President Joe Biden

Grace T. said:
Welfare reform. Specifically while it cut down on fraud it made it harder for people to get off by raising the opportunity cost of doing work.
Click to expand...
So you think he should have vetoed the republican congress welfare reform bill a third time? I think he took what he could get esp. with an election coming up. He was always a politician first, convictions second.
 
NorCalDad said:
Like I said, I have empathy for the MAGA/Qanon folks, but probably not for the reasons one might expect. I have zero empathy for them protesting based on the false narrative around fraudulent election results. That's something Trump leveraged to get them riled up
Click to expand...

People on both sides have a bit narrow perspective on the Trump elections. Different things can be true at the same time:

1. There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting.
2. There's plenty of statistical evidence that shows the mail in ballot rejection rate (votes which are overwhelming D) was less than other elections. In some places, such as Georgia, it wasn't possible to conduct an analysis as to why because the ballots and signatures were separated. There's also some eye of the beholder type stuff going on here because no signature can ever be 100% objectively verified so it's possible biased observers were lenient on signature verification if the vote was against Trump. Pennsylvania had no such signature verification so anything went, which is why the objectors focused on Pennsylvania.
3. But again, there is always election fraud. It's not enough to show fraud, or a statistical variance. You can't just show smoke, you must show fire. You have to show that the fraud was of such magnitude that it would have made a difference. In the short span of things Trump was not able to show that, and its very likely he'll never be able to show that. The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. The courts also rejected some claims on the basis of standing, timeliness and some courts never got to rule before certification.
4. An election legally needs to be free. There's no evidence of any mass conspiracy by the Ds or the Biden campaign. There's been no proof shown of fraud on the magnitudes needed for a court to overturn. The Rs who objected said they wanted a commission to examine whether such fraud happen. The Ds argued that's what the courts are for.
5. Elections, however, should also be fair. Here the Trumpists have more of a point. It's been shown that the press was not objective in this at all. The pollster and tech companies have also been biased. Many of the voting rules, such as in Pennsylvania, were changed before on the grounds of pandemic and there are arguments surrounding the legality of such moves. Prior to this, the Ds impeached Trump (for reasons the Rs thought were unfounded) and then there was the entire Russiagate thing. The moderators at the debates were biased. People may dispute how many of these points are legitimate, but the Trumpists have more of a ground to complain the election wasn't "fair" v. "free".
6. The pandemic. The Trumpists argue, and there's reason to believe, that but for the pandemic Trump probably wouldn't have won. Yeah, we can say boo hoo so what growup, but how many of us have been at that game where an unfortunate unforeseen event turns the tide and how did we feel? And then there's all the concerns about lockdowns, businesses, masks, and the loss of liberties that go along with it.

None of this justifies what happened. Yes, Trump being a politician, leveraged and used them. What he did was ugly and offensive. But it's also not fair to say there were absolutely no problems with this election and the way they were conducted and the Trumpkins have nothing to be upset about.
 
whatithink said:
So you think he should have vetoed the republican congress welfare reform bill a third time? I think he took what he could get esp. with an election coming up. He was always a politician first, convictions second.
Click to expand...

If he really believed against it, yes...veto, take your licks in the election. Otherwise, you are responsible. Weren't people just complaining Trump is a politician exploiting the feelings of the Trumpists????

p.s. I'm tired of people making excuses for politicians just because they are on the same team...looking at you Gov. Newsom.
 
Grace T. said:
People on both sides have a bit narrow perspective on the Trump elections. Different things can be true at the same time:

