway. But I just think that — Jake, you’re a fighter pilot. You get this stuff. I mean — you know what I mean. You can smile, Jake. It’s okay. (Laughter.) It’s okay.

Jake is a Republican, but I like the hell out of him. He’s got — no, I’m serious. This guy is the real deal.

The three congressmen you have here — two of them look like they could — they really could and did play ball. And the other one looks like he could bomb you. (Laughter.) And — that’s — it’s a tough group but a good group.

Look, I want to thank you and your staffs for welcoming us to town. It’s a one-stop shop connection for people in this county to the services and benefits they need. And that’s important.

*yawns*

Why the outrage for what was a fairly friendly and well received thank you to the local hosts? It seems like Town Hall is "looking" for outrage.

[uuuhname]

“The three congressman you have here, two of them look like they really could and did play ball and the other one looks like he can bomb you.”

oh no, what a sick burn. scathing, how will the Texas power grid hold up to all that coping?

as if he's even insulting your state, just the shit heads you keep electing.

[Endus]

pic.twitter.com/dG3afjAgRh

He came all the way to Texas to insult us.

“The three congressman you have here, two of them look like they really could and did play ball and the other one looks like he can bomb you.”

Hilariously, the first response to that tweet includes the 15 seconds prior, where it's absolutely clear that Biden's praising all three of them. The "he could bomb you" was a reference to his career as a fighter pilot.

So no. This is entirely in your head. You're inventing a baseless persecution complex and the facts prove you to be a liar.

https://twitter.com/jgottula/status/1501367737410461698

"It's a tough group, but a good group" is so insulting, right? Scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel for shit that falls apart at the faintest examination.

[Fugus]

Edit: Deleted, didn't get the bombing reference being related to his job.

[Kaleredar]

oh no, what a sick burn. scathing, how will the Texas power grid hold up to all that coping?

as if he's even insulting your state, just the shit heads you keep electing.

I hear ted cruz is already preemptively fleeing to Mexico.

[uuuhname]

I hear ted cruz is already preemptively fleeing to Mexico.

I would never inflict a Ted Cruz on another country.

[postman1782]

pic.twitter.com/dG3afjAgRh

He came all the way to Texas to insult us. Not sure if that if bombing should be an appropriate metaphor here.

“The three congressman you have here, two of them look like they really could and did play ball and the other one looks like he can bomb you.”

From the looks of it, he was right.

[s_bushido]

pic.twitter.com/dG3afjAgRh

He came all the way to Texas to insult us. Not sure if that if bombing should be an appropriate metaphor here.

“The three congressman you have here, two of them look like they really could and did play ball and the other one looks like he can bomb you.”

A new avatar for you, free of charge:



Seriously, though. You people didn't learn your lesson with the "you didn't build that!" bullshit? Who am I kidding...of course not.

[Dontrike]

pic.twitter.com/dG3afjAgRh

He came all the way to Texas to insult us. Not sure if that if bombing should be an appropriate metaphor here.

“The three congressman you have here, two of them look like they really could and did play ball and the other one looks like he can bomb you.”

The "fuck your feelings crowd" is less like a snowflake and more like a blizzard, in many different ways. I though you red hats liked when a president "said it like it is"?

[Rasulis]

Gee whiz, it's a board that comes up with a system that locks in 44 safe Democratic seats compared to 5 safe Republicans, to put Republicans into 15% of seats lean-R in a state with 34% R in state congressional turnout (WSJ). Kinda cool how you fix gerrymandering by gerrymandering districts by other means. Almost like nobody is truly nonpartisan/unaffiliated when it comes to predilections. In fact, it would be rather tough to squeeze more Democratic seats from a proper gerrymander, considering how successful they've been with a closeted gerrymander.

If California Republicans were unhappy about the new congressional map, they could have sued. They did not. The reality is the new map is fair. Yes, 34% of CA voters were Republicans. Unfortunately for the GOP, most of them prefer to stay in the urban areas where they are heavily outnumbered by Democrats. For example, ultra-Democratic San Francisco has 33,549 GOP registrations. That is more people than the population of 11 California lowest population rural counties. Where GOP voters are dominant.

[tehdang]

If California Republicans were unhappy about the new congressional map, they could have sued. They did not. The reality is the new map is fair. Yes, 34% of CA voters were Republicans. Unfortunately for the GOP, most of them prefer to stay in the urban areas where they are heavily outnumbered by Democrats. For example, ultra-Democratic San Francisco has 33,549 GOP registrations. That is more people than the population of 11 California lowest population rural counties. Where GOP voters are dominant.

Cool new standard about sue-or-you're-not-unhappy. The new map is gerrymandering, though the proponents want to call it another name, that drastically cuts the Republican vote share in existing state congressional elections. I don't care if Republicans don't want to waste money on a typical gerrymandered district map. It's California with Democratic supermajorities in the legislature. They write the laws.

Draw a typical "Democrats have gerrymandered this state" on FiveThirtyEight's redistricting website, and lo and behold, you'd end up with 7.8 seats for expected Republican wins, like the supposedly nonpartisan process came up with.

Remember that you could also draw more competitive districts, where each party is expected to fight to win, and get 13.7 seats. This isn't a problem of Republican vote defrayed over Democratic areas. These are gerrymandered districts. And the only major change of any note is that California lost a seat in Congress this cycle (A good reminder for the state's Democratic control that we aren't growing as well as other states; more people moving to other states from California than from the rest of the country moving here).

Incidentally, fivethirtyeight's redistricting wrapups per state is a good place to go if you want to learn about how the redistricting process biased Democrats over more neutral lines in California. I don't care if its partisan Democrats drawing favorable districts to win back seats, or commissions with an independent label on them, gerrymandered districts drawn to favor the majority party are gerrymandered districts.

[Elegiac]

Incidentally, fivethirtyeight's redistricting wrapups per state is a good place to go if you want to learn about how the redistricting process biased Democrats over more neutral lines in California. I don't care if its partisan Democrats drawing favorable districts to win back seats, or commissions with an independent label on them, gerrymandered districts drawn to favor the majority party are gerrymandered districts.

Don't complain about other people following a standard you set, habibi. It's kinda cringe.