Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon

[Gourmand 7774]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Ah, yes, everyone knows the best takes about what Dems need to do come from Republican senators.

On Meet the Press, always. Chuck Todd is every bit the useful rube Russert was.

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 hours ago, Satchel said:

Millions of Americans voted for Biden in the hope that he would usher in a new era of governance that would at long last address the needs of the forgotten in this country. The Democratic legislative agenda does just that. Stopping Trump, arguably, was job one but that’s not all his election was about.

And now the corporate media is going into hyperdrive somehow blaming Biden and Schumer for the failure of the voting rights bill instead of putting the blame squarely where it belongs on the entire Republican Party and a couple corporate hack democratic senators. It’s so fucking obvious and predictable.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

9 hours ago, Satchel said:

Millions of Americans voted for Biden in the hope that he would usher in a new era of governance that would at long last address the needs of the forgotten in this country. The Democratic legislative agenda does just that. Stopping Trump, arguably, was job one but that’s not all his election was about.

Presidents have to work with the reality of what they have. Bush had his plans and then 9/11 came along. Obama has his but had to concentrate on the 2008 financial crisis. Biden has to deal with Covid and a divided govt.

a president and some of their followers don’t get everything they want. They have to face the realities of what is possible including an attempt to increase their numbers in the next elections.

The reality may be that millions wants large changes and they want biden to make it happen. However there is only so much he can do within the  current congressional breakdown and not everything can be changed by exec order.  Biden would be better off with attempting small wins that give the Dem candidates some talking points. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

28 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Presidents have to work with the reality of what they have. Bush had his plans and then 9/11 came along. Obama has his but had to concentrate on the 2008 financial crisis. Biden has to deal with Covid and a divided govt.

a president and some of their followers don’t get everything they want. They have to face the realities of what is possible including an attempt to increase their numbers in the next elections.

The reality may be that millions wants large changes and they want biden to make it happen. However there is only so much he can do within the  current congressional breakdown and not everything can be changed by exec order.  Biden would be better off with attempting small wins that give the Dem candidates some talking points. 

We'd already be seeing much of (and more maybe) of the types of things on Mr. Bidens wish list with Mr. Obama  if not for the financial melt down in front of his plan for a transformation of America.  He had Congress in his corner.

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Onboard 2.0

[TwiceHorn 31184]

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

No FBI specific thread, so I'm just gonna drop this here.

 

Good Lord.  The fucking feebs, man.

I just watched J. Edgar in its entirety for the first time recently.

I suppose MLK was imperfect, but the idea that a deranged weirdo like Hoover is principally responsible for the tarnishing of him and his legacy is grotesque.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Good Lord.  The fucking feebs, man.

I just watched J. Edgar in its entirety for the first time recently.

I suppose MLK was imperfect, but the idea that a deranged weirdo like Hoover is principally responsible for the tarnishing of him and his legacy is grotesque.

Yeah,  but J. Edgar could rock a backless red dress, and 5" heels...

[Beantown Express 2.0 6531]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

And now the corporate media is going into hyperdrive somehow blaming Biden and Schumer for the failure of the voting rights bill instead of putting the blame squarely where it belongs on the entire Republican Party and a couple corporate hack democratic senators. It’s so fucking obvious and predictable.

This is what is so damn frustrating with this country.  Out of 100 total Senators we have 49 Dem Senators that will vote for a bill and 2 Dem Senators that won't.  We also have 49 Republican Senators all who won't vote for a bill.  The media and then the dumb ass people of this country blame the Dems instead of asking the question to why you have 49 Republicans not willing to vote for a bill.  Yeah, yeah, I know.  The Republicans won't vote for anything to give the Dems/Biden any kind of win but at some point it would be nice for the media to actually call those fuckers out on that over and over again so it can maybe resonate with the people of this country.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

41 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

This is what is so damn frustrating with this country.  Out of 100 total Senators we have 49 Dem Senators that will vote for a bill and 2 Dem Senators that won't.  We also have 49 Republican Senators all who won't vote for a bill.  The media and then the dumb ass people of this country blame the Dems instead of asking the question to why you have 49 Republicans not willing to vote for a bill.  Yeah, yeah, I know.  The Republicans won't vote for anything to give the Dems/Biden any kind of win but at some point it would be nice for the media to actually call those fuckers out on that over and over again so it can maybe resonate with the people of this country.  

