Joe Biden 2021

[Anastasis 23504]

This is a good development. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/us/politics/reporter-records-justice-department.html

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Monday issued a broad ban on using subpoenas, warrants or court orders to seize reporters’ records from their employers or from communications firms in an effort to uncover their confidential sources in leak investigations, outlining sharp new limits on the practice.

“The Department of Justice will no longer use compulsory legal process for the purpose of obtaining information from or records of members of the news media acting within the scope of newsgathering activities,” Mr. Garland wrote to federal prosecutors in a three-page policy memo, adding that the department would also revise its regulations to reflect the new approach.

The memo, which also bans forcing reporters to testify about their sources or turn over their notes, said the Justice Department would support legislation to give greater protections to reporters’ information to better ensure that they hold under future administrations.

Mr. Garland’s memo laid out a set of exceptions. They included if a reporter is under investigation for an unrelated crime; if a reporter is suspected of committing a crime like “breaking and entering” to gather information; if the department is seeking to authenticate already published information — a situation that arises sometimes in television news broadcasts of footage that can be evidence of a crime; or if reporters themselves have been deemed to be agents of foreign power or members of foreign terrorist groups.

An exception will also apply in situations where seizing reporters’ records is deemed “necessary to prevent an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm, including terrorist acts, kidnappings, specified offenses against a minor” or attacks that could incapacitate or destroy critical infrastructure, Mr. Garland wrote.

[atomheartbevo 90053]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

It's funny you say this because he's been using his money and a bunch of shell companies to force Hawaiian families to sell him their properties. He's got something like 700 acres now. He isn't just a normal guy who stumbled into a fortune, he's a weird little sociopath. 

You are being way too kind.

[wildcat09 29453]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

You are being way too kind.

I hear that a lot.

['stache 21901]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think most voters in this country probably buy into the notion of representative democracy as well-- which is why you have the knife fights you have by both parties to capture votes (and limit votes). Whether it be naked ambition in policy talks (e.g. voter ID's to restrict voters who won't vote for you, or annexing new states to add voters likely to vote for you) or more nuanced, the end result is the same-- to push an agenda and build power in pursuit of power and ambition. 

Personally, I think the Democrats have a better line of sight to long term viability and power, the window is closing on the Conservatives unless they pivot their messaging and platform pretty quickly.

Sorry, but these two things are not equivalent. Voter ID (which is probably the mildest of the current wave of voter suppression laws) is literally for a single purpose, to help republicans win elections. Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico have been discussed for decades for dozens of reasons other than democratic leaning votes. Sure it is an obvious benefit for democrats and is part of the new wave of support, but it's also the will of people in those places to be states to have direct representation in Congress, and for PR, to have a vote for president. That alone is pretty damn important. The fact that statehood would be denied solely on the basis of partisan politics is a massive problem.

Edited July 19, 2021 by 'stache

[Longhorn_Fan68 33918]

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Sorry, but these two things are not equivalent. Voter ID (which is probably the mildest of the current wave of voter suppression laws) is literally for a single purpose, to help republicans win elections. Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico have been discussed for decades for dozens of reasons other than democratic leaning votes. Sure it is an obvious benefit for democrats and is part of the new wave of support, but it's also the will of people in those places to be states to have direct representation in Congress, and for PR, to have a vote for president. That alone is pretty damn important. The fact that statehood would be denied solely on the basis of partisan politics is a massive problem.

but you see, those people are brown. can't have more of those.

[Js1 85748]

A bunch of current states are literally only states so Republicans could get more Senators in the late 1800s - most of them should have remained territories for much longer.  But they weren't full of brown people, so it was okay then. 

['stache 21901]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

A bunch of current states are literally only states so Republicans could get more Senators in the late 1800s - most of them should have remained territories for much longer.  But they weren't full of brown people, so it was okay then. 

