The Biden Presidency 2021

Quote: Mission146

What? Do you think that either of the two sides would take a concept and actually uphold it as a principle rather than something to be followed only when it is convenient for them?

Again, this is where neither side is willing to compromise. Voter ID is a perfectly valid thing to want to have put in place and, if you're to have mail-in voting, then I would also find it perfectly acceptable that someone include a copy of the ID with the ballot if they wish to vote that way. License number and birthday aside, there's really nothing on the ID that anyone couldn't find out pretty easily anyway by, I don't know, just looking in a person's mailbox and looking at them physically (hair color, eye color, height). You could even make it so that they could black out the birthday and license number on the copy they are mailing with the ballot.



I tend to agree with you on this point, which is precisely why there shouldn't be much of an issue with the Democrats conceding Voter ID (and mail-in ballots having a copy of the ID enclosed with the ballot) on this one. If it's not enough that any result would ever realistically be changed, then you just make the elections more secure and shut them up about it.



"Not my President," is a clear message of unification and solidarity that clearly shows that they accepted the Election. Hell, so many Democrats were talking about Impeachment before Trump was even sworn into office that it becomes clear that they did not accept the election. They just figured they'd have the opportunity to get him out via Impeachment/Removal, despite the fact that the Removal part never had a chance.



Meh. I have accepted that many on the Left simply do not live in the same world that I do, so why shouldn't it also be true of people on the Right?

(Response to EvenBob omitted from quote as irrelevant to me. I have also never spoken of a pee tape...and I would imagine that if such a tape actually existed it would have been released (haha, get it?) by now, what could someone possibly be waiting for, at this point?)

I don't have an inherent problem with voter ID, I think its just an overreaction to fix a nonexistent problem. I do think a mandatory federal ID would be good (many Americans do not carry passports), and that could be used to vote among other things. Again, my problem is that it is just used as deflection to a relatively nonexistent issue. I moved to a state that has voter ID, and I have only voted by mail twice (during COVID 2020, and the subsequent runoff from the 2020 election, this last election cycle today I had nothing on the ballot), so I have no issue scanning my ID. It is slower for sure, in other states you literally just walk in and say your name, and sign some line and then vote, its virtually instant, but its not a massive annoyance. My main issue is its a fix to something that is not an issue in my mind. There are real security needs to get more Americans ID (especially federally), but voting is not a valid reason to get worked up about it.

As for mail in ballot ID scans, my opinion is the same. In prior threads we have referenced that a controlling spouse or child or whatever could take control of their perhaps not mentally sound or abused family member's ballot and mail it in by forging their signature (or forcing them to sign). While I am sure this happens, if you have that level of control over your family, you probably also have zero issue accessing their ID to scan (you probably already have a scan of it you can print), so I fail to see how this will prevent anything. Its just another step that will not solve the problem it is intending to solve and not do anything to stop people who actually have the means to abuse their family member's ballot. Havin an third party witness observe and sign the filling out of every mail in ballot is the only solution that would actually fix this, but this is not realistic (and would probably be privacy violation).

Most people did not say "Not my President", its not even close (also not the same). I think you know this. Look at the polls of Republicans who have accepted the results of Biden being the legitimate winner (less than 25%). This is echoed by right leaning media. Its not a fringe opinion on the right, its the norm. In fact Republicans who go against this are being exiled from the party. I think you know this, but are trying to be balanced. The reality is there is no equivalence.

Also, storming the capitol is a major issue. I am not BLM or antifa fan (in fact I despise them), but before you draw a parallel, there is none (other than in a vague mob violence way), storming the capitol was the closest we had to a coup in American history (with even Pence being threatened for certifying the results).

