• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

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

Should this thread be locked?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 64.3%
  • No

    Votes: 15 35.7%

  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
I don't see what you mean by "arguing for it". If state legislatures feel the need to perform audits and recounts then it is well-within their purview to do so - the Constitution, specifically the election clause, outlines that the specifics of an election on a state level are decided by the state legislature. I personally think that the effort is futile because the number of votes needed to close the gap is too wide, but they're welcome to perform any and all investigations they want to ensure election integrity, it's their election.

I've been perfectly consistent all this time - do whatever it takes to win within the legal boundaries of the system -> get elected -> enact your policy goals, which may or may not include changing the system. In that order, 100% of the time. If there's anyone struggling with cognitive dissonance, it'd be you, given the fact that you admit you're not dismissing the possibility of using tools you'd wish to see eliminated from the process and actively campaign against. A vegan is not much of a vegan if they eat a nice slice of ham on their sandwich every morning. I don't claim to be a vegan - I just have specific policy goals and I'm not ashamed to use any tool to achieve said goals.

To a casual reader it would appear that your principled stance is entirely dependent on circumstances - my stance is constant, it doesn't deviate from the plan based on arbitrary conditions. The difference here is that I'm willing to temporarily suspend a subordinate pursuit in order to achieve a more important primary goal, and I have no issues with stating that fact. You actively deny you'd do the same, even though you absolutely would.
The state legislatures in one or more red states could have refused to certify the electoral votes in those states on the basis of fake election fraud. It would have been technically legal for them to do so. If this causes neither candidate to get 270 electoral votes, the House would have chosen the president. Per your arguments, that would have been fine as long as your team wins. That's deplorable.

I don't think I'm the one being inconsistent.
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,818
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,788
Country
Poland
The state legislatures in one or more red states could have refused to certify the electoral votes in those states on the basis of fake election fraud. It would have been technically legal for them to do so. If this causes neither candidate to get 270 electoral votes, the House would have chosen the president. Per your arguments, that would have been fine as long as your team wins. That's deplorable.

I don't think I'm the one being inconsistent.
It would also have to be evidenced. :rolleyes: The state legislature can't throw the results out arbitrarily, they're bound by their own election procedure that is not subject to change after the fact - Lex Prospicit Non Respicit.

The long of the short of it is that you *do not* dismiss the possibility of using the filibuster, or similar measures, to block detrimental legislation, in spite of your protestations and your (possibly genuine) desire to remove them from the system. This means that depending on the circumstances there's a possibility you'd use "authoritarian" and "undemocratic" tools to pursue your policy goals and our stance is *exactly* the same. The *only* difference is that I'm being honest about it whereas you're being dishonest in order to look holier than thou. I honestly admit that no tool is off the table in the pursuit of what I think is right. Clearly there are circumstances that, in your estimation, would justify the use of those procedures - I'll take that admission as the capper, since I have nothing else to add.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snintendog

tabzer

This place is a meme.
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
5,844
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
4,910
Country
Japan
I don't think I'm the one being inconsistent.

It looks like you are both being consistent from my position--but you do appear to be stubborn and shallowly focused on appearances to the point that it seems a bit "Hollywood" when it comes to the active utility of the laws in question. In the end, you are both willing to "exploit" the system for your "side".

I could imagine the both of you passing a similar law (albeit it for possibly different reasons). You would say something like Obama-esque,"it's truly a shame, the state of our nation, at this point in time, and it is with great reluctance that I do so... but the trying times leave no other alternative". I don't know what @Foxi4 would say, but it seems like it'd be something like,"we are going to do this, because we want 'this' to happen".
 

tabzer

This place is a meme.
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
5,844
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
4,910
Country
Japan
Former President Trump: Will gladly rape women, take creepy pedo pics with his daughter & say that he would be dating her if she weren't related, walk into under-age girls dressing rooms, grab em by the pussy, pay for adultery, party hearty with sex traffickers, take smiling photo ops with convicted pedophiles..... and brag about it all.

If you aren't concerned with Biden's treatment of children, you can say so without looking like you are saying it is okay because the previous president was worse. It seems like you just want to say the nastiest things that you can "get away with" and that you find purpose in it.
 
Last edited by tabzer,

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
It would also have to be evidenced. :rolleyes: The state legislature can't throw the results out arbitrarily, they're bound by their own election procedure that is not subject to change after the fact - Lex Prospicit Non Respicit.

