The Biden Presidency 2021

Quote: SOOPOO

So many errors and inaccuracies..... Where to begin?

They denied THE President, who happened to be Black, the right to pick a Supreme Court Justice. I firmly believe McConnell would have used the same exact tactic if it was President Hilary Clinton making a selection. Why on earth you would think the President being Black made any difference in that decision is beyond me.

The filibuster, in plain terms, prevents the party with a slight majority from having total control of Congress. It has been an ally to the minority party whether Democrat or Republican. Feel free to fool yourself into thinking that is racist.

Republicans want to limit voting to those that are eligible to vote legally. You do not think Blacks are competent enough to produce an ID card proving who they are. I do. Which one of us is racist?

Interesting that you believe "most" Republicans in Congress are racist! It wasn't a Republican who announced she wouldn't approve a white man for a Cabinet position because of his race! What clearer definition of racism do you need?

I'd say the truth on this one is somewhere in the middle and that Terapined's post is trying to put a certain spin on it. The filibuster was indeed used to attempt to block Civil Rights legislation, perhaps most notably:

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/civil-rights-filibuster-ended.htm

I would have to say there's no point in denying or trying to minimize that.

With that being said, the filibuster is not itself racist. As SOOPOO points out, it's simply a tool that's used to prevent any party (or, more appropriately, any Legislation with slight majority support---back when the two major parties were allowed to consider pieces of Legislation on individual merit) with a slight majority from passing whatever Legislation they want unchecked.

Of course the argument of, "Denying a black President..." is convenient because it cannot be proven otherwise. Like SOOPOO, I tend to think that he would have wanted to deny any Democratic POTUS the SCOTUS pick using that tactic, but I obviously can't prove that.

As far as voting rights are concerned, I think that this is just a correlative thing. I would say that the Republicans would be happy to make it more difficult for any group largely inclined to vote Democrat less likely to vote...and it just so happens that African-Americans largely vote Democratic.

Another example not strictly involving African-Americans is anything that would make it more difficult to vote absentee or by mail. If I had to pick a demographic that would be most adversely impacted by something like that, then I would say college students. Of course, college students are made up of all races and cultures, but are similarly disproportionately inclined to vote Democrat.

So, in general terms, it could be argued that many Republicans want to make it more difficult for people who lean Democratic to vote. In fairness, it kind of makes sense that they would want that considering they haven't won the national popular vote for a first-term POTUS since 1988. The Electoral College may well be their only path to victory when it comes to the Presidency and it seems that even that advantage (or, perhaps, only realistic chance) is slowly evaporating.

When it comes to voter ID laws, I don't consider it unreasonable that you would have to prove who you say you are in order to vote.

On the other hand, I'm not opposed to early voting at County Boards of Elections or absentee voting, but I do think that someone should enclose a copy of his/her ID in order for that vote to be considered valid.

Quote: Mission146

When it comes to voter ID laws, I don't consider it unreasonable that you would have to prove who you say you are in order to vote.

That puts you in the solid majority.

75% Support Voter ID Laws -Rasmussen

We will never see it.

"Thirty-six states have enacted some form of voter ID law, but those laws would be nullified if the Senate approves H.R. 1, which passed the House on a party-line vote. Critics say H.R. 1 “would force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are.”

Quote: Tanko

That puts you in the solid majority.

75% Support Voter ID Laws -Rasmussen

We will never see it.

"Thirty-six states have enacted some form of voter ID law, but those laws would be nullified if the Senate approves H.R. 1, which passed the House on a party-line vote. Critics say H.R. 1 “would force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are.”

I don't think I'm going to read the full text of the bill because I'm a Libertarian, not a Republican, so the only thing that really concerns me is that the Legislation should be considered a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Because it is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, it's difficult to discuss it on the merits...because it doesn't have any merit.

There's literally only one national vote by which multiple states are voting for the same office, and that's the Presidency, so if they wanted to turn POTUS into a totally separate ballot and then vote on what the requirements are to vote for POTUS, then I would not be opposed to that. While there's nothing in the Constitution (for the most part) that specifies how states are to handle POTUS voting, it makes logical sense that they should all do that the same way.

As far as voting laws are concerned for other offices, my opinion is that this Legislation would be completely out of line. All other votes only specifically have to do with the individual states and jurisdictions within those individual states.

As far as ID not being required, I think it should be, (especially for mail-in and absentee) but I'm not going to shed any tears if it's not.

Quote: Tanko

That puts you in the solid majority.

75% Support Voter ID Laws -Rasmussen

We will never see it.

"Thirty-six states have enacted some form of voter ID law, but those laws would be nullified if the Senate approves H.R. 1, which passed the House on a party-line vote. Critics say H.R. 1 “would force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are.”

If Republicans think they will be the winners once ID is in hard authentication why aren't they for free ID for everyone, if it's such a sure thing they're being cheated out of elections by illegals and dead people. They're lying or just stupid for not doing it.

Everyone knows if something is such a sure bet you go for it.