1. There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting.
2. There's plenty of statistical evidence that shows the mail in ballot rejection rate (votes which are overwhelming D) was less than other elections. In some places, such as Georgia, it wasn't possible to conduct an analysis as to why because the ballots and signatures were separated. There's also some eye of the beholder type stuff going on here because no signature can ever be 100% objectively verified so it's possible biased observers were lenient on signature verification if the vote was against Trump. Pennsylvania had no such signature verification so anything went, which is why the objectors focused on Pennsylvania.
3. But again, there is always election fraud. It's not enough to show fraud, or a statistical variance. You can't just show smoke, you must show fire. You have to show that the fraud was of such magnitude that it would have made a difference. In the short span of things Trump was not able to show that, and its very likely he'll never be able to show that. The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. The courts also rejected some claims on the basis of standing, timeliness and some courts never got to rule before certification.
4. An election legally needs to be free. There's no evidence of any mass conspiracy by the Ds or the Biden campaign. There's been no proof shown of fraud on the magnitudes needed for a court to overturn. The Rs who objected said they wanted a commission to examine whether such fraud happen. The Ds argued that's what the courts are for.
5. Elections, however, should also be fair. Here the Trumpists have more of a point. It's been shown that the press was not objective in this at all. The pollster and tech companies have also been biased. Many of the voting rules, such as in Pennsylvania, were changed before on the grounds of pandemic and there are arguments surrounding the legality of such moves. Prior to this, the Ds impeached Trump (for reasons the Rs thought were unfounded) and then there was the entire Russiagate thing. The moderators at the debates were biased. People may dispute how many of these points are legitimate, but the Trumpists have more of a ground to complain the election wasn't "fair" v. "free".
6. The pandemic. The Trumpists argue, and there's reason to believe, that but for the pandemic Trump probably wouldn't have won. Yeah, we can say boo hoo so what growup, but how many of us have been at that game where an unfortunate unforeseen event turns the tide and how did we feel? And then there's all the concerns about lockdowns, businesses, masks, and the loss of liberties that go along with it.

None of this justifies what happened. Yes, Trump being a politician, leveraged and used them. What he did was ugly and offensive. But it's also not fair to say there were absolutely no problems with this election and the way they were conducted and the Trumpkins have nothing to be upset about.
Click to expand...

There's a lot to digest here.

Can you help me reason about these two conflicting statements:

"There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting."

and

"The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. "

How can you make a statement with such certitude and then later suggest there was no proof? Or are you just stating this because this what they believe and that you actually believe differently?

The rest of what you wrote doesn't resonate with me at all. The handling of the pandemic was not the equivalent of "missing a pass". It quite literally was the biggest moment in his term.

None of this changes anything in my mind. A lot of these just sound like Trump sound bites with no teeth.
 
Grace T. said:
People on both sides have a bit narrow perspective on the Trump elections. Different things can be true at the same time:

1. There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting.
2. There's plenty of statistical evidence that shows the mail in ballot rejection rate (votes which are overwhelming D) was less than other elections. In some places, such as Georgia, it wasn't possible to conduct an analysis as to why because the ballots and signatures were separated. There's also some eye of the beholder type stuff going on here because no signature can ever be 100% objectively verified so it's possible biased observers were lenient on signature verification if the vote was against Trump. Pennsylvania had no such signature verification so anything went, which is why the objectors focused on Pennsylvania.
3. But again, there is always election fraud. It's not enough to show fraud, or a statistical variance. You can't just show smoke, you must show fire. You have to show that the fraud was of such magnitude that it would have made a difference. In the short span of things Trump was not able to show that, and its very likely he'll never be able to show that. The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. The courts also rejected some claims on the basis of standing, timeliness and some courts never got to rule before certification.
4. An election legally needs to be free. There's no evidence of any mass conspiracy by the Ds or the Biden campaign. There's been no proof shown of fraud on the magnitudes needed for a court to overturn. The Rs who objected said they wanted a commission to examine whether such fraud happen. The Ds argued that's what the courts are for.
5. Elections, however, should also be fair. Here the Trumpists have more of a point. It's been shown that the press was not objective in this at all. The pollster and tech companies have also been biased. Many of the voting rules, such as in Pennsylvania, were changed before on the grounds of pandemic and there are arguments surrounding the legality of such moves. Prior to this, the Ds impeached Trump (for reasons the Rs thought were unfounded) and then there was the entire Russiagate thing. The moderators at the debates were biased. People may dispute how many of these points are legitimate, but the Trumpists have more of a ground to complain the election wasn't "fair" v. "free".
6. The pandemic. The Trumpists argue, and there's reason to believe, that but for the pandemic Trump probably wouldn't have won. Yeah, we can say boo hoo so what growup, but how many of us have been at that game where an unfortunate unforeseen event turns the tide and how did we feel? And then there's all the concerns about lockdowns, businesses, masks, and the loss of liberties that go along with it.

None of this justifies what happened. Yes, Trump being a politician, leveraged and used them. What he did was ugly and offensive. But it's also not fair to say there were absolutely no problems with this election and the way they were conducted and the Trumpkins have nothing to be upset about.
Click to expand...

