The Biden administration (was: The NEW 2020 Election Thread)

[tim_m]

So in the last week Georgia and Iowa have passed ridiculous voting laws. Iowa's severely limits early voting and absentee ballots, it also closes the polls early on election day. Yes, you read that correctly. Georgia just passed one that limits absentee ballots to only 75+. Limits early voting and drop boxes. And my personal favorite, it actually makes it illegal to approach anyone in line to vote for any reason, even to give them food and water. These are the kinds of people on the right we're dealing with. These are not people i would want tot "compromise" with. This is Jim Croweesque and President Biden said just that and is instructing the justice department to look into it. Imo these laws directly violate the 15th amendment article 1 and 2.

[cineater]

  You hold on tight to that "no we can't get along and it's their fault".  Assigning blame will always keep the fight going.  You are starting from a position of it can't work before you tried.  Start from it can be done and work your way towards the goal.  If you're going to stop trying at the first obstacle, we're not getting any where.  The first obstacle is your own way of thinking, all people in the republican party are not reasonable.  That's what you're saying?  You're firmly in that group that says it can't be done when it can be done if you would only try and not give up when it gets hard.

Yeah I know, idealistic, but that's the attitude.  It makes things happen but you get the shit beat out of you, mostly by those folks saying it can't be done.  If they would just get the fuck out of the way, it wouldn't be that hard.

This is a serious question: Do you believe that it's impossible for one side to be objectively in the wrong? Do you think the 3/5ths compromise was valid?

I would say you're going beyond idealism and reaching absolutism or fundamentalism. To you, it seems that compromise is the answer to every question, before you've even heard the question. But it cannot always be the answer. You cannot compromise with extremists. Do you think a thief taking hostages should be bartered with over how many hostages he will kill? If I punched you in the face for no reason, would you think it's right for me to then demand you compromise with me and in the future I'll only slap you in the face?

I don't think you can look at a whole group and call them all extremist based on what a few people are doing.  The answer to every question is a negotiation/compromise because everybody doesn't do it exactly my way and I don't have the answer to every question. 

My personal opinion on a person killing other folks is kill them on the spot.  Why waste money and time taking them alive only to convict them and have to deal with all that shit afterwards?  But you know society says we go the try to take them alive way. Okay fine as long as you make them stop and keep them from doing it again.  But with terrorist groups running around the world there's too many of them to run after and they pop up every where, we have to find out what's going on here and settle it down some other way then just killing them and trying to put them all in prison.  We're going to have to work this one out.

You have a disagreement with me and your solution is punching me in the face?  Alternate solution is more physical aggression?  Now who is not being reasonable?  You kind of go for the extremes when that is not where most situations end up going.  But you punch me in the face, I'm pressing charges and coming to court.  Hopefully, I didn't have a knee jerk reaction before I could get myself under control and I'm not facing assault charges along with you.

[cineater]

So in the last week Georgia and Iowa have passed ridiculous voting laws. Iowa's severely limits early voting and absentee ballots, it also closes the polls early on election day. Yes, you read that correctly. Georgia just passed one that limits absentee ballots to only 75+. Limits early voting and drop boxes. And my personal favorite, it actually makes it illegal to approach anyone in line to vote for any reason, even to give them food and water. These are the kinds of people on the right we're dealing with. These are not people i would want tot "compromise" with. This is Jim Croweesque and President Biden said just that and is instructing the justice department to look into it. Imo these laws directly violate the 15th amendment article 1 and 2.

We're a long way from being able to vote from the home computer and giving us more time then just one day to vote.  My state did some weird shit about voting too and then denied Medicaid expansion after the voters just passed that.  I use to see the point about no term limits but I'm all for them now.  I think a lot of these things they are passing will fail in court.  Would have been nice if they asked the voters to vote on it.

With all this shit going on, I'm wondering if it's an indicator that the good old boys way of doing things is starting to crumble?  If we aren't heading for a change from how it's been done before?  I see it trying to hang on in my state but I don't know if it's going to fly.  We have an interesting senate race coming up.

[tim_m]

Even having people vote on these things is problematic. One because of the obvious voter suppression laws that disproportionately affect people of color and pour people. Two even even people vote in favor of something good like giving ex felons their voting rights back without conditions, you have state governments like Florida that pass laws that are essentially poll taxes.