I'm surprised we've made it this long under this system. It's literally insane that Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as California. It is the antithesis of representative democracy. I've said it before, in today's political climate, one more republican president that loses the popular vote may be all this system can handle without full on revolt, especially if its fucking dotard.

Edited July 19, 2021 by 'stache

[DonkeyCigars 143]

29 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Sorry, but these two things are not equivalent. Voter ID (which is probably the mildest of the current wave of voter suppression laws) is literally for a single purpose, to help republicans win elections. Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico have been discussed for decades for dozens of reasons other than democratic leaning votes. Sure it is an obvious benefit for democrats and is part of the new wave of support, but it's also the will of people in those places to be states to have direct representation in Congress, and for PR, to have a vote for president. That alone is pretty damn important. The fact that statehood would be denied solely on the basis of partisan politics is a massive problem.

I don't think I agree completely with your police work, because you seem to be dead set on denying the political reindeer games that exists--whether marginally or disproportionally (as I tend to believe)-- and you seem to think that statehood is being looked at as a pure play bout of altruism or do-good-ism. I think these things are looked at through the lens of winning votes and elections and there are many threads/responses on this board with staunch democrats defending and admitting that while there is good practical and justification reasoning (as you also referenced) to couch this in, at the root it is a political ploy to counteract the GOP (filibustering, stone-walling, etc.).

But take those examples away (just the first two that popped in my head) and I'm sure with some effort you can fill two columns of whatever naked ambition politics that you can agree are just that (e.g. notions to pack the court, laws to make it illegal to give water to voters, etc. et al.), but the point remains-- politics and politicians exist to win power and then wield it. Policies are the means to gain the support-- to get voters-- to get people to voluntarily give them that power.

To Biden's credit, I think he is doing a good job of holding the line and not letting the other side win back any land that they lost and he is probably a bridge president for the next big idealism/populist candidate for the Dems. I can't imagine him getting a second term, but anything can happen-- Trump was elected in 2016, after all.

[hobbes2702 13152]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I don't think I agree completely with your police work, because you seem to be dead set on denying the political reindeer games that exists--whether marginally or disproportionally (as I tend to believe)-- and you seem to think that statehood is being looked at as a pure play bout of altruism or do-good-ism. I think these things are looked at through the lens of winning votes and elections and there are many threads/responses on this board with staunch democrats defending and admitting that while there is good practical and justification reasoning (as you also referenced) to couch this in, at the root it is a political ploy to counteract the GOP (filibustering, stone-walling, etc.).

But take those examples away (just the first two that popped in my head) and I'm sure with some effort you can fill two columns of whatever naked ambition politics that you can agree are just that (e.g. notions to pack the court, laws to make it illegal to give water to voters, etc. et al.), but the point remains-- politics and politicians exist to win power and then wield it. Policies are the means to gain the support-- to get voters-- to get people to voluntarily give them that power.

To Biden's credit, I think he is doing a good job of holding the line and not letting the other side win back any land that they lost and he is probably a bridge president for the next big idealism/populist candidate for the Dems. I can't imagine him getting a second term, but anything can happen-- Trump was elected in 2016, after all.

Statehood gives people rights. Voter suppression takes them away. 

[wildcat09 29453]

 

 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

24 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Statehood gives people rights. Voter suppression takes them away. 

Yes. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

A bunch of current states are literally only states so Republicans could get more Senators in the late 1800s - most of them should have remained territories for much longer.  But they weren't full of brown people, so it was okay then. 

Agreed. It's always been political and likely always will be.

Edited July 19, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[hobbes2702 13152]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

Yes. 

Which is why those things aren’t comparable in the way you want to compare them. It’s a really dumb attempt at both sides 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Which is why those things aren’t comparable in the way you want to compare them. It’s a really dumb attempt at both sides 

They are comparable at a deeper level than the surface level you gave, which are different, and of which I agree with you.

One is for X the other is for Y

Both are in service of Z in order to A.

 

X= limit voters who likely would help political opponents

Y= add voters who likely would hurt political opponents (by helping yourself)

Z= winning elections

A= wield power

 

Line 1 is different; Line 2 is same. See?