The long of the short of it is that you *do not* dismiss the possibility of using the filibuster, or similar measures, to block detrimental legislation, in spite of your protestations and your (possibly genuine) desire to remove them from the system. This means that depending on the circumstances there's a possibility you'd use "authoritarian" and "undemocratic" tools to pursue your policy goals and our stance is *exactly* the same. The *only* difference is that I'm being honest about it whereas you're being dishonest in order to look holier than thou. I honestly admit that no tool is off the table in the pursuit of what I think is right. Clearly there are circumstances that, in your estimation, would justify the use of those procedures - I'll take that admission as the capper, since I have nothing else to add.
The filibuster should not exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it regardless of which party was in control. I don't know how clearer I can be.

You should also look into how the different states vote to certify election results. It could have been arbitrary. Plenty of Republicans did vote to not certify.

You should also understand that your precious Electoral College is arbitrary, and faithless delegates can exist. Should your team void the results of the popular votes of the states and put your team in power? It's legal.
 
Last edited by Lacius,

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
But you'd use the filibuster if it was "to protect democracy".
I'd have to know what you mean by that.

Morality and principles are not absolute. They are situational. Killing another human being is generally wrong, but there are exceptions like self defense. I generally wouldn't use the filibuster on principle, and I'd vote for its repeal, but I'm not going to say I'd definitely never do it.
 

tabzer

This place is a meme.
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
5,844
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
4,910
Country
Japan
I'd have to know what you mean by that.

Morality and principles are not absolute. They are situational. Killing another human being is generally wrong, but there are exceptions like self defense. I generally wouldn't use the filibuster on principle, and I'd vote for its repeal, but I'm not going to say I'd definitely never do it.

Morality and principles could be absolute if the possibilities of situations were a known--which is why the law is constantly juggled. Killing another human being is wrong, and unfortunately we find ourselves in the wrong situations.

What I meant wasn't confusing. It seems like you understand. You'd use an "anti-democratic" tool to "protect democracy". We've been over this--just because the tool exists, and that it is commonly used, doesn't mean we don't want a better outcome situation.
 
Last edited by tabzer,
  • Like
Reactions: Snintendog

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
You'd use an "anti-democratic" tool to "protect democracy". We've been over this--just because the tool exists, and that it is commonly used, doesn't mean we don't want a better outcome situation.
I don't think the "anti-democratic tool" should exist, and as for whether or not I'd use an "anti-democratic tool" to "protect democracy," I can't say whether or not that's true without knowing the situation. I don't know what that would look like or if that would even be possible.
 

tabzer

This place is a meme.
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
5,844
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
4,910
Country
Japan
I don't think the "anti-democratic tool" should exist, and as for whether or not I'd use an "anti-democratic tool" to "protect democracy," I can't say whether or not that's true without knowing the situation. I don't know what that would look like or if that would even be possible.

I'm assuming that we are still considering the filibuster as being one of the said tools. From a personal position, you have not utilized it. However, you seem to often speak highly of the Democratic party, so instead of talking about future hypotheticals, what do you think about about their vigorous use of it in the past?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snintendog

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
I'm assuming that we are still considering the filibuster as being one of the said tools. From a personal position, you have not utilized it. But you seem to often speak highly of the Democratic party, so instead of talking about future hypotheticals, what do you think about about their vigorous use of it in the past?
I disagree with any existence of the filibuster in the past, regardless of which party has been in power.
 

tabzer

This place is a meme.
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
5,844
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
4,910
Country
Japan
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I can tell we're getting off-topic.

You said you can't imagine rationalizing it in the future, so I brought up the past and wonder how you justify it having already been done. Disagreeing with the existence of the past is irrational.

Tomorrow, yesterday will look so primitive.

It is tangential but it is to demonstrate an analogy to the topic.
 
Last edited by tabzer, , Reason: grammar
  • Like
Reactions: Snintendog

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,818
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,788
Country
Poland
The filibuster should not exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it regardless of which party was in control. I don't know how clearer I can be.

You should also look into how the different states vote to certify election results. It could have been arbitrary. Plenty of Republicans did vote to not certify.