As for being impeached after the storming of the capitol Trump 100% deserved it. The first impeachment is more nuanced and I have mixed feelings. But, the second impeachment there is zero doubt that he deserved it, I don't care if he was on the way out. And, yes neither resulted in a conviction (none ever has for President), its virtually impossible, get 2/3 of the Senate on anything is not practical, especially relating to Presidential Impeachment
There have been some federal judges convicted in history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#List_of_formal_impeachments

In any case remember Obama how a certain person who would later become President led a movement after he won to say he was not born in America? Which was purely racially motivated.... So this did not start with Trump or Biden (well it kind of started with Trump as a person), this is a game Trump has been playing anytime that he does not get his way. Either the candidate is not valid or the election was rigged. It really is a trend with him and his fans. Its pretty good because there is no way to lose. And, its not equitable to the other side. Even after Bush won a very disputed election (with legitimate questions), there was nothing like this from the left (and I actually like Bush), people accepted the results of the Court.

Quote: Mission146

I don't know what gives you the impression that I would be a fan of cancel culture or conversations being shut down. I wouldn't exactly call the chants a, "Conversation," though. Also, if you want to say, "F%$*&$^% Joe Biden," then just say, "F%$*&$^^% Joe Biden," except on the Forum, of course.

(clipped for brevity)

I clearly erred in the intended message
I don't think you are in favor of cancel culture, etc.
I was saying when all you get from the Dems when you present an opposite opinion is you're a racist,
at some point you just say #FJB to the folks across the aisle.
You can label that a childish/moronic debate strategy if you want.
People just sling mud in political debate these days,
Mainly because most don't have the mental horsepower to mount an intelligent defense of their "beliefs"
Most political conversation is of the Malcolm Nance variety, not the Ben Shapiro logical approach to positions.
I give you this Forum as example A.
I don't think Ben has it right on several items.
His pro-Life position from conception can be debunked using his own arguments against Universal Healthcare.
But most of the time, he has a very clear position that is well thought out and tough to argue against as Malcolm found out.
The Ana Kasparian/Shapiro debate recently was an example of what should happen more often, there are just so few capable of it.

Quote: Mission146

I don't even think the reporter was using, "Let's Go Brandon," as cover for the fact that Biden was being insulted; she was probably using it as cover for the censors not catching the word to mute it and trying to avoid getting fined by the FCC. I seriously doubt that the reporter was trying to cover to avoid the viewers getting insulted...say what you want about Liberals, but they do tend to be educated...and Nascar is statistically most likely to be some Middle-Aged (or older), white, male, non-college educated dumb@$$ Christian from somewhere in the Midwest or the South.

(clipped for brevity)

I think the reporter actually thought the crowd was saying Let's Go Brandon.
She didn't seem to be quick enough on her feet as a sideline reporter to have made up the phrase on the fly.
You don't typically put your A Team sports reporters on these post game interviews.
Just my opinion, but I think she just had Brandon on here mind and assumed that is what was being said.
She likely figured it out as he answered the next question, but she wasn't going to go back to that third rail.

Quote: Gandler

I don't have an inherent problem with voter ID, I think its just an overreaction to fix a nonexistent problem. I do think a mandatory federal ID would be good (many Americans do not carry passports), and that could be used to vote among other things. Again, my problem is that it is just used as deflection to a relatively nonexistent issue. I moved to a state that has voter ID, and I have only voted by mail twice (during COVID 2020, and the subsequent runoff from the 2020 election, this last election cycle today I had nothing on the ballot), so I have no issue scanning my ID. It is slower for sure, in other states you literally just walk in and say your name, and sign some line and then vote, its virtually instant, but its not a massive annoyance. My main issue is its a fix to something that is not an issue in my mind. There are real security needs to get more Americans ID (especially federally), but voting is not a valid reason to get worked up about it.

Perhaps not, but it at least would get the job done for folks who want to vote. As you mentioned, I don't think voter fraud is a pervasive thing, but there's no real reason not to fix what little fraud may actually exist and to have secure elections certainly seems like a defensible pursuit. It would also shut the GOP up and, aside from arguing about ballot-counting or the concept of mail-in voting existing to begin with, would also go some way to causing an inability to even perpetuate the myth of widespread election fraud. In short, there's no compelling reason not to do these things, assuming most things are on the up and up anyway.