[tim_m]

So in the last week Georgia and Iowa have passed ridiculous voting laws. Iowa's severely limits early voting and absentee ballots, it also closes the polls early on election day. Yes, you read that correctly. Georgia just passed one that limits absentee ballots to only 75+. Limits early voting and drop boxes. And my personal favorite, it actually makes it illegal to approach anyone in line to vote for any reason, even to give them food and water. These are the kinds of people on the right we're dealing with. These are not people i would want tot "compromise" with. This is Jim Croweesque and President Biden said just that and is instructing the justice department to look into it. Imo these laws directly violate the 15th amendment article 1 and 2.

We're a long way from being able to vote from the home computer and giving us more time then just one day to vote.  My state did some weird shit about voting too and then denied Medicaid expansion after the voters just passed that.  I use to see the point about no term limits but I'm all for them now.  I think a lot of these things they are passing will fail in court.  Would have been nice if they asked the voters to vote on it.

With all this shit going on, I'm wondering if it's an indicator that the good old boys way of doing things is starting to crumble?  If we aren't heading for a change from how it's been done before?  I see it trying to hang on in my state but I don't know if it's going to fly.  We have an interesting senate race coming up.

I used to think term limits was a good solution, but Beau of the fifth column in this video opened my eyes. He makes a lot of great points as to why it wouldn't solve the problem and would likely make it worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctSN4wXDwgM

[PermissionToLand]

I don't think you can look at a whole group and call them all extremist based on what a few people are doing.  The answer to every question is a negotiation/compromise because everybody doesn't do it exactly my way and I don't have the answer to every question. 

My personal opinion on a person killing other folks is kill them on the spot.  Why waste money and time taking them alive only to convict them and have to deal with all that shit afterwards?  But you know society says we go the try to take them alive way. Okay fine as long as you make them stop and keep them from doing it again.  But with terrorist groups running around the world there's too many of them to run after and they pop up every where, we have to find out what's going on here and settle it down some other way then just killing them and trying to put them all in prison.  We're going to have to work this one out.

Who said anything about a group of people?

Do you not see how people can manipulate you by simply taking the most extreme position possible so that the "compromise" always ends up in their favor? Do you really not see how treating compromise as the solution to everything is like thinking a hammer will drill a hole because it worked when you needed to drive a nail into something? One thing cannot possibly be the solution to everything. That's just silly.

If you're saying that you would compromise with terrorists, then you really aren't a moderate in any sense of the word. So you would be willing to negotiate/compromise over how many hostages they kill instead of taking a stand against their disregard for human rights?

You have a disagreement with me and your solution is punching me in the face?  Alternate solution is more physical aggression?  Now who is not being reasonable?  You kind of go for the extremes when that is not where most situations end up going.  But you punch me in the face, I'm pressing charges and coming to court.  Hopefully, I didn't have a knee jerk reaction before I could get myself under control and I'm not facing assault charges along with you.

... seriously? That was an analogy. You have to be kidding me. Are you even reading the words I am writing? It really doesn't seem like it.

[PermissionToLand]

[jarmo]

Ok, I know nothing about your election laws... So just think of this as another clueless foreigner asking a stupid question.

Why not hold elections on a Sunday and allow any adult citizen who has a legal residency in the country to vote?


I mean, humanity managed to go to the moon and make vaccines against Covid but can't figure out how to hold fair and democratic elections that makes it as easy as possible for people to use their right to vote?






/jarmo

[cineater]

I don't think you can look at a whole group and call them all extremist based on what a few people are doing.  The answer to every question is a negotiation/compromise because everybody doesn't do it exactly my way and I don't have the answer to every question. 

My personal opinion on a person killing other folks is kill them on the spot.  Why waste money and time taking them alive only to convict them and have to deal with all that shit afterwards?  But you know society says we go the try to take them alive way. Okay fine as long as you make them stop and keep them from doing it again.  But with terrorist groups running around the world there's too many of them to run after and they pop up every where, we have to find out what's going on here and settle it down some other way then just killing them and trying to put them all in prison.  We're going to have to work this one out.

Who said anything about a group of people?

Do you not see how people can manipulate you by simply taking the most extreme position possible so that the "compromise" always ends up in their favor? Do you really not see how treating compromise as the solution to everything is like thinking a hammer will drill a hole because it worked when you needed to drive a nail into something? One thing cannot possibly be the solution to everything. That's just silly.