First, the count is 50-50 not 49-49-2.  Or perhaps 50 GOP, 48 Dem, Machin and Sinema. In the latter example, perhaps it's fair to look at the Dems as having a minority in the Senate.

Second, you want McConnell and company to come to save the day for the Biden agenda? Why because you think a particular bill is on the side of good? Why didn't Schumer help Trump and McConnell take down Obamacare? They only needed a couple of Dems to help out McConnell. Were you arguing that the Dems were preventing Trump from getting this way?

When Americans effectively vote the senate 50-50, we're demonstrating that we can't agree on change and we should effectively keep the status quo. That doesn't mean zero change. But large changes? nah.

Biden should concentrate on the following:

• judges
• simple, straight-forward bills that even the GOP may vote for. See the infrastructure bill without a ton of pork.
• exec orders
• stretch: take on populist ideas that perhaps even the Legislative branch might hate like new rules on how Reps/Senators can trade securities.
• And if you know an idea will most likely lose, proceed with it to show the GOP as the bad guys.

[wildcat09 29187]

What's really funny is that in all of our discussion yesterday I forgot that Manchin actually fucking wrote the voting rights bill he's now stonewalling. THEY LET HIM WRITE THE FUCKING BILL and "reasonable centrists" are still saying it must be too far left because he won't support it. Thanks for confirming my 100% vibes theory.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

33 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What's really funny is that in all of our discussion yesterday I forgot that Manchin actually fucking wrote the voting rights bill he's now stonewalling. THEY LET HIM WRITE THE FUCKING BILL and "reasonable centrists" are still saying it must be too far left because he won't support it. Thanks for confirming my 100% vibes theory.

He supports the bill.  He does not support jettisoning the filibuster.

[aggie08 21380]

So weird how not one Republican senator supports it. So weird.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

14 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Bravo jumps in the fray and immediately posts a poll that had already been discussed at length in this thread and then a disingenuous cut of a Biden speech.
Bravo, indeed.

it requires a special brand of stupid to achieve that

Edited January 18, 2022 by Longhorn_Fan68

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

So weird how not one Republican senator supports it. So weird.

They’re too busy saving Christmas and bringing on the apocalypse so they can shake hands with Jesus. Little do they know how pissed he is at them. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

He supports the bill.  He does not support jettisoning the filibuster.

The Sack setting the record straight. 

Hey at least it wasn’t a troll post this time against “the left.” Baby steps. 

[Gourmand 7774]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

He supports the bill.  He does not support jettisoning the filibuster.

Maybe my memory is off but I think it was all the way back in December of 2020 iirc when he agreed to disregard the filibuster for raising the debt ceiling and avoid a government shutdown.

But voting to break the filibuster (not in the constitution) for voting rights (in the constitution) is just the crazy leftists going too far.....

Edited January 18, 2022 by Gourmand

[4doorsMoreWhores 107]

35 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Maybe my memory is off but I think it was all the way back in December of 2020 iirc when he agreed to disregard the filibuster for raising the debt ceiling and avoid a government shutdown.

But voting to break the filibuster (not in the constitution) for voting rights (in the constitution) is just the crazy leftists going too far.....

Exactly 

[bolverk 29360]

1 hour ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

Exactly 

Glad to see you agree the filibuster isn't in the Constitution but voting rights are.

[Satchel 6908]

2 hours ago, Gourmand said:

Maybe my memory is off but I think it was all the way back in December of 2020 iirc when he agreed to disregard the filibuster for raising the debt ceiling and avoid a government shutdown.

But voting to break the filibuster (not in the constitution) for voting rights (in the constitution) is just the crazy leftists going too far.....

McConnell carved out a filibuster exception in order to pack the Supreme Court. True story.

[WBT 20397]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Glad to see you agree the filibuster isn't in the Constitution but voting rights are.

Would have been news to Msdison

[Neonmoon 38127]

21 minutes ago, Satchel said:

McConnell carved out a filibuster exception in order to pack the Supreme Court. True story.

They don't care. It's about not logic, it's about winning. That's why it's stupid to argue with them, because they're not arguing in good faith. 

