Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[KingVamp]

We are suppose to believe he got 80 million votes
https://twitter.com/drefanzor/status/1387839166524710915

So how much are you getting paid?

 

[tthousand]

So how much are you getting paid?

Apparently up to $1,400.

 

[Foxi4]

Imagine a corrupt country for a moment that has a corrupt ruling party and an opposition party, but despite the opposition party having majority support, they still cannot defeat the ruling party because the ruling party has made it so the cards are always in their favor. That's what is happening in the United States right now with the anti-democratic issues I've listed ad nauseum in this thread.

This is something that I forgot to respond to at the time, and feel like it is prudent to correct that. The Democratic party is not the opposition party, not just because they're currently in charge of the house, but also because they have the support of corporate America. I understood your point the first time around, the problem I have with it is that the scenario is in stark contrast with reality. The Democrats *used to* be the opposition party, they *used to* be on the defense, but that hasn't been the case for decades, at least since the Clinton years. Corporations that effectively control the flow of information on the Internet like Google and Amazon, since they do most of the hosting, are more than happy to deny said hosting to websites that go against the agenda.They are not siding with conservative values, none of them are parroting conservative talking points - they're siding with progressive causes. Social media sites like Twitter or Facebook are laser-focused on "correcting the record" when it comes to Republican lawmakers using their built-in fact-checking features, but they're not so keen on doing so in reference to the Democrats. Biden's speech yesterday was a perfect example - fact-checking it is a footnote, not a major news item like it used to be when Trump was president. All of these private entities are, in effect, running Democratic PR, and they're very open about it. It is very clear to me that corporate America is becoming increasingly left-leaning, which creates an identity crisis for the Democratic party. They're not "fighting the system" as their slogans state - "the system" is very much behind them. Portraying the Democrats as the opposition party in any sense comes across as silly - they've never been in a better position to pass their extreme agenda, and I'm glad that there exists a system that can prevent that from happening. Now I expect Republicans to do their duty and blockade as much of it as humanly possible, just as they were stonewalled by the Democrats when they were in charge. They need to put the Democratic party on a one-way track towards losing the house, and one of the ways they can do that is preventing them from achieving any of their legislative goals, even if it leads to bad optics.

 

[Lacius]

This is something that I forgot to respond to at the time, and feel like it is prudent to correct that. The Democratic party is not the opposition party, not just because they're currently in charge of the house, but also because they have the support of corporate America. I understood your point the first time around, the problem I have with it is that the scenario is in stark contrast with reality. The Democrats *used to* be the opposition party, they *used to* be on the defense, but that hasn't been the case for decades, at least since the Clinton years. Corporations that effectively control the flow of information on the Internet like Google and Amazon, since they do most of the hosting, are more than happy to deny said hosting to websites that go against the agenda.They are not siding with conservative values, none of them are parroting conservative talking points - they're siding with progressive causes. Social media sites like Twitter or Facebook are laser-focused on "correcting the record" when it comes to Republican lawmakers using their built-in fact-checking features, but they're not so keen on doing so in reference to the Democrats. Biden's speech yesterday was a perfect example - fact-checking it is a footnote, not a major news item like it used to be when Trump was president. All of these private entities are, in effect, running Democratic PR, and they're very open about it. It is very clear to me that corporate America is becoming increasingly left-leaning, which creates an identity crisis for the Democratic party. They're not "fighting the system" as their slogans state - "the system" is very much behind them. Portraying the Democrats as the opposition party in any sense comes across as silly - they've never been in a better position to pass their extreme agenda, and I'm glad that there exists a system that can prevent that from happening. Now I expect Republicans to do their duty and blockade as much of it as humanly possible, just as they were stonewalled by the Democrats when they were in charge. They need to put the Democratic party on a one-way track towards losing the house, and one of the ways they can do that is preventing them from achieving any of their legislative goals, even if it leads to bad optics.

There's no objective measure by which one can say the Democratic Party has an electoral advantage. The House is structurally gerrymandered in the Republicans' favor, the Senate is unrepresentative and structurally favors Republicans, the Electoral College structurally favors Republicans, and the Supreme Court is inherently linked to the aforementioned structural inequalities of the Senate and Electoral College.

Whether or not the Democratic Party is currently the opposition party right now (they're not) is irrelevant to the point I was making.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

We are suppose to believe he got 80 million votes
https://twitter.com/drefanzor/status/1387839166524710915

It's a good thing we pick our leaders by votes, not TV viewership.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm not arguing who signed them. I'm arguing who the money is from. Some people be thanking Trump and Biden like it came out of their own pockets.

We would not have gotten the $1,600 check if the Democratic Party hadn't won in 2020. The Republican Party was clear that $600 was enough. It's appropriate to thank them and Biden.