With more Republicans elected the free IDs would pay for themselves with lower taxes and then some.

It's money in the bank.

Guffaw here.

Quote: rxwine

If Republicans think they will be the winners once ID is in hard authentication why aren't they for free ID for everyone, if it's such a sure thing they're being cheated out of elections by illegals and dead people. They're lying or just stupid for not doing it.

Everyone knows if something is such a sure bet you go for it.

I'm going to say because the manufacture, production and dissemination of ID's costs money that would be coming directly from the Government (losses) if people weren't paying for them.

More like, if voter ID laws are in place, and ID's cost money...and Democrats believe that Voter ID is UNFAIR (rather than disproportionately impacts)...then why would Democrats not come together to create a fund by which the IDs could be paid for for economically disadvantaged people? Just because the Government isn't paying directly for it doesn't mean Democrats can't if they want to.

That's another thing that comes to mind when Democrats talk about difficulty getting to polling places. Don't get me wrong, I agree that some jurisdictions make it unduly difficult by having very few polling places and/or ones that are not easily accessed by existing public transportation. That said, do Democrats not have cars or any money to rent a van? Like, just get a group together whose act of charity is to take people to the polling places who have trouble getting there.

Quote: Mission146

I'm going to say because the manufacture, production and dissemination of ID's costs money that would be coming directly from the Government (losses) if people weren't paying for them.

See, though the IDs probably wouldn't cost that much once mass produced, and the Republicans by winning more elections could cut democratic waste and make up for it. At least that would be their operational motive.

Quote: odiousgambit

Furthermore we are being told now with a couple of new books that you are a racist if you say you are not a racist ... you must be an anti-racist or forget it. There is no such things as just 'not a racist'

I think you have to have some scalps to show for it too, or your claim that you are indeed anti-racist may be challenged

I'm debating whether to list those books, or maybe it should be Kafka's book

With all due respect, I think you're giving these purported intellectuals more space in your thoughts than they have earned.

The concept of, "Anti-Racism," is clearly a very politically-motivated one. In my opinion, the modus operandi is pretty simple and can be summarized in a few quotes from Ibram X. Kendi:

From:

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-anti-racism-how-to-be-anti-racist-2020-6

Quote:

Racism views a racial group as culturally or socially inferior. An anti-racist, per Kendi's book, is "one who is expressing the idea that racial groups are equals and none needs developing, and is supporting policy that reduces racial inequality."

And:

Quote:

"We adopt anti-racist ideas that say the problem is power and policy when there is inequity, not people." That is, it is the system, not a racial group, that needs to be changed. "And then we spend our time, we spend our funds, we spend our energy challenging racist policy and power."

I'm going to read between the lines a little bit here:

When you look at the first sentence in the first quote, "Racism views a racial group as culturally or socially inferior," then we see a clear and readily agreed upon definition of racism. If that definition doesn't apply to you, then you are not a racist. However, it is apparently being argued that one cannot simply be, "Not a racist," and everyone is either a racist or an anti-racist...because if you're not an anti-racist you must be a racist.

That goes against the definition of racism, of course, because racism exists in acts and in ways of thinking.

That brings us to the remainder of that quote as well as the substance of the next quote, which is all about, "Power and policy." The notion that, 'Racist,' power and policy needs to be opposed is the heart of the anti-racist movement.

By what means is a policy racist? Once again, we have been given the idea that nothing can exist in a racially neutral way: Everything is either racist or anti-racist. As a result, when analyzing whether or not a policy is racist or anti-racist, we must look at the policy exclusively through the lens of racial impact.

What does that lead to?

The idea that it leads to is that any policy that can be argued to be disproportionately beneficial to those with power (by which they essentially mean white men) or disproportionately harmful to any other race is, therefore, a racist policy. Of course, it's irrelevant to what possible degree these arguments are actually valid, or whether or not that is even a motive for the policy, it just matters that the argument can be made.

Therefore, if you support the side of this policy that those who are making the allegation of, "Racist policy," don't like, you are therefore supporting a, 'Racist policy,' and are therefore a racist. That's true even if you're supporting the policy because you agree with it for other reasons or don't see how it inherently has anything to do with race at all---which gets back to the first part---everything is either racist or anti-racist and, because of that, everything must relate in some way to race.

I always thought it was racist to assume that everything relates back to race in one way or another, but that shows how much I know.

The flip side of the coin is that any policy that is not in place but is purportedly designed to make things, "More equal," must automatically be supported because all such policy strikes at, "The power." Once again, these concepts are not to be separated from race in any way whatsoever for an examination on the merits, but must instead be looked at entirely through the lens of racial equality---even if the connection is tangential, at best.

What sorts of policies make things, "More equal?"

The usual. Universal Basic Income, $15 minimum wage, free childcare for all, free college tuition, Universal Healthcare...etc.