[bolverk 29360]

21 minutes ago, WBT said:

Would have been news to Msdison

The filibuster of today (obstructionist) is very different from the filibuster of yesterday (debate promoting). What we call a "filibuster" in today's practice was certainly not something the founders intended and a strong argument can be made that today's practice is unconstitutional. 

Edited January 18, 2022 by bolverk
link added

[Tom 2959]

4 hours ago, aggie08 said:

So weird how not one Republican senator supports it. So weird.

 

Very weird. It's almost as if Republicans know they need to be able to maintain the ability to fuck with the vote in order to hold on to power.  It's almost like in addition to just the normal stuff like trying to slow down and restrict certain populations from voting they now desperately want to be able to just overturn elections when everything else doesn't work.  It's almost as if they know they and their "policies" aren't popular enough to win on their own.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

It's wonderful that paternalistic white liberals help the people they think are inferior and incapable of figuring out how to vote.  They'd never manage without you.

[WBT 20397]

17 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The filibuster of today (obstructionist) is very different from the filibuster of yesterday (debate promoting). What we call a "filibuster" in today's practice was certainly not something the founders intended and a strong argument can be made that today's practice is unconstitutional. 

I'm talking about the voting rights part.  The original intent was property owners only.  And was left up to the states to decide.  The people didn't even directly elect US senators until the 17th amendment in 1913.

Edited January 18, 2022 by WBT

[bolverk 29360]

1 minute ago, WBT said:

I'm talking about the voting rights part.  The original intent was property owners only.  And was left up to the states.

Okay, well, I'm not sure your point. The Constitution does have a couple of amendments to it since then, and those are part of the it today. But he was a founding fathers and they did foresee -- and create -- amendments themselves.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Voting has never been easier today than anytime in our history.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2056]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Voting has never been easier today than anytime in our history.

well ... other than the latest round of laws to make it harder, i suppose.

[Tom 2959]

18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It's wonderful that paternalistic white liberals help the people they think are inferior and incapable of figuring out how to vote.  They'd never manage without you.

 

It's interesting that you'd frame a measure that way only meant to make voting equally as easy, fair, and accessible for every American, regardless of their class, income, zip code, or capabilities.  I'm not exactly sure why Republicans like you feel the need to inject race into everything.

[Tom 2959]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Voting has never been easier today than anytime in our history.

 

And certain people that vote the way you do keep trying to change that.  Hence the need to act.

[aggie08 21380]

16 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Voting has never been easier today than anytime in our history.

Agreed. So why the sudden need to make widespread changes using make believe fraud--err, sorry, "voting integrity"--as the impetus? Hmm, it really makes you think.

Edited January 18, 2022 by aggie08

[Gourmand 7774]

38 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It's wonderful that paternalistic white liberals help the people they think are inferior and incapable of figuring out how to vote.  They'd never manage without you.

You fail to grasp that the push for voting rights is about making it as easy, straightforward, and uncomplicated of a process for every citizen, including Republicans.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Gourmand
edit: posted before reading the next page, didn't see Tom's response above

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

It's wonderful that paternalistic white liberals help the people they think are inferior and incapable of figuring out how to vote.  They'd never manage without you.

The sack posts a lot of dumb shit that I don’t normally neg but I am this one.  It’s so disingenuous and highlights his ultra elite worldview of the world where he thinks he is superior to everyone because he was born rich but in fact he is inferior to almost everyone because he’s dumb. It’s a defense mechanism that he uses to get through the day while being a total asshole.  Like a mini Trump. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Voting has never been easier today than anytime in our history.

Yes which is why the republicans are looking to change that. Starting this next election.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Voting has never been easier today than anytime in our history.

You're an idiot.  It's harder for many Americans to vote right now than it was a few years ago.

[Goofyboy 3156]

You're an idiot.  It's harder for many Americans to vote right now than it was a few years ago.

Not for him and if he can do it, anyone can.

[Sawbonz 27375]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Voting has never been easier today than anytime in our history.

And yet we can still improve on that

[JimmyJames 12271]

39 minutes ago, Bravo said:

ACC Jimmy defacto calling people dumb. Such an effective debating tactic. You're doing great! You understand what abide means yet? 

