Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Themius]

Not really, plenty of us remain critical. Just like, reasonable and sensible. Because we also understand like, the courts aren't designed to rule by popular opinion. Otherwise we wouldn't have courts and we'd just like, have county/state/national polls where everyone gets to weigh in on an issue regardless of what the law actually says.

You are right but I don't agree with the way you apply this thought.

Consider that we elect representatives in order to get things done on our behalf. Consider that our representatives were blocked for years under Obama from filling seats. Consider then that once they got power they then went on to fill seats with tons of people that do not fit the majority.

Consider that we saw the rampant voter suppression, the release of the hard drive detailing exactly how they wanted to suppress votes.

Consider then that now the courts in no way reflect what they should based on the fact the opposition party held up seats just to pack them.

Your argument line here reminds me of what you said yesterday where you seemed to have come down on the side against expanding seats because "oh no it'll be a back and forth political football"

When lawmakers start from this mindset of "we can't do that because that's not how we do things!" where is the fix? How do you fix the court issues without expanding? Do you start removing judges? There seems to be actually cause for a great many of them to be removed on them not being properly qualified which iirc msnbc ran a story on.

You told me yesterday that courts aren't there to recognise my opinion, but as outlined above, what we expect are that our representatives put people into those seats, and what we got were stolen seats.

[Kellhound]

Oh that’s hyperbole... I saw you reply to people in the Ukraine thread... this wasn’t that bad... it can’t be most.

Should have included "in a thread about US politics". My bad.

[Cthulhu 2020]

That is the most simplistic and misguided statement concerning US politics I have ever heard.

The only thing I actually want to see with the Senate is it always being controlled by the party that does not hold the Presidency (or a Senate significantly split between 3 or more parties).

Most of the time it's clear you don't even understand the original intent of the Senate or the presidency. That's the thing, so many people see the president as a "king". The president is the chief commander of our military and runs the branch of government that can enforce existing laws. However it is true that executive order power has expanded over the last few decades, which Republicans like to complain about when a Democrat is president. The ultimate hilarious irony is that it's been Republicans who have pushed the boundaries of what executive orders can do.

[Kellhound]

Most of the time it's clear you don't even understand the original intent of the Senate or the presidency. That's the thing, so many people see the president as a "king". The president is the chief commander of our military and runs the branch of government that can enforce existing laws. However it is true that executive order power has expanded over the last few decades, which Republicans like to complain about when a Democrat is president. The ultimate hilarious irony is that it's been Republicans who have pushed the boundaries of what executive orders can do.

Oh I am very clear what the intent and purpose of both sides of Congress, the Presidency, and the courts. They are all intended to act as a series of checks and balances against each other. And the President's power is a bit more than you laid out...

[Bodakane]

Whoa, what about their CULTURE?! I guess Democrats banging on about replacing old-world coal jobs with new renewable energy jobs have been right all these years, and the Republican promises of "bringing coal back" were nothing but a lot of hot air.

They could have been four years into that already, since that is precisely what Hillary said they needed.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Oh I am very clear what the intent and purpose of both sides of Congress, the Presidency, and the courts. They are all intended to act as a series of checks and balances against each other. And the President's power is a bit more than you laid out...

The system is designed so that the various branches of government can serve as checks and balances, but that is not the INTENT nor PURPOSE of the various branches Congress is supposed to be the will of the people, Senate is representation of the state's interests, and the president does have other roles like being our chief diplomat but really, the president is not a law maker. Trump tried to create laws through executive orders and they got shot down by the courts. The president has their hands tied far more than most conservatives think. It's why it's so stupid that there's such a heavy emphasis on the president.

Also, as the US was growing and becoming a power house nation, it was passing lots of amendments and laws through both houses quickly and efficiently. The last few decades have slowed that particular function of government to a near halt. "It's better when the government is doing nothing!" No, it really isn't. The US used to be the leading example for the rest of the world, now Europe, Canada, and even Mexico laugh at how far behind we're falling due to our inability to get anything done towards progress. But that's all because Republicans have become the party of regressive reactionaries, not only pumping the brakes on progressing with the rest of the world, but actively trying to put us in reverse.