These things strike at, "The power," and they all make the playing field more equal. A question such as, "How the hell would we pay for all of that," can not and should not be asked because that is a racist question. Any question that opposes the policy is a racist one. The ability to fund these sorts of things when we are already operating at a deficit and have a huge national debt is irrelevant and those who are concerned about such things are only concerned with supporting and preserving the, "Power structure or hierarchy."

So, that's basically what the entire thing comes down to. You take a bunch of young, mostly stupid and impressionable people and then do the following:

1.) Recognize that nobody wants to be considered, "A racist."

2.) Convince them that they are themselves racists to one extent or another AND that those advantages that they do have (for the white ones) are only a product of our racist past. Don't believe me?:

Quote:

“You can be someone who has no intention to be racist,” who believes in and fights for equality, “but because you’re conditioned in a world that is racist and a country that is structured in anti-black racism, you yourself can perpetuate those ideas,” says Kendi. No matter what color you are.

In other words, you might not intend to be a racist, hell, you might even fight for racial equality from time-to-time...but this country is itself racist and what you are living is the result of racism, therefore, you're almost certainly a racist too.

3.) Provide them with hope and the possibility for some degree of atonement by introducing them to the concept of, "Anti-racism," and convincing them that they can use anti-racism as a tool to better themselves.

4.) Make them understand that every single thing in the entire country, from a socio-economic and policy standpoint, MUST relate back to race in one way or another.

5.) As a result of #1-#4, these people will move into life and blindly support all Far Left ideals without question. They will also give these political causes money and time.

Well, why should I even try to make the point? I'll just let him say it for me:

https://theundefeated.com/features/ibram-kendi-leading-scholar-of-racism-says-education-and-love-are-not-the-answer/

Quote:

“We have been taught that ignorance and hate lead to racist ideas, lead to racist policies,” Kendi said. “If the fundamental problem is ignorance and hate, then your solutions are going to be focused on education, and love and persuasion. But of course [Stamped from the Beginning] shows that the actual foundation of racism is not ignorance and hate, but self-interest, particularly economic and political and cultural.” Self-interest drives racist policies that benefit that self-interest. When the policies are challenged because they produce inequalities, racist ideas spring up to justify those policies. Hate flows freely from there.

So, there you go. In other words, you have to look at everything through the lens of whether it is racist or anti-racist. If you're not on the anti-racist side of the policy, then all possible justifications for the policy that you come up with are racist justifications, and therefore, you are a racist.

Let's just conveniently ignore the fact that people vote/support or do not vote/support policies because they think that the policy itself is a good idea or a bad one. Irrelevant and untrue. It obviously ALL comes back to racism.

Also, is it automatically racist that someone should vote according to self-interest? That's a pretty low bar. I tend to think a majority of people vote according to what they think is in their best interest without even giving race a thought. But, again, you can't NOT give race a thought because there is no way to simply, "Not be racist," you're either racist or anti-racist, so race must be your ONLY thought.

Which, again, is racist as hell...but whatever. How does it make me anti-racist to specifically think about race before all else as opposed to just looking at a proposed policy on its own merits and deciding whether or not it's any good?

Here's another:

Quote:

Anti-racist ideas hold that racial groups are equal. That the only thing inferior about black people is their opportunities. “The only thing wrong with black people is that we think there is something wrong with black people,” a line that Kendi uses like a mantra.

Who thinks that there is something wrong with black people?

Well, in order to be anti-racist, you must think that you think there is something wrong with black people, even if you don't think there is anything wrong with black people. After all, part of being anti-racist is picking out those times that you are racist or benefit from racism, which anti-racism itself posits as unavoidable (because you exist) and then examining that racism and focusing on how to eliminate those thoughts.

So, again, in order to be anti-racist you must first recognize that you are a racist because there is no way not to be a racist other than to be anti-racist which first requires admitting that, to some extent, you are a racist.

Conclusion

And, where have we seen this MO before?

Well, let's think about this.

STEP ONE: Identify something that is bad and that a person does not want to be.

STEP TWO: Convince the person that they are born into sin whether or not they believe that they are a sinner.

STEP THREE: Provide them with hope that they can stop being a sinner, and wicked, and can avoid eternal damnation if they subscribe to a belief in God and repent of all of their sins---then go forth and sin no more.

STEP FOUR: Make them understand that everything in the entire Universe, by one means or another, has to relate back to God in some way.

STEP FIVE: As a result of Steps 1-4, the person will act, behave, think and vote in a way that comports to the desires of the church. They will also give the church money and time.

It's kind of funny that the Far Left yanked its MO from organized religion, which itself is a VERY racist institution, but hell...whatever method works, I guess.

wrong thread

Spectacular, outstanding, magnificent, those words just fail to fully express how thoroughly impressive dementia joe bidumb was at his press conference today. Wow, is was just amazing to see him answer so many difficult questions from so many hostile members of the press with such razor sharp intelligent answers, displaying such a complete and intimate understanding of a wide variety of subjects.

My goodness, and to think that I had doubts about dementia joe bidumb’s mental acuity.