Jump to content

Joe Biden 2021


tantric superman

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DonkeyCigars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DonkeyCigars
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DonkeyCigars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Pin on Books

Christopher Walken GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DonkeyCigars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Pin on Books

Christopher Walken GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...