This is politics from time immemorial.

Edited July 19, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[hobbes2702 13152]

[Neonmoon 38130]

Please stop responding to trolls 

[wildcat09 29453]

Republicans love moral relativism.

['stache 21901]

29 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

They are comparable at a deeper level than the surface level you gave, which are different, and of which I agree with you.

One is for X the other is for Y

Both are in service of Z in order to A.

 

X= limit voters who likely would help political opponents

Y= add voters who likely would hurt political opponents (by helping yourself)

Z= winning elections

A= wield power

 

Line 1 is different; Line 2 is same. See?

This is politics from time immemorial.

If you're interested in intellectual honesty, here's the correct version of the bolded part.

X is solely in service of Z. Y is in service of other things, one of which would further Z.

 

There is literally no legitimate purpose of voter suppression laws except to affect elections in furtherance of dotards big lie. The other has been in discussion for decades based on the will of the people in those areas. Yes, it's current vigor includes the thought that it would add democratic voters, but it is not the sole purpose, or even the original purpose of the conversation.

[Captainant 27972]

31 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

~bullshit snip~

You are hilariously repeating the same zero-sum-game fallacy that all conservatives do. Just because more people have rights doesn't mean that yours are worth any less. Unless at the core of your being, supremacy and dominance were the only things worth fighting for. 

Taking away and limiting voting rights is inherently antidemocratic. Ensuring that those who are governed have a say in their governance is democratic.

But we all knew that you redhats just want a strongman to come in and secure supremacy fix it all. Yall always fall for the same schtick. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

25 minutes ago, 'stache said:

If you're interested in intellectual honesty, here's the correct version of the bolded part.

X is solely in service of Z. Y is in service of other things, one of which would further Z.

 

There is literally no legitimate purpose of voter suppression laws except to affect elections in furtherance of dotards big lie. The other has been in discussion for decades based on the will of the people in those areas. Yes, it's current vigor includes the thought that it would add democratic voters, but it is not the sole purpose, or even the original purpose of the conversation.

I actually agree with you 100% on everything except the bold. That the optics are good for getting this political outcome is pure plausible deniability and one that both sides used to be able to own. The fact that the conservatives can't even attach to a plausible deniability / good optics reasoning for doing things just shows how far they've fallen and why they aren't a mid-term/long-term winner politically, unless things change. IMO.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Politics is moral relativism.

FIFY

[DonkeyCigars 143]

36 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Please stop responding to trolls 

I am on the politics board right? It's okay to talk about politics here, right? If you can't talk about Cloak and Dagger in the Cloak Room without all the offended sensibilities then I guess we are all just through here, huh.

Edited July 19, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

['stache 21901]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I actually agree with you 100% on everything except the bold. That the optics are good for getting this political outcome is pure plausible deniability and one that both sides used to be able to own. The fact that the conservatives can't even attach to a plausible deniability / good optics reasoning for doing things just shows how far they've fallen and why they aren't a mid-term/long-term winner politically, unless things change. IMO.

You seriously don't think it's a legitimate issue that the people in both DC and PR have voted in favor of statehood? That's a heck of an interesting view on representative democracy. "Sure the people want statehood, but it'll help the democrats, so obviously that's the only reason statehood is being discussed." That's not how any of this works.

Edited July 19, 2021 by 'stache

[safe sex 11807]

He's really fucking stupid, selfish, and completely uninterested in changing the status of the first two traits, so I'm gonna go with yes, he seriously thinks that. 

[wildcat09 29453]

18 minutes ago, 'stache said:

You seriously don't think it's a legitimate issue that the people in both DC and PR have voted in favor of statehood? That's a heck of an interesting view on representative democracy. "Sure the people want statehood, but it'll help the democrats, so obviously that's the only reason statehood is being discussed." That's not how any of this works.

It was a legitimate issue, but then Democrats actually tried to do something about it so now it's politicized and no longer legitimate.