I didn’t know Karens could be passive aggressive. “Yes, there was election fraud, our great master who can’t make it to the toilet in time proved it, but woe is us we just need to accept it.”

The only problem with this election were the magats who tried to subvert it. Funny, but not surprising, how Grace-Karen fails to mention that.

Someone really needs to tell her that her fellow conspiracy theorist and wannabe legal eagles Sid “the Squid, er, Kraken” Powell and Lin Wood have both been completely discredited and are now about 0 for one million in court. And don’t get me started on how her favorite lawyer Linny Poo got banned for life on Twitter, which is pretty hard to do, and I should know. I’ve only managed to get suspended myself.
 
espola said:
If I, an average citizen, were to encourage someone to break into my neighbor's house, and when the neighbor resisted, he was killed, I would be at least an accessory before the fact to murder, if not a murderer as well.
Click to expand...

Please show me where Trump said specifically to his people they should storm and occupy the Capitol.

If anything, under your theory, some Capitol police have more of a problem....


https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347596278583197698
 
Grace T. said:
People on both sides have a bit narrow perspective on the Trump elections. Different things can be true at the same time:

1. There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting.
2. There's plenty of statistical evidence that shows the mail in ballot rejection rate (votes which are overwhelming D) was less than other elections. In some places, such as Georgia, it wasn't possible to conduct an analysis as to why because the ballots and signatures were separated. There's also some eye of the beholder type stuff going on here because no signature can ever be 100% objectively verified so it's possible biased observers were lenient on signature verification if the vote was against Trump. Pennsylvania had no such signature verification so anything went, which is why the objectors focused on Pennsylvania.
3. But again, there is always election fraud. It's not enough to show fraud, or a statistical variance. You can't just show smoke, you must show fire. You have to show that the fraud was of such magnitude that it would have made a difference. In the short span of things Trump was not able to show that, and its very likely he'll never be able to show that. The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. The courts also rejected some claims on the basis of standing, timeliness and some courts never got to rule before certification.
4. An election legally needs to be free. There's no evidence of any mass conspiracy by the Ds or the Biden campaign. There's been no proof shown of fraud on the magnitudes needed for a court to overturn. The Rs who objected said they wanted a commission to examine whether such fraud happen. The Ds argued that's what the courts are for.
5. Elections, however, should also be fair. Here the Trumpists have more of a point. It's been shown that the press was not objective in this at all. The pollster and tech companies have also been biased. Many of the voting rules, such as in Pennsylvania, were changed before on the grounds of pandemic and there are arguments surrounding the legality of such moves. Prior to this, the Ds impeached Trump (for reasons the Rs thought were unfounded) and then there was the entire Russiagate thing. The moderators at the debates were biased. People may dispute how many of these points are legitimate, but the Trumpists have more of a ground to complain the election wasn't "fair" v. "free".
6. The pandemic. The Trumpists argue, and there's reason to believe, that but for the pandemic Trump probably wouldn't have won. Yeah, we can say boo hoo so what growup, but how many of us have been at that game where an unfortunate unforeseen event turns the tide and how did we feel? And then there's all the concerns about lockdowns, businesses, masks, and the loss of liberties that go along with it.

None of this justifies what happened. Yes, Trump being a politician, leveraged and used them. What he did was ugly and offensive. But it's also not fair to say there were absolutely no problems with this election and the way they were conducted and the Trumpkins have nothing to be upset about.
Click to expand...
The Dems keep making voting easier. And by that I mean easier to do it illegally.

We really should have OR get rid of the following.

- We need voter ID. There is no good basis not to make that a requirement. We have to have an ID for so many basic things in life, voting should be one of them
- Mail in voting is extremely susceptible to fraud. There is no good chain of custody/verification. After the 2000 election there was a commission with Carter and other prominent Ds and Rs. One of they biggest concerns was vote by mail. Mail in voting should really be limited to those people who for whatever reason CANNOT make it in to vote in person.
- We shouldn't allow ballot harvesting. With power/money at stake, there is a very large incentive to manipulate how this is done.
- We need to on a regular basis purge our voter rolls. Eliminate dead people, people who have moved, etc.
- We can't have as was done in some states have drop boxes where people can just come by and drop votes. Basically who know what goes on at these temporary sites.
- Early voting should be limited. We shouldn't allow voting to happen a month or so in advance. So many things can and do happen politically that it makes sense for voting to take place much closer to the actual date.
- We should absolutely NOT allow the press to make predictions, talk about results until ALL the voting areas in the US are closed. It has the affect of potentially suppressing people from voting if they think their national candidate has lost. The could affect the national vote BUT also affect the vote as it relates to local races and propositions.