We have lots that needs to get done, measures that need to get passed, amendments that need to be made. Election reform and removing the electoral college, yanking the reigns on the power of the president that has been rapidly expanding, returning us to a pre Reagan tax model, drug enforcement law reform, environmental protection measures, putting money back in the hands of citizens, but everything is at a halt. And it's not checks and balances, it's because ever since Obama, Republicans have vowed to stonewall every single measure Democrats actually want whether they think it's good for the country or not. That's literally become their message. "Help us stop Democrats doing things! We don't care if it's good, just vote for us so we can vote no!" And let's be real, Gingrich and the ultimate creation of Fox news was the beginning of this hyper partisan politics. Look at votes before 50 years ago, most votes had plenty of people from both parties voting for and against various measures. These days every single vote is along party lines.

So since every single thing is a vote along party lines, what's the point of the Senate, the house, and the presidency? There's very little point to them even existing as a set of diverse views and expressing the will of the people. 70 years ago, Republicans in one state might have disagreed with Republicans in another state, and people would write their congressman to express how they felt about measures. These days, Republicans are just going to vote anti-Democrats regardless of what people want. And if a single republican steps out of line and votes in favor of a Democrat measure? They are called a RINO, mocked, ridiculed, insulted, have death threats thrown at them, and then primaried by an even more fascist extremist nutbag. The tribalism is real, and when one party is just stonewalling another, that's not "checks and balances", checks and balances are meant to stop insanely harmful stuff being passed by a single person or small group of people. No, it's just halting government altogether.

[Omega10]

The system is designed so that the various branches of government can serve as checks and balances, but that is not the INTENT nor PURPOSE of the various branches Congress is supposed to be the will of the people, Senate is representation of the state's interests, and the president does have other roles like being our chief diplomat but really, the president is not a law maker. Trump tried to create laws through executive orders and they got shot down by the courts. The president has their hands tied far more than most conservatives think. It's why it's so stupid that there's such a heavy emphasis on the president.

Also, as the US was growing and becoming a power house nation, it was passing lots of amendments and laws through both houses quickly and efficiently. The last few decades have slowed that particular function of government to a near halt. "It's better when the government is doing nothing!" No, it really isn't. The US used to be the leading example for the rest of the world, now Europe, Canada, and even Mexico laugh at how far behind we're falling due to our inability to get anything done towards progress. But that's all because Republicans have become the party of regressive reactionaries, not only pumping the brakes on progressing with the rest of the world, but actively trying to put us in reverse.

We have lots that needs to get done, measures that need to get passed, amendments that need to be made. Election reform and removing the electoral college, yanking the reigns on the power of the president that has been rapidly expanding, returning us to a pre Reagan tax model, drug enforcement law reform, environmental protection measures, putting money back in the hands of citizens, but everything is at a halt. And it's not checks and balances, it's because ever since Obama, Republicans have vowed to stonewall every single measure Democrats actually want whether they think it's good for the country or not. That's literally become their message. "Help us stop Democrats doing things! We don't care if it's good, just vote for us so we can vote no!" And let's be real, Gingrich and the ultimate creation of Fox news was the beginning of this hyper partisan politics. Look at votes before 50 years ago, most votes had plenty of people from both parties voting for and against various measures. These days every single vote is along party lines.

So since every single thing is a vote along party lines, what's the point of the Senate, the house, and the presidency? There's very little point to them even existing as a set of diverse views and expressing the will of the people. 70 years ago, Republicans in one state might have disagreed with Republicans in another state, and people would write their congressman to express how they felt about measures. These days, Republicans are just going to vote anti-Democrats regardless of what people want. And if a single republican steps out of line and votes in favor of a Democrat measure? They are called a RINO, mocked, ridiculed, insulted, have death threats thrown at them, and then primaried by an even more fascist extremist nutbag. The tribalism is real, and when one party is just stonewalling another, that's not "checks and balances", checks and balances are meant to stop insanely harmful stuff being passed by a single person or small group of people. No, it's just halting government altogether.

Well stated.

The single most damaging quip from any politician over last 40 years came from Ronald Reagan.

The most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

The idea that the US government is so corrupt and backwards and evil that it can't do anything right or ever make anything better is prevalent in the US today, well it's the basis of republican thought today, and it is destroying our country.

One of the new republican talking points (new?) is "Who do you trust - the American people or A BUNCH OF BUREAUCRATS.