[cactusflinthead 27615]

On 7/17/2021 at 10:17 PM, GRHorn said:

Such a simple minded response. Anyway, here’s what I think about it. 
 

Lolololol

This morning you were at -5. As of 4:55pm you're rocking a -16.

Better get on back to DT.

[dcar00 14607]

40 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It was a legitimate issue, but then Democrats actually tried to do something about it so now it's politicized and no longer legitimate.

now do illegal immigration.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

You seriously don't think it's a legitimate issue that the people in both DC and PR have voted in favor of statehood? That's a heck of an interesting view on representative democracy. "Sure the people want statehood, but it'll help the democrats, so obviously that's the only reason statehood is being discussed." That's not how any of this works.

I don’t think it’s a legitimate issue; the constitution clearly outlines the capital (D.C.) as a non-state and that is intentional.

Re: P.R., I think it would have been better to have simply given them autonomy and let them spin off as a non-US territory, especially given the history of them voting to not be annexed as a state, but apparently that attitude has shifted and a simple majority would like to now be a state and the cake has been baked to include them as a state versus let them fail on their own. It is what it is; I personally could not care less either way.

Regardless of all the above, the overarching point remains.

[Serak The Preparer 3436]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I actually agree with you 100% on everything except the bold. That the optics are good for getting this political outcome is pure plausible deniability and one that both sides used to be able to own. The fact that the conservatives can't even attach to a plausible deniability / good optics reasoning for doing things just shows how far they've fallen and why they aren't a mid-term/long-term winner politically, unless things change. IMO.

What the hell are you talking about? You are semi-self-aware and you voted for Trump in 2020. You say it's not a winner but as soon as you (and many many more like you) see that (R) next to the name, you are pulling the proverbial lever.

[dcar00 14607]

6 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

but you see, those people are brown. can't have more of those.

kind of like Cubans.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

5 hours ago, Serak The Preparer said:

What the hell are you talking about? You are semi-self-aware and you voted for Trump in 2020. You say it's not a winner but as soon as you (and many many more like you) see that (R) next to the name, you are pulling the proverbial lever.

It obviously was not a winning platform in 2020 (I guess hindsight is, ahem, 2020), but now that we know what we know halfway through 2021, I think we can say it's not a winner now or in 2024.

[washparkhorn 9939]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

but now that we know what we know halfway through 2021

This empty phrase is doing a hell of a lot of work in this sentence. 

Show your work. What do we know? 

Spoiler

Don't ever go full @GRHorn. Ego messes with the truth.

There is a subset of 2020 Trump voters who quit the cult, in a manner of speaking, given the events of January 6, but feel locked out. That must be a little scary for that subset of trump voters who are relatively more moderate than the cult leaders.

I don't sense that dread in either of you. 

My father was the world heavy-weight champion of Sicilian liars. From growing up with him I learned the pantomime. There are seventeen different things a guy can do when he lies to give himself away.

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by washparkhorn

[Captainant 27972]

8 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It obviously was not a winning platform in 2020 (I guess hindsight is, ahem, 2020), but now that we know what we know halfway through 2021, I think we can say it's not a winner now or in 2024.

Unless, say, the republicans instituted a shitload of voter suppression laws to tilt the odds just into their favor to make it be an electorally winning strategy. Which is exactly what they have been doing and you've been straining to ignore/discount 

[bolverk 29818]

I learned something new recently about the status of Puerto Rico and our other overseas territories. When the US won the Spanish-American War, we acquired all these far off islands with yellow and brown people. Because the Constitution required all right of citizenship to them, we created through a series of cases (see the Insular Cases) before the Supreme Court that effectively created a new type of territory and made a distinction between an incorporated and an unincorporated territory.