There are some other ones that should be done.
 
NorCalDad said:
Thanks for posting this. I won't try to convince you otherwise, but I think this explains why our viewpoints are different here. I think systemic racism is alive and well in our country.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree there is systemic racism in the system. I also don't disagree that biased laws that favor certain groups over others is a real problem that we should work toward fixing.

Where I get lost however, is when I start hearing 'burn the village down to save the village' type solutions. With regard to BLM or the Trumpies. This type of extremist positioning when it comes to finding solutions will lead us to no where good.
 
NorCalDad said:
There's a lot to digest here.

Can you help me reason about these two conflicting statements:

"There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting."

and

"The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. "

How can you make a statement with such certitude and then later suggest there was no proof? Or are you just stating this because this what they believe and that you actually believe differently?

The rest of what you wrote doesn't resonate with me at all. The handling of the pandemic was not the equivalent of "missing a pass". It quite literally was the biggest moment in his term.

None of this changes anything in my mind. A lot of these just sound like Trump sound bites with no teeth.
Click to expand...

To overturn an election result it's not legally enough to show there was fraud. You have to show that but for the fraud you would have won (and in many cases the remedy on the state level would be to have a new election). You have to prove that the fraud was of sufficient margins that it actually made a material difference.

It's a 2 part test. He had evidence of the first, he couldn't prove the second. If you, a sophisticated soccerite on your computer, can't grasp that distinction very easily (not at insult...just a reality for people who haven't been trained in legal thinking), how much less the Trumpist.
 
tenacious said:
I don't disagree there is systemic racism in the system. I also don't disagree that biased laws that favor certain groups over others is a real problem that we should work toward fixing.

Where I get lost however, is when I start hearing 'burn the village down to save the village' type solutions. With regard to BLM or the Trumpies. This type of extremist positioning when it comes to finding solutions will lead us to no where good.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know you are lost.
 
Desert Hound said:
The Dems keep making voting easier. And by that I mean easier to do it illegally.

We really should have OR get rid of the following.

- We need voter ID. There is no good basis not to make that a requirement. We have to have an ID for so many basic things in life, voting should be one of them
- Mail in voting is extremely susceptible to fraud. There is no good chain of custody/verification. After the 2000 election there was a commission with Carter and other prominent Ds and Rs. One of they biggest concerns was vote by mail. Mail in voting should really be limited to those people who for whatever reason CANNOT make it in to vote in person.
- We shouldn't allow ballot harvesting. With power/money at stake, there is a very large incentive to manipulate how this is done.
- We need to on a regular basis purge our voter rolls. Eliminate dead people, people who have moved, etc.
- We can't have as was done in some states have drop boxes where people can just come by and drop votes. Basically who know what goes on at these temporary sites.
- Early voting should be limited. We shouldn't allow voting to happen a month or so in advance. So many things can and do happen politically that it makes sense for voting to take place much closer to the actual date.
- We should absolutely NOT allow the press to make predictions, talk about results until ALL the voting areas in the US are closed. It has the affect of potentially suppressing people from voting if they think their national candidate has lost. The could affect the national vote BUT also affect the vote as it relates to local races and propositions.

There are some other ones that should be done.
Click to expand...

Some general good points. Of course the concern on the other side is that the most vulnerable (immigrants, ESL, homeless, elderly) would be disenfranchised and not everyone has a license. Ultimately, though, the Ds won't allow it because it's about political power and that's one of the reasons even if the election was free, the Trumpkins think they have a point about it being fair.

Your last point would probably violate the first amendment.
 
tenacious said:
Where I get lost however, is when I start hearing 'burn the village down to save the village' type solutions. With regard to BLM or the Trumpies. This type of extremist positioning when it comes to finding solutions will lead us to no where good.
Click to expand...

Yeah don't disagree with that. To be fair a vast majority of the BLM protests across the nation were peaceful without issue. I do wonder if the increased police attention in certain areas escalated some of these situations. It's difficult for me to understand fully what it feels like to be fearful for my life every time I see a police officer.

To be clear, I support our police. I have friends on SWAT teams, etc. What I also support, is more training to better handle some of these situations.
 