Quote:

As for mail in ballot ID scans, my opinion is the same. In prior threads we have referenced that a controlling spouse or child or whatever could take control of their perhaps not mentally sound or abused family member's ballot and mail it in by forging their signature (or forcing them to sign). While I am sure this happens, if you have that level of control over your family, you probably also have zero issue accessing their ID to scan (you probably already have a scan of it you can print), so I fail to see how this will prevent anything. Its just another step that will not solve the problem it is intending to solve and not do anything to stop people who actually have the means to abuse their family member's ballot. Havin an third party witness observe and sign the filling out of every mail in ballot is the only solution that would actually fix this, but this is not realistic (and would probably be privacy violation).

For one thing, you would have to have an ID that has not expired. I don't think that you have done anything here other than made a better case against mail-in voting (for all) than most Conservatives do.

Quote:

Most people did not say "Not my President", its not even close (also not the same). I think you know this. Look at the polls of Republicans who have accepted the results of Biden being the legitimate winner (less than 25%). This is echoed by right leaning media. Its not a fringe opinion on the right, its the norm. In fact Republicans who go against this are being exiled from the party. I think you know this, but are trying to be balanced. The reality is there is no equivalence.

Well, most people wanted Trump to be impeached before he even set foot in the Oval Office. The intent to do that was there and you cannot tell me otherwise. They telegraphed the hell out of it. They'd have taken any infraction that even had a remote shot of being seen as enough.

Anyway, I do know that the Cult of Trump is strong and as much as these people would encourage, "Thinking for yourself," they are mostly incapable of doing that. They'll simply think whatever Trump tells them they should think.

Quote:

Also, storming the capitol is a major issue. I am not BLM or antifa fan (in fact I despise them), but before you draw a parallel, there is none (other than in a vague mob violence way), storming the capitol was the closest we had to a coup in American history (with even Pence being threatened for certifying the results).

I was consistent. When you had the Portland thing, I said go in and shoot them all for treason. Make an announcement that they had X amount of time to get out of their little whatever zone, and anyone who was still there at the time gets shot. I said the same thing about the Capitol Insurrection, or whatever you might want to call it. Announce that they have fifteen minutes to get out of there, and then when time has expired, go in and shoot whoever is in there that's not supposed to be there.

As far as the riots were concerned, I don't believe any of those crimes call for summary execution, but they definitely need to get in there and arrest some folks.

Quote:

As for being impeached after the storming of the capitol Trump 100% deserved it. The first impeachment is more nuanced and I have mixed feelings. But, the second impeachment there is zero doubt that he deserved it, I don't care if he was on the way out. And, yes neither resulted in a conviction (none ever has for President), its virtually impossible, get 2/3 of the Senate on anything is not practical, especially relating to Presidential Impeachment
There have been some federal judges convicted in history:

The first Impeachment was capricious and farcical. They should be embarrassed if, for no other reason, that they couldn't have found something better than that. They pretty much Impeached him for doing what I would pretty much assume all politicians do.

Nixon would have been removed. In fact, Nixon would not have resigned except for the fact that they basically went up to him and told him he was almost definitely going to be removed. The second Trump Impeachment may have been warranted, in legal theory, but in practicality was nothing more than pointless symbolism.

Quote:

In any case remember Obama how a certain person who would later become President led a movement after he won to say he was not born in America? Which was purely racially motivated.... So this did not start with Trump or Biden (well it kind of started with Trump as a person), this is a game Trump has been playing anytime that he does not get his way. Either the candidate is not valid or the election was rigged. It really is a trend with him and his fans. Its pretty good because there is no way to lose. And, its not equitable to the other side. Even after Bush won a very disputed election (with legitimate questions), there was nothing like this from the left (and I actually like Bush), people accepted the results of the Court.