Incorporated territories are those that are supposedly on the path to statehood; therefore, they deserve full rights. At the time, this extended to our remaining continental territories, plus Alaska and Hawaii, and the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico were designated unincorporated territories where the Constitution "did not apply in full." The basis for the distinction was full blown colonial imperialism rooted in the racist belief that we don't want those newly acquired peoples to interfere with our white democracy.

While the Philippines finally got their independence after WWII, Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory. This distinction is still held because when Hawaii became a state, they intentionally excluded uninhabited Palmyra Island which today remains our last incorporated territory where its hypothetical citizens live fully under the Constitution as territories were originally conceived.

Given that Puerto Rico has had multiple elections on its status with the last two having been in favor, I don't see how its unincorporated status can be defended. Also, having learned that the Constitution does not apply in full in Puerto Rico, I'm even more in favor of the island becoming a state.

[Neonmoon 38130]

It’s almost if working with the Germans was better than working against them 

 

[Pancho 45439]

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

How long before Trump issues a statement dragging Tommy Boy?

[DonkeyCigars 143]

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

Unless, say, the republicans instituted a shitload of voter suppression laws to tilt the odds just into their favor to make it be an electorally winning strategy. Which is exactly what they have been doing and you've been straining to ignore/discount 

Yea, unless this happens. Which is why I said it was a nakedly ambitious political ploy. No plausible deniability or positive optics to couch it in. They've just gone full bore "honest" with it and stopped even paying lip service to pretending it's something else, because they've found their folks don't need the sugar to take the medicine; they will chug it straight from the bottle and get high.

Edited July 20, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 143]

10 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

This empty phrase is doing a hell of a lot of work in this sentence. 

Show your work. What do we know? 

  Reveal hidden contents

Don't ever go full @GRHorn. Ego messes with the truth.

There is a subset of 2020 Trump voters who quit the cult, in a manner of speaking, given the events of January 6, but feel locked out. That must be a little scary for that subset of trump voters who are relatively more moderate than the cult leaders.

I don't sense that dread in either of you. 

My father was the world heavy-weight champion of Sicilian liars. From growing up with him I learned the pantomime. There are seventeen different things a guy can do when he lies to give himself away.

 

I was saying, we now know empirically that it was not a winning strategy (due to the loss, begging the question as it were), as opposed to conjecture or assumption. That is all, sorry for not being clear or whatever "doing a lot of work" means which I think you use when you are calling out an assumption?

[Bama Chick 28596]

I love Sassy Joe.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I love Sassy Joe.
 

I love his equating the radical left who want to defund police with the alt-right q losers who believe in insane conspiracy theories. That’s a strong centrist flex and Joe is feeling emboldened and I’m here for all of it!

[immortal13 4059]

It's time for the cognitive test

[mdmost 43302]

Let us know the results after you take it

[Js1 85748]

32 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Let us know the results after you take it

Person, man, woman, camera, HILLARY CLINTON SOCIALISM AOC COMMUNIST GREEN NEW DEAL!!!!!!

[Biff Tannen 45763]

42 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Let us know the results after you take it

[immortal13 4059]

48 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Let us know the results after you take it

Harhar!!!

Only a delusional stupid fuck would disagree that Joe needs to be tested. His eggs are scrambled 

[DigglerontheHoof 21283]

29 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Harhar!!!

Only a delusional stupid fuck would disagree that Joe needs to be tested. His eggs are scrambled 

Yet still exponentially smarter, more respected, successful and articulate than dotard.  

[Js1 85748]

12 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yet still exponentially smarter, more respected, successful and articulate than dotard.  

It's just projection.

Always has been.  Because immortal is literally the definition of delusional stupid fuck.  And has been for years. 

[immortal13 4059]

19 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It's just projection.

Always has been.  Because immortal is literally the definition of delusional stupid fuck.  And has been for years. 

So you think Joe is all good upstairs? Do you really, or are you just as fucked in the head as Joe?

[Gatorubet 30404]

So you think Joe is all good upstairs? Do you really, or are you just as fucked in the head as Joe?

So you do not refute being a stupid delusional fuck? Noted.