An example that comes to MY mind is: the people that went to the Sturgis super spreader event, I mean the one week celebration, or Dr Fauci???

Actually, I choose Dr Fauci If we had, we would have half a million less dead Americans.

And yet this dangerous fiction remains embedded in our culture

[Elegiac]

"Who do you trust - the American people or A BUNCH OF BUREAUCRATS.

*looks at the American people*



The bunch of bureaucrats.

[Kaleredar]

*looks at the American people*



The bunch of bureaucrats.

To add on, it's not even that the bureaucrats are asking people to trust them, it's that they're telling them to listen to actual experts.

The only bureaucrat asking people to "trust him" was Trump. Sadly, people did. An unfortunate side effect of people all-to-often equating popularity and wealth with intelligence.

[Kellhound]

The system is designed so that the various branches of government can serve as checks and balances, but that is not the INTENT nor PURPOSE of the various branches Congress is supposed to be the will of the people, Senate is representation of the state's interests, and the president does have other roles like being our chief diplomat but really, the president is not a law maker. Trump tried to create laws through executive orders and they got shot down by the courts. The president has their hands tied far more than most conservatives think. It's why it's so stupid that there's such a heavy emphasis on the president.

Also, as the US was growing and becoming a power house nation, it was passing lots of amendments and laws through both houses quickly and efficiently. The last few decades have slowed that particular function of government to a near halt. "It's better when the government is doing nothing!" No, it really isn't. The US used to be the leading example for the rest of the world, now Europe, Canada, and even Mexico laugh at how far behind we're falling due to our inability to get anything done towards progress. But that's all because Republicans have become the party of regressive reactionaries, not only pumping the brakes on progressing with the rest of the world, but actively trying to put us in reverse.

We have lots that needs to get done, measures that need to get passed, amendments that need to be made. Election reform and removing the electoral college, yanking the reigns on the power of the president that has been rapidly expanding, returning us to a pre Reagan tax model, drug enforcement law reform, environmental protection measures, putting money back in the hands of citizens, but everything is at a halt. And it's not checks and balances, it's because ever since Obama, Republicans have vowed to stonewall every single measure Democrats actually want whether they think it's good for the country or not. That's literally become their message. "Help us stop Democrats doing things! We don't care if it's good, just vote for us so we can vote no!" And let's be real, Gingrich and the ultimate creation of Fox news was the beginning of this hyper partisan politics. Look at votes before 50 years ago, most votes had plenty of people from both parties voting for and against various measures. These days every single vote is along party lines.

So since every single thing is a vote along party lines, what's the point of the Senate, the house, and the presidency? There's very little point to them even existing as a set of diverse views and expressing the will of the people. 70 years ago, Republicans in one state might have disagreed with Republicans in another state, and people would write their congressman to express how they felt about measures. These days, Republicans are just going to vote anti-Democrats regardless of what people want. And if a single republican steps out of line and votes in favor of a Democrat measure? They are called a RINO, mocked, ridiculed, insulted, have death threats thrown at them, and then primaried by an even more fascist extremist nutbag. The tribalism is real, and when one party is just stonewalling another, that's not "checks and balances", checks and balances are meant to stop insanely harmful stuff being passed by a single person or small group of people. No, it's just halting government altogether.

The President appoints/nominates many powerful people. That is perhaps their most significant power, which is why it is directly checked by the Senate's power to approve or reject said nominees.

If people are elected on the premise they will stop the opposition from enacting laws, then I see no issue with them doing so. The issue is that neither party gives a rat's ass about the other party's people's concerns. When that is the case, no new laws is preferred by a significant portion of the population.

Checks and balances are intended to ensure the voices of the people (which are NOT monolithic) are taken into account. What is "best" for a country is open for debate, and is not a concept that should be seen as absolute.

- - - Updated - - -

Well stated.

The single most damaging quip from any politician over last 40 years came from Ronald Reagan.

The most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

The idea that the US government is so corrupt and backwards and evil that it can't do anything right or ever make anything better is prevalent in the US today, well it's the basis of republican thought today, and it is destroying our country.

One of the new republican talking points (new?) is "Who do you trust - the American people or A BUNCH OF BUREAUCRATS.

An example that comes to MY mind is: the people that went to the Sturgis super spreader event, I mean the one week celebration, or Dr Fauci???