Your sock is liking your posts. Try not to make it so obvious.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

So many socks. I can't even keep up. I am also the person liking my posts because no way someone would like my posts. I'm all of them. Must be a sock, ACC Jimmy. 

The guy has a handle that is identical to your current avatar. 

I realize you’re a complete idiot like that but just thought you should know how obvious you’re being.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Yes, I am so dumb I created a sock with the name of the pic in my avatar. (ACC Jimmy logic) So funny. You're so dense. BTW how many people are we up to you claim I am? 10, 20?

Yes you are that dumb. Most posters here are not though. 

[aggie08 21380]

Would you two just fuck, and shut the hell up?

[Anastasis 23375]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

And yet we can still improve on that

If I can submit my taxes, do all my banking, and basically every important financial and legal transaction via the internet, we should be able to figure out voting. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

If I can submit my taxes, do all my banking, and basically every important financial and legal transaction via the internet, we should be able to figure out voting. 

But that would lead to more people voting. And one specific party very, very much opposes that.

It’s not about whether we CAN do it. It’s about whether the GQP will let us.

It won’t. And you know why. They have told us and publicly admitted it, repeatedly.

[F250 28659]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But that would lead to more people voting. And one specific party very, very much opposes that.

It’s not about whether we CAN do it. It’s about whether the GQP will let us.

It won’t. And you know why. They have told us and publicly admitted it, repeatedly.

Yeah, it will lead to more people like this voting.

[JimmyJames 12271]

I’m really starting to get annoyed that I keep agreeing with Annie and his posting lately. 

At least I still think the sack is full of shit. So I guess I’m still ok.

[mchookem 16095]

6 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Voting has never been easier today than anytime in our history.

 

6 hours ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

well ... other than the latest round of laws to make it harder, i suppose.

 

6 hours ago, Tom said:

 

And certain people that vote the way you do keep trying to change that.  Hence the need to act.

 

6 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Agreed. So why the sudden need to make widespread changes using make believe fraud--err, sorry, "voting integrity"--as the impetus? Hmm, it really makes you think.

 

4 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Yes which is why the republicans are looking to change that. Starting this next election.

 

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're an idiot.  It's harder for many Americans to vote right now than it was a few years ago.

sack walked into another screen door lol

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, mchookem said:

 

 

 

 

 

sack walked into another screen door lol

He tends to do that. Just wait until Thursday late afternoon. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

If I can submit my taxes, do all my banking, and basically every important financial and legal transaction via the internet, we should be able to figure out voting. 

Yep, and with all of those transactions they require a proper identification, SS #, address, account #, etc.  Get the identification issue worked out, and many of the issues with mail in voting could go away.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6531]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep, and with all of those transactions they require a proper identification, SS #, address, account #, etc.  Get the identification issue worked out, and many of the issues with mail in voting could go away.

What issues with mail in voting are you referring to?  Please cite specific examples.  I know many states like WA and super liberal Utah have used mail in voting for years and had like no issues with it from what I understand.  We just had mail in voting during the pandemic for most states and I don’t seem to recall huge issues with it.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

What issues with mail in voting are you referring to?  Please cite specific examples.  I know many states like WA and super liberal Utah have used mail in voting for years and had like no issues with it from what I understand.  We just had mail in voting during the pandemic for most states and I don’t seem to recall huge issues with it.

Have they been using mail in voting the way it was expended in the last election ?  Unless I'm mistaken there are incidences of people not being able to vote in person because they were told a mail in ballot was sent to their place of residence, and they did not request one.

Having half the population not trusting the way we vote is not good whether they're correct or not.  Our voting should be transparent, and simple.  I don't have a problem with mail in voting in theory, but as a mass way of voting I think it has a greater possibility of a small group of people affecting a ballot box total much easier than in person voting.  

I want voting to be easy for every registered voter, but also easily verifiable that the person casting that ballot is who they say they are.  I am definitely in the camp of a national voter ID card that has the same veracity as our SS#'S.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Having half the population not trusting the way we vote is not good whether they're correct or not.  Our voting should be transparent, and simple

Agreed.  Unfortunately there is one party that is responsible for this mistrust.  One party only.  Maybe they should stop lying?