If you're saying that you would compromise with terrorists, then you really aren't a moderate in any sense of the word. So you would be willing to negotiate/compromise over how many hostages they kill instead of taking a stand against their disregard for human rights?

You have a disagreement with me and your solution is punching me in the face?  Alternate solution is more physical aggression?  Now who is not being reasonable?  You kind of go for the extremes when that is not where most situations end up going.  But you punch me in the face, I'm pressing charges and coming to court.  Hopefully, I didn't have a knee jerk reaction before I could get myself under control and I'm not facing assault charges along with you.

... seriously? That was an analogy. You have to be kidding me. Are you even reading the words I am writing? It really doesn't seem like it.

I think our communication problem is I'm talking about large groups of people and you want to talk about radical small groups.  I don't consider those groups when working on coming together for the whole group.  You seemed really concerned with them like they can take over.  The large group doesn't allow that.  They can stir up shit but in the end they go down or out of power. 

You kind of scare me how you go for the radical examples and are focus on that.  Are your responses to crisis situations always forceful?

[cineater]

Ok, I know nothing about your election laws... So just think of this as another clueless foreigner asking a stupid question.

Why not hold elections on a Sunday and allow any adult citizen who has a legal residency in the country to vote?


I mean, humanity managed to go to the moon and make vaccines against Covid but can't figure out how to hold fair and democratic elections that makes it as easy as possible for people to use their right to vote?






/jarmo

God no, not on a Sunday.  You're suppose to be in church!     The US doesn't close any more.  We are 24/7. 

[pilferk]

 You hold on tight to that "no we can't get along and it's their fault".  Assigning blame will always keep the fight going.  You are starting from a position of it can't work before you tried.  Start from it can be done and work your way towards the goal.  If you're going to stop trying at the first obstacle, we're not getting any where.  The first obstacle is your own way of thinking, all people in the republican party are not reasonable.  That's what you're saying?  You're firmly in that group that says it can't be done when it can be done if you would only try and not give up when it gets hard.

Keep completely ignoring history.  It'll work out GREAT for you.

My position is not that "people in the republican party aren't reasonable".  It's that people in republican leadership, who are in national office (and in many cases state office) are obstructionists who refuse to compromise. It's their way or no way.  Which is borne out by history.  How many times should democrats slam their head into the wall before they realize there's no point? 10? 20? 100?

History shows that, in congress, bipartisan bills pass when the Dems are in the minority.  They don't when the Repubs are.

It's that simple.  And ignoring history because we want Republicans to compromise won't make it so.

But keep banging your head into the wall if that what makes you happy.

Yeah I know, idealistic, but that's the attitude.  It makes things happen but you get the shit beat out of you, mostly by those folks saying it can't be done.  If they would just get the fuck out of the way, it wouldn't be that hard.

Not idealistic.  Naive and willful ignorance to history.  But whatever gets you through the night.

[pilferk]

I think our communication problem is I'm talking about large groups of people and you want to talk about radical small groups.  I don't consider those groups when working on coming together for the whole group.  You seemed really concerned with them like they can take over.  The large group doesn't allow that.  They can stir up shit but in the end they go down or out of power.  

Yeah, hows that working out right now for the current Republican party?  You don't think it's leadership and most of it's national elected officials depict a party that has basically been taken over by extremists with radical positions?

You kind of scare me how you go for the radical examples and are focus on that.  Are your responses to crisis situations always forceful?

I think you need to understand analogies better.  It's not a radical example, actually.  It's a pretty apt one, given what's gone on in the past couple months.

If you don't think voting to invalidate an election, based on a big lie, is akin to punching the other party in the mouth, you don't understand the actual gravity of the situation.  If you don't think supporting (or acting) on insurrection isn't also punching the other party in the mouth, you likewise don't seem to understand the gravity of that situation.

If your neighbor helps plan, and then encourages, a group of nut jobs to invade your home....are you inviting them to dinner next week to discuss how you can "compromise" on your property disputes?