Actually, I choose Dr Fauci If we had, we would have half a million less dead Americans.

And yet this dangerous fiction remains embedded in our culture

One person's help is another's hindrance.

Government exists to tell those not in power what they cannot do and what they must do. If you agree with what it is telling you, you like it, if not, then you don't.

I wise person trusts neither the masses nor the bureaucrats, for neither cares about them.

[Kaleredar]

The President appoints/nominates many powerful people. That is perhaps their most significant power, which is why it is directly checked by the Senate's power to approve or reject said nominees.

If people are elected on the premise they will stop the opposition from enacting laws, then I see no issue with them doing so. The issue is that neither party gives a rat's ass about the other party's people's concerns. When that is the case, no new laws is preferred by a significant portion of the population.

Many of the "right wing's" supposed concerns are encapsulated in some way or another by progressive ideals.

Why do you think the democrats were more than willing to approve the stimulus bills that Trump and McConnell were uselessly tussling over? Because the democrats knew that it was right, and the GOP was trying to play COVID like some political poker chip. Because that's all politics is to the GOP: political theater used to enrich themselves.

Right wing evangelical moralizing is really the only thing that doesn't eventually just come with progressive ideals. But everything else? Any "economic concern" that wasn't just some stinted right wing morality play you could cite would result from progressive ideas. Because progressive ideas are about getting money into the hands of the "working class man" that the right-wing is supposedly so concerned about.

Checks and balances are intended to ensure the voices of the people (which are NOT monolithic) are taken into account. What is "best" for a country is open for debate, and is not a concept that should be seen as absolute.

The GOP has not floated a single idea that represents the voice of the people in a very, very long time.

[Kellhound]

Many of the "right wing's" supposed concerns are encapsulated in some way or another by progressive ideals.

Why do you think the democrats were more than willing to approve the stimulus bills that Trump and McConnell were uselessly tussling over? Because the democrats knew that it was right, and the GOP was trying to play COVID like some political poker chip. Because that's all politics is to the GOP: political theater used to enrich themselves.

Right wing evangelical moralizing is really the only thing that doesn't eventually just come with progressive ideals. But everything else? Any "economic concern" that wasn't just some stinted right wing morality play you could cite would result from progressive ideas. Because progressive ideas are about getting money into the hands of the "working class man" that the right-wing is supposedly so concerned about.



The GOP has not floated a single idea that represents the voice of the people in a very, very long time.

Knew it was right by their understanding yes, but that does not intrinsically mean it was right. Everything IS a political poker chip, because no law stands by itself.

If the voice of the people you represent do not want change, is proposing no change not representing the voice of those people?

[Kaleredar]

Knew it was right by their understanding yes, but that does not intrinsically mean it was right. Everything IS a political poker chip, because no law stands by itself.

If the voice of the people you represent do not want change, is proposing no change not representing the voice of those people?

Except those people do want change. The American people didn't want the brand of politics the GOP was spinning in 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, or in 2020. And yet how many of those years were they subjected to them?

You can select any arbitrary number of people and give them untoward power, but that doesn't mean that that group being represented has any right having a nationally represented voice or ability to hinder the progress of other people, wholesale. That's more or less what the gerrymandered systems we have right now do, only it's the republicans who are unilaterally making those decisions of who gets to vote to ensure that it's the GOP they're voting for.

And don't hit me with "well their electorate ELECTED them to gerrymander the system, so therefore the people's will IS represented!" because that's utter bullshit.

[Kellhound]

Except those people do want change. The American people didn't want the brand of politics the GOP was spinning in 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, or in 2020. And yet how many of those years were they subjected to them?

You can select any arbitrary number of people and give them untoward power, but that doesn't mean that that group being represented has any right having a nationally represented voice or ability to hinder the progress of other people, wholesale. That's more or less what the gerrymandered systems we have right now do, only it's the republicans who are unilaterally making those decisions of who gets to vote to ensure that it's the GOP they're voting for.

And don't hit me with "well their electorate ELECTED them to gerrymander the system, so therefore the people's will IS represented!" because that's utter bullshit.

When Republicans get elected, that is not representing the people. When Democrats are elected, that is representing the people. Ergo, only Democrats can represent the people...

[Cthulhu 2020]

The President appoints/nominates many powerful people. That is perhaps their most significant power, which is why it is directly checked by the Senate's power to approve or reject said nominees.