Desert Hound said:
We should absolutely NOT allow the press to make predictions, talk about results until ALL the voting areas in the US are closed. It has the affect of potentially suppressing people from voting if they think their national candidate has lost. The could affect the national vote BUT also affect the vote as it relates to local races and propositions.
Click to expand...
By this I mean during the DAY of the election as they may influence turnout in some areas/states.

They can predict all they want leading up to election day, etc.
 
Grace T. said:
Some general good points. Of course the concern on the other side is that the most vulnerable (immigrants, ESL, homeless, elderly) would be disenfranchised and not everyone has a license. Ultimately, though, the Ds won't allow it because it's about political power and that's one of the reasons even if the election was free, the Trumpkins think they have a point about it being fair.

Your last point would probably violate the first amendment.
Click to expand...
I just posted an update to what I meant regarding the press.
 
Grace T. said:
Of course the concern on the other side is that the most vulnerable (immigrants, ESL, homeless, elderly) would be disenfranchised and not everyone has a license.
Click to expand...
Pretty much everyone has to have an ID. Be it to sign up for gov benefits, cash checks, etc.

However the states could set up a system for those who for whatever reason cannot afford an ID. Just issue them one. That seems like an easier solution vs saying well since an extremely small percentage of people don't have an ID...well I guess nobody needs to show one.
 
NorCalDad said:
Yeah don't disagree with that. To be fair a vast majority of the BLM protests across the nation were peaceful without issue. I do wonder if the increased police attention in certain areas escalated some of these situations. It's difficult for me to understand fully what it feels like to be fearful for my life every time I see a police officer.

To be clear, I support our police. I have friends on SWAT teams, etc. What I also support, is more training to better handle some of these situations.
Click to expand...

Well... if you see the rising crime stats in the nations inner cities that came with cut backs in policing... apparently not having enough cops around is what should be scaring people more bad cops.

I understand the struggles are very real. But good intentions aren't enough. I'm all for this 'war on racisim' mind you. I just want to make sure we do it in a way that we can win.
 
Grace T. said:
If he really believed against it, yes...veto, take your licks in the election. Otherwise, you are responsible. Weren't people just complaining Trump is a politician exploiting the feelings of the Trumpists????

p.s. I'm tired of people making excuses for politicians just because they are on the same team...looking at you Gov. Newsom.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending Clinton, but its very selective to exclusively blame Clinton for something written by and passed by Republicans. Politicians in the US do not "take their licks in the election" on either side of the aisle.

The Daily Show interviewed the ex-head of government (not sure on the title, like Governor) of Queensland in Australia, about the gun control law passed in the 90s after the mass shooting there. They asked him if he knew it was political suicide to support it and push it through. He said that he did know that at the time. He said he knew his political career was over once he supported it, but that it was the right thing to do, so he did. He was gone next election. I can't think of a single US politician that would do this (on any policy issue, not guns specifically).

Neither Ds or Rs have a monopoly on good ideas.
 
Grace T. said:
To overturn an election result it's not legally enough to show there was fraud. You have to show that but for the fraud you would have won (and in many cases the remedy on the state level would be to have a new election). You have to prove that the fraud was of sufficient margins that it actually made a material difference.

It's a 2 part test. He had evidence of the first, he couldn't prove the second. If you, a sophisticated soccerite on your computer, can't grasp that distinction very easily (not at insult...just a reality for people who haven't been trained in legal thinking), how much less the Trumpist.
Click to expand...

So much evidence. It’s the best evidence. People are saying they’ve never seen such great evidence. Beautiful people like Sid the Squid and Linny Poopoo, and this expert Rams-whoever the f**k who claims that 700% of make believe registered voters in a non-existent county in MI voted for Biden.

Hey Karen, if you have proof, prove it. If you only have bs like your 0-60 wannabe lawyer friends, well that’s not proof of s**t. It’s no wonder you don’t actually practice law, but never fret, you’ve got about two weeks still for Trump to retain you (and then stiff you in the bill), so he can use you to commit a crime like his last lawyer who just withdrew yesterday.

By tomorrow, the cabinet, his entire staff, even Lady G and Moscow Mitch will all have bailed. The only sycophants left to worship the obnoxious orange orangutan man will be Karen here and her former debate partner Ted “”Yes Sir, Thank You Sir My Wife Is Definitely a Disgusting Hag” Cruz. Small world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top