You should also understand that your precious Electoral College is arbitrary, and faithless delegates can exist. Should your team void the results of the popular votes of the states and put your team in power? It's legal.
33 states in the Union *require* their electors to vote according to election results, 14 will even nullify faithless votes and replace them immediately. California will go as far as to imprison faithless electors for up to 3 years. I'm very familiar with how this works, I'm not so sure you are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

If the state legislature has serious concerns about the legitimacy of the vote and could substantiate the concerns with evidence, it is well-within its authority to postpone certification, recount, audit or perform any other procedure to guarantee an accurate count. If such a situation were to occur and the legislature did find forged votes in numbers that would cast a shadow of doubt on the legitimacy of the entire election, I would be perfectly happy with them throwing the results in the trash and calling for a second election. Any reasonable person would say the same, sending electors on the basis of an election that is fraudulent would be asinine banana republic nonsense. Since forged votes were not found in numbers that would justify any such concerns, this did not happen.

Your hypothetical scenarios are entertaining, but I'm not the one here who needs to come to terms with their own internal inconsistency. From what you've outlined so far I have a pretty good understanding of your position - measures like the filibuster are "undemocratic" and "authoritarian" when someone like me uses them, they are only permitted to be used by Lacius in order to save the Republic. Perfectly consistent - with other Democrats, not your stated principles. :rolleyes:

As far as I'm concerned, we're done here. I genuinely have nothing else to add, my position on this couldn't be more crystal clear. We might continue this conversation during my Presidential run - sadly, this is a thread about Joe Biden, who appears to be flip-flopping on the matter as we speak. His current stance is "let's kill the filibuster without killing the filibuster", or more specifically, "it was better back in my day" - spoken like a true fossil. :rofl:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/03/joe-biden-talking-filibuster-support.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snintendog

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
Maybe you should check the article supplied.
Oh I see, I was confused by the wording. 14 OTHER states void the vote and replace the electors. However, "33 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require electors to vote for the candidates for whom they pledged to vote, though in half of these jurisdictions there is no enforcement mechanism." That means I was only one off, 16 states could vote contrary to their results without consequences for their electors.
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,818
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,788
Country
Poland
Oh I see, I was confused by the wording. 14 OTHER states void the vote and replace the electors. However, "33 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require electors to vote for the candidates for whom they pledged to vote, though in half of these jurisdictions there is no enforcement mechanism." That means I was only one off, 16 states could vote contrary to their results without consequences for their electors.
Those rules are up to the individual states to decide, that's how the democratic process works in the union. The individual states joined the compact with a mutual understanding that each and every one of them will decide their own election laws and regulations without interference from the federal government. If the compact instead stated that it was the fed setting those standards, they would've (rightfully) never joined the union in the first place - state governments are, to a large extent, autonomous, and that's a good thing. If you don't like a given state's election procedures, you can endeavour to change them or you can move to a state that has election laws that are closer to your ideals. All I can see here is concern trolling over a highly unlikely hypothetical - individual states have never colluded with each other in order to overthrow an election, one civil war was enough to make it clear how those things shake up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snintendog
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • ZeroT21 @ ZeroT21:
    it wasn't a question, it was fact
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    He said he had 3 different doctors apt this week, so he prob there. Something about gerbal extraction, I don't know.
    +1
  • ZeroT21 @ ZeroT21:
    bored, guess i'll spread more democracy
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    @K3Nv2 one more time you say such bs to @BakerMan and I'll smack you across the whole planet
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Make sure you smack my booty daddy
    +1
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    telling him that my partner is luke...does he look like someone with such big ne
    eds?
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    do you really think I could stand living with someone like luke?
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    I suppose luke has "special needs" but he's not my partner, did you just say that to piss me off again?
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    besides I had bigger worries today
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    but what do you know about that, you won't believe me anyways
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    @BigOnYa can answer that
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    BigOnYa already left the chat
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Biginya
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Auto correct got me, I'm on my tablet, i need to turn that shit off
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    With other tabs open you perv
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    I'm actually in my shed, bout to cut 2-3 acres of grass, my back yard.
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    I use to have a guy for that thanks richard
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    I use my tablet to stream to a bluetooth speaker when in shed. iHeartRadio, FlyNation
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    While the victims are being buried
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Grave shovel
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Nuh those goto the edge of the property (maybe just on the other side of)
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    On the neighbors side
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Yup, by the weird smelly green bushy looking plants.
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: https://www.the-sun.com/news/10907833/self-checkout-complaints-new-target-dollar-general-policies...