 

[Foxi4]

There's no objective measure by which one can say the Democratic Party has an electoral advantage. The House is structurally gerrymandered in the Republicans' favor, the Senate is unrepresentative and structurally favors Republicans, the Electoral College structurally favors Republicans, and the Supreme Court is inherently linked to the aforementioned structural inequalities of the Senate and Electoral College.

Whether or not the Democratic Party is currently the opposition party right now (they're not) is irrelevant to the point I was making.

They're a party in opposition to nothing. The system (rightfully) prevents them from passing legislation that does not broadly appeal across party lines, as it should. That's neither here nor there though - you maintain that you'd be against the system if the shoe was on the other foot and I have no evidence to think otherwise based on your post history, even if I personally very much doubt it. You'd be the first liberal on the Internet I've ever met who wouldn't sell their kidney for a chance to enact all of their policies. It is the absence of those systems that could lead to a one-party dictatorship, not the opposite.

 

[Xzi]

It's a good thing we pick our leaders by votes, not TV viewership.

Well...one of the parties picks their nominees based on TV viewership. Can't wait to see what D-list reality TV celebrity they roll out next after Trump croaks.

 

[Lacius]

They're a party in opposition to nothing. The system (rightfully) prevents them from passing legislation that does not broadly appeal across party lines, as it should. That's neither here nor there though - you maintain that you'd be against the system if the shoe was on the other foot and I have no evidence to think otherwise based on your post history, even if I personally very much doubt it. You'd be the first liberal on the Internet I've ever met who wouldn't sell their kidney for a chance to enact all of their policies. It is the absence of those systems that could lead to a one-party dictatorship, not the opposite.

I guess I'll be the one to tell you that both the Senate and House were designed to pass legislation by majority votes. It's in the Constitution. I've also already explained how the filibuster hinders compromise; it is a myth it promotes it.

 

[djpannda]

Well...one of the parties picks their nominees based on TV viewership. Can't wait to see what D-list reality TV celebrity they roll out next after Trump croaks.

...Arnold, Regan, Trump. ... man I can wait for Q to vote for Russell Brand for Senator of UTAH!

 

[Xzi]

...Arnold, Regan, Trump. ... man I can wait for Q to vote for Russell Brand for Sentor of UTAH!

Caitlyn Jenner is also running for governor of California as a Republican. Not that the GOP at large will support her run while they're busy passing trans discrimination laws in a bunch of other states. No idea what's she's thinking...assuming she's thinking at all.

 

[djpannda]

Caitlyn Jenner is also running for governor of California. Not that the GOP at large will support her run while they're busy passing trans discrimination laws in a bunch of other states. No idea what's she's thinking...assuming she's thinking at all.

The issue is Jenner has been around "Money Republicans" for soo long she does not realize how much they despise her now... you because she can publicly wear a dress.. while most of them have to hide that fact.

 

[Lacius]

Caitlyn Jenner is also running for governor of California as a Republican. Not that the GOP at large will support her run while they're busy passing trans discrimination laws in a bunch of other states. No idea what's she's thinking...assuming she's thinking at all.

The issue is Jenner has been around "Money Republicans" for soo long she does not realize how much they despise her now... you because she can publicly wear a dress.. while most of them have to hide that fact.

Don't underestimate the weirdness of California GOP voters.

 

[Foxi4]

I guess I'll be the one to tell you that both the Senate and House were designed to pass legislation by majority votes. It's in the Constitution. I've also already explained how the filibuster hinders compromise; it is a myth it promotes it.

Just because something is in the Constitution doesn't mean it should be in the Constitution.

There's nothing I enjoy more than Lacius vs. Lacius. We won't agree on this - if you can't sell your idea to the chamber, the whole chamber, and reach a significant majority of votes, perhaps the idea isn't that great. 50% isn't good enough when the Senate is literally split 50/50 (50 Republicans vs. 48 Democrats + 2 "independents"). A system that'd allow one party to pass legislation willy-nilly as long as everyone tows the line is no system at all - it's one-party rule with extra steps. Since there can be no agreement on this between us, I'll leave it at that so we can continue with the thread.

 

[Lacius]

There's nothing I enjoy more than Lacius vs. Lacius. We won't agree on this - if you can't sell your idea to the chamber, the whole chamber, and reach a significant majority of votes, perhaps the idea isn't that great. 50% isn't good enough when the Senate is literally split 50/50 (50 Republicans vs. 48 Democrats + 2 "independents"). A system that'd allow one party to pass legislation willy-nilly as long as everyone tows the line is no system at all - it's one-party rule with extra steps. Since there can be no agreement on this between us, I'll leave it at that so we can continue with the thread.