I mean, you are required to be born an American citizen, so Trump is within his legal rights to challenge Obama's legitimacy on those grounds...even if the challenge is profoundly stupid. I'm not even sure, even if the birth certificate could not be found, how you would go about proving the opposite.

Quote: JCW09

I clearly erred in the intended message
I don't think you are in favor of cancel culture, etc.
I was saying when all you get from the Dems when you present an opposite opinion is you're a racist,
at some point you just say #FJB to the folks across the aisle.
You can label that a childish/moronic debate strategy if you want.
People just sling mud in political debate these days,
Mainly because most don't have the mental horsepower to mount an intelligent defense of their "beliefs"

I appreciate that you have acquiesced the error in phrasing.

I completely agree with you when it comes to the majority of the Far Left, and perhaps even some Democrats who I wouldn't necessarily consider as being on the Far Left. The one thing that the left does, 'Well,' even though that thing is terrible, is that they are great at controlling the narrative. It is beyond argument that they have most major media behind them and, given the age demographics, also tend to be more savvy and active on the technological medium.

Racism is extremely convenient for them because, with concepts such as, "Entitlement," and, "Critical Race Theory," they basically have created a circular argument. Don't believe that you're a racist? That's just your intrinsic racism talking. Don't believe that x thing or y thing is automatically racist? Intrinsic racism.

It's like, you take these moderately well-to-do Suburban yuppies with their Far Left ideologies that are economically indefensible...and I see the people they hang out with. Other moderately well-to-do white yuppies, mostly, but sometimes they will sneak a moderately well-to-do minority yuppie in there. They'd p^%* themselves to even walk into some of the bars where I hung out and bought rounds regularly, bars where the only other thing you'd find in there that's white is the contents of some of the liquor bottles...and I'm the one who has inherent racism? No, sorry, don't think so.

Those are the fun bars, anyway. Also, mostly black churches---totally awesome. That's probably the only way that you're going to get me into a church.

Of course, most of this garbage is just a bunch of white people making the whole racial divide thing about them and what they pretend to think. I guess that's the ironic part, right? We can have some things that happened in the history of this country that we acknowledge as being terrible and will never repeat again, but somehow, white people find a way to take even that away from the minorities.

Quote:

Most political conversation is of the Malcolm Nance variety, not the Ben Shapiro logical approach to positions.
I give you this Forum as example A.
I don't think Ben has it right on several items.
His pro-Life position from conception can be debunked using his own arguments against Universal Healthcare.
But most of the time, he has a very clear position that is well thought out and tough to argue against as Malcolm found out.
The Ana Kasparian/Shapiro debate recently was an example of what should happen more often, there are just so few capable of it.

Ben Shapiro's pro-life position immediately fails if he is faced with an opponent, such as myself, who won't answer in the affirmative when he asks if life has intrinsic value---it doesn't. That's before you even get into what qualifies, medically, as a human being compared to what qualifies only as a potential human being. More than that, the Constitution doesn't protect fetuses because one must be born in order to be a citizen in order to be afforded Constitutional protections.

And, then, the Universal Healthcare, as you mentioned. Basically, pro-life positions are all irrational (except as relates one's personal choice NOT to have an abortion) because there's not even an argument that the pro-life position can advance that has any intellectual or logical merit. It's mainly just appeal to emotion or an appeal to God that is totally irrelevant to some number of people.

I'm glad you watched Kasparian v. Shapiro, as well! I thought both were excellent, though it was really more of a conversation than a debate. I think it should have been one or two hours longer as it seemed to be mostly two heavyweight fighters circling each other, with the problem being that the fight was only scheduled to go two rounds and they hadn't even started trading punches by the time it ended.

That said, I wouldn't want a piece of either of them...except I kind of would because it would be fun. With sufficient prep time, while I would definitely lose, I might at least not get totally embarrassed.

Quote:

I think the reporter actually thought the crowd was saying Let's Go Brandon.
She didn't seem to be quick enough on her feet as a sideline reporter to have made up the phrase on the fly.
You don't typically put your A Team sports reporters on these post game interviews.
Just my opinion, but I think she just had Brandon on here mind and assumed that is what was being said.
She likely figured it out as he answered the next question, but she wasn't going to go back to that third rail.