If people are elected on the premise they will stop the opposition from enacting laws, then I see no issue with them doing so. The issue is that neither party gives a rat's ass about the other party's people's concerns. When that is the case, no new laws is preferred by a significant portion of the population.

Checks and balances are intended to ensure the voices of the people (which are NOT monolithic) are taken into account. What is "best" for a country is open for debate, and is not a concept that should be seen as absolute.

The middle east had a golden age of science and technological revolution. They were the shining city on the hill - enlightened and advanced in technology. What brought them down? Many things, but mainly the rise of religious zealotry that opposed that science and progress. People are voting to stop what they fear. Why do they fear it? Because they don't understand it. Why don't they understand it? Because they're either stupid or they're victims of the horrible American education system.

Besides, do these people even understand WHY they are voting to stop Democrats? Ask any of them and they'll tell you "IT'S TO STOP THE SPREAD OF SOCIALIST COMMIES THAT WANT TO PUT US IN GULAGS". They're fucking idiots.

- - - Updated - - -

When Republicans get elected, that is not representing the people. When Democrats are elected, that is representing the people. Ergo, only Democrats can represent the people...

If this is what you got out of that post, then you're really bad at reading. Another unfortunate victim of the American education system.

As Kalredar said, Republicans are also heavily rigging the system through voter suppression and gerrymandering to stay in power because they've won the popular vote one time in the last three decades, and that was only Bush Jr's reelection coming off a super popular presidency that we later learned was one of the most horrible presidents of the modern era, right behind Trump.

But I will say this, you're right about one thing: Republicans don't represent the will of the people. They represent the will of Fox News. If I hear some new talking point on Fox News, within 24 hours it's all over facebook and twitter, every single conservative and their extended family is saying the same talking point. And every other talking point they use in politics is just more Fox News shit. These people haven't had an original thought in years. They're all obediently bleating for their shit news source.

[Kellhound]

The middle east had a golden age of science and technological revolution. They were the shining city on the hill - enlightened and advanced in technology. What brought them down? Many things, but mainly the rise of religious zealotry that opposed that science and progress. People are voting to stop what they fear. Why do they fear it? Because they don't understand it. Why don't they understand it? Because they're either stupid or they're victims of the horrible American education system.

Besides, do these people even understand WHY they are voting to stop Democrats? Ask any of them and they'll tell you "IT'S TO STOP THE SPREAD OF SOCIALIST COMMIES THAT WANT TO PUT US IN GULAGS". They're fucking idiots.

- - - Updated - - -



If this is what you got out of that post, then you're really bad at reading. Another unfortunate victim of the American education system.

As Kalredar said, Republicans are also heavily rigging the system through voter suppression and gerrymandering to stay in power because they've won the popular vote one time in the last three decades, and that was only Bush Jr's reelection coming off a super popular presidency that we later learned was one of the most horrible presidents of the modern era, right behind Trump.

But I will say this, you're right about one thing: Republicans don't represent the will of the people. They represent the will of Fox News. If I hear some new talking point on Fox News, within 24 hours it's all over facebook and twitter, every single conservative and their extended family is saying the same talking point. And every other talking point they use in politics is just more Fox News shit. These people haven't had an original thought in years. They're all obediently bleating for their shit news source.

What you want from government colors how you view government.

Neither party represents the will of the people, each just represents a minority part. Elections between two parties often comes down not to who the majority agrees with, but who the majority disagrees with the least. It has been decades since I have voter for a candidate for office, I always end up voting based on which candidate will cause the least amount damage to me, my family, and my country in my view.

[Themius]

So no changed in Cuban foreign policy and an increase in military funding. Amazing!!!

[jonnysensible]

So no changed in Cuban foreign policy and an increase in military funding. Amazing!!!

dont remember those being pre election promises.

[Themius]

dont remember those being pre election promises.

Things have to be promises to be expected?

Trump took hostile actions against Cuba to spite Obama. Biden could but hasn’t rectified that situation.

[Themius]

He’s requesting a slight increase in the defense budget for the fiscal year—$753B compared to the $740B it had this year. A large portion of it is going towards increasing military pay for military members.

Why any increase? Just a slight little 13 billion dollars. Do that for for a few years and suddenly we are near 800bn.