I'm not arguing it's good because it's in the Constitution. I'm arguing that you, an apparent constitutional originalist, should not be pretending that 60+ votes in the Senate was ever intended. Please do not be disingenuous.

Edit: You should also see my earlier points on how the elimination of the filibuster actually fosters cooperation and compromise.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not arguing it's good because it's in the Constitution. I'm arguing that you, an apparent constitutional originalist, should not be pretending that 60+ votes in the Senate was ever intended. Please do not be disingenuous.

Edit: You should also see my earlier points on how the elimination of the filibuster actually fosters cooperation and compromise.

I don't want cooperation or compromise, I want conservative agenda to be passed. I am happy with any tool that can be used to achieve that as long as it's done in the service of protecting individual rights, cutting personal tax rates and limiting the size and scope of government. I don't like rat poison, not my kind of snack, but it sure does get rid of rats quick, so it can stay in the cupboard for as long as it's needed. I'm not disingenuous - in our discussions I've always maintained that winning takes priority over principle. You can have principles *after* you win, losers don't get to enact policy. This has never been a secret about my approach towards politics. Principles are great, but you can't eat them - if you're not in a position to push those principles forward, they don't mean anything.

 

[Lacius]

I don't want cooperation or compromise, I want conservative agenda to be passed. I am happy with any tool that can be used to achieve that as long as it's done in the service of protecting individual rights, cutting personal tax rates and limiting the size and scope of government. I don't like rat poison, not my kind of snack, but it sure does get rid of rats quick, so it can stay in the cupboard for as long as it's needed. I'm not disingenuous - in our discussions I've always maintained that winning takes priority over principle. You can have principles *after* you win, losers don't get to enact policy. This has never been a secret about my approach towards politics.

Thank you for dropping the pretense. I truly appreciate your candor. However, you should understand that you're advocating for party over democracy, and your views are authoritarian by definition. Your ad hoc defenses of the Senate as an unrepresentative body, the Electoral College, the filibuster, etc. make more sense now. You've effectively admitted that you'd be on my side if it meant more Republicans would win.

 

[Foxi4]

Thank you for dropping the pretense. I truly appreciate your candor. However, you should understand that you're advocating for party over democracy, and your views are authoritarian by definition. Your ad hoc defenses of the Senate as an unrepresentative body, the Electoral College, etc. make more sense now. You've effectively admitted that you'd be on my side if it meant more Republicans would win.

I am the last person who would advocate for the GOP - I hate the GOP, as any libertarian with any connection to reality does. The Republican party has been overtaken by religious zealots to a large extent, they are not fiscally conservative and do not represent my interests to a satisfactory level. At the same time, the Democratic party has been overtaken by wokeism and extreme progressives, which is reflected in their current plans. Old Republicans know that the modern talking points are stupid and unattractive, old Democrats know that the extreme agenda has very little support among average Americans and will fail to pass in the Senate anyway, but it makes it seem like they're trying, which is good enough for re-election. "We'll pass it next time" is what you'll hear on both sides of the aisle. Both sides allow the younglings to screech into microphones while the figures that matter are hiding behind whoever happens to be the president at any given time and plays the role of an old house plant that's hiding a stain on the carpet. If anything, it is in my interest to have Congress in a persistent state of stalemate - libertarians like stability. I don't want change, I just want to be left alone. As such, I will always advocate for a relative power balance and the only policies I want to slip past the goalie are those which further enshrine things I actually care about. I thought this was always fairly obvious? I don't wear masks - my stated beliefs are unorthodox enough to make that clear.

 

[Xzi]

If anything, it is in my interest to have Congress in a persistent state of stalemate - libertarians like stability.

Stagnation is not the same thing as stability. At the very minimum, stability means keeping our roadways and bridges from collapsing, and our air and water from being poisoned.

 

[Foxi4]

Stagnation is not the same thing as stability. At a minimum, stability means keeping our roadways and bridges from collapsing, and our air and water from being poisoned.

I care about both of those things less than I care about preventing any unnecessary laws or regulations from being passed. The problem of pollution can solve itself via technological progress, keeping the roadways running is already mandatory spending to a large extent.

 

[Valwinz]

Some good news

Florida Passes New Elections Bill Adding Restrictions To Vote-By-Mail And Ballot Drop-Boxes https://t.co/ItZ2wlN9y6

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 30, 2021

 

[Foxi4]

Some good news
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1388246953536937985

I hope the bill includes provisions against ballot harvesting. I am not necessarily against voting by mail - some people cannot go to a poll location to cast a vote, so as long as it's secure, I have no objections. I do object to third-party actors canvassing for political parties on the side and telling fossils how to "fill out their form the right way", there's no way to effectively police that. If a voter really can't drop their vote off at the nearest mailbox themselves, it should be picked up by the mailman, not a stranger.