That's a viable theory and I think our two theories, in some order, are the most plausible. I think that the least likely theory is that she was covering for what the crowd was saying for some reason other than the profanity.

Quote: Mission146

"Not my President," is a clear message of unification and solidarity that clearly shows that they accepted the Election. Hell, so many Democrats were talking about Impeachment before Trump was even sworn into office that it becomes clear that they did not accept the election. They just figured they'd have the opportunity to get him out via Impeachment/Removal, despite the fact that the Removal part never had a chance.

You can want a president out of office for 4 years straight without ever questioning the vote count. That's exactly how I felt about it. It's two different things.

Quote: Mission146

I agree with all of that, except I can't envision handling Coronavirus in a more incompetent way than Trump did. Trump had four years to get us out of Afghanistan, so I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or if this is some hypothetical competent leader.

I was speaking of the disappointments I have with Biden's performance as President; there are seven zillion posts about Trump here; he is no longer President.

He has not done well on the coronavirus issue as a leader, which I have written about at length. Instead of being someone who unites us, he has become a great divider. He does not understand the importance of a leader leading; leading is not just hollering in a microphone and calling people names. I didn't like that when Trump did it and, just because Biden does it in weird little whispers and loud outbursts instead of nastiness, it has the same effect...it turns people away.

Biden, Biden, Biden....he is the President. Let's talk about him and, for those who try to set the bar as Trump, how about setting it higher. Why? Simply because that is what this guy promised us.

Quote: ams288

It’s funny how Ron’s reasons for labeling him a failure are my reasons for labeling him a success.

We'll see how it turns out...

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Mission146

"Not my President," is a clear message of unification and solidarity that clearly shows that they accepted the Election. Hell, so many Democrats were talking about Impeachment before Trump was even sworn into office that it becomes clear that they did not accept the election. They just figured they'd have the opportunity to get him out via Impeachment/Removal, despite the fact that the Removal part never had a chance.

You can want a president out of office for 4 years straight without ever questioning the vote count. That's exactly how I felt about it. It's two different things.

Two different ways of using an illegitimate means to effectuate a result, but yeah, one is arguably worse than the other.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Mission146

"Not my President," is a clear message of unification and solidarity that clearly shows that they accepted the Election. Hell, so many Democrats were talking about Impeachment before Trump was even sworn into office that it becomes clear that they did not accept the election. They just figured they'd have the opportunity to get him out via Impeachment/Removal, despite the fact that the Removal part never had a chance.

You can want a president out of office for 4 years straight without ever questioning the vote count. That's exactly how I felt about it. It's two different things.

Two different ways of using an illegitimate means to effectuate a result, but yeah, one is arguably worse than the other.

What's your basis for saying impeachment is illegitimate. Did they recently remove it from the Constitution?

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Mission146

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Mission146

"Not my President," is a clear message of unification and solidarity that clearly shows that they accepted the Election. Hell, so many Democrats were talking about Impeachment before Trump was even sworn into office that it becomes clear that they did not accept the election. They just figured they'd have the opportunity to get him out via Impeachment/Removal, despite the fact that the Removal part never had a chance.

You can want a president out of office for 4 years straight without ever questioning the vote count. That's exactly how I felt about it. It's two different things.

Two different ways of using an illegitimate means to effectuate a result, but yeah, one is arguably worse than the other.

What's your basis for saying impeachment is illegitimate. Did they recently remove it from the Constitution?

You can impeach a ham sandwich (well, one that inhabits certain offices). All you need is enough votes. The charges only need to be made; not actually proven. The impeachments were political stunts and did not progress to conviction and removal because the Senate requirement for that is more than just a simple majority. It was dumb to have an impeachment as a pandemic was being discovered and it as even dumber to have one after the election. Of course, the leftists will disagree...