Compromise only works when the other side is coming from a reasonable position, and if they WANT to compromise. If they tell you, to your face, we're just going to vote against everything no matter what....how do you compromise?  It's what the republican caucus has been doing for DECADES when they are not in power: Our way or the highway.  Dems have tried to compromise HUNDREDS of times, on HUNDREDS of bills.  Repubs literally refuse to negotiate.  That's not my opinion. It's historical fact.

You keep ignoring that part, and it's the part Permission is trying to get you to understand.  

[jarmo]

God no, not on a Sunday.  You're suppose to be in church!     The US doesn't close any more.  We are 24/7. 

I remember the previous millennium... When Sundays were days of rest etc.

My point is, people who work for a living, might not be able to just go vote on a Tuesday. So why not make the election on a day when many, not all, people have a day off.

Would it theoretically be more likely they would go vote? I don't know. Would it mean they would go vote instead of staying at home barbecuing or going to church? No clue.






/jarmo

[PermissionToLand]

I think our communication problem is I'm talking about large groups of people and you want to talk about radical small groups.  I don't consider those groups when working on coming together for the whole group.  You seemed really concerned with them like they can take over.  The large group doesn't allow that.  They can stir up shit but in the end they go down or out of power. 

You kind of scare me how you go for the radical examples and are focus on that.

So you think it's impossible for the majority of people to hold extreme views. The founding fathers disagreed. That's why they created the Bill of Rights to prevent tyranny of the majority. A majority of Americans once supported slavery and later, segregation. A plurality of Germans elected the Nazi party to the Reichstag.

You don't want to admit the reality that the large group DOES allow that, which is proven by history time and time again.

What should scare you is radicalism itself, not the people pointing it out and trying to prevent it.

Are your responses to crisis situations always forceful?

I want you to read that quote back to yourself and really think about what you just said.

Of course the response to a crisis should be forceful. Do you think we should have not been forceful in dealing with the Covid pandemic? Oh well, 500,000 Americans have died, but we wouldn't want to look alarmist by enacting new public health guidelines like social distancing!

[PermissionToLand]

I remember the previous millennium... When Sundays were days of rest etc.

My point is, people who work for a living, might not be able to just go vote on a Tuesday. So why not make the election on a day when many, not all, people have a day off.

Would it theoretically be more likely they would go vote? I don't know. Would it mean they would go vote instead of staying at home barbecuing or going to church? No clue.

You'd think the people telling everyone to "GET A JOB!!!" would be more in favor of voting outside of normal business hours...

And yet they still find time to hang around polling places all day intimidating minorities with weapons...

[cineater]

I think our communication problem is I'm talking about large groups of people and you want to talk about radical small groups.  I don't consider those groups when working on coming together for the whole group.  You seemed really concerned with them like they can take over.  The large group doesn't allow that.  They can stir up shit but in the end they go down or out of power. 

You kind of scare me how you go for the radical examples and are focus on that.

So you think it's impossible for the majority of people to hold extreme views. The founding fathers disagreed. That's why they created the Bill of Rights to prevent tyranny of the majority. A majority of Americans once supported slavery and later, segregation. A plurality of Germans elected the Nazi party to the Reichstag.

You don't want to admit the reality that the large group DOES allow that, which is proven by history time and time again.

What should scare you is radicalism itself, not the people pointing it out and trying to prevent it.

Are your responses to crisis situations always forceful?

I want you to read that quote back to yourself and really think about what you just said.

Of course the response to a crisis should be forceful. Do you think we should have not been forceful in dealing with the Covid pandemic? Oh well, 500,000 Americans have died, but we wouldn't want to look alarmist by enacting new public health guidelines like social distancing!

I think you are one of those people that have to be calmed down when something is going on.  You're quick to blame and your response doesn't look for long term solutions.  I think you look for why something can't work and fall back on fear of what could happen.  But you want to take action now and put an end to things.  You want to be the leader of the group and not a participant.

Doesn't sound good but in my world you're a strength in the group I'm working through a problem with.  You're the safety net, the troubleshooter.  The person who is going to point out all the problems with the plan.  Going to be a total pain in the ass and the rest of the group isn't going to like you very much.  And you're going to bitch to everyone who will listen why I'm doing a shitty job.  

[tim_m]

Ok, I know nothing about your election laws... So just think of this as another clueless foreigner asking a stupid question.

Why not hold elections on a Sunday and allow any adult citizen who has a legal residency in the country to vote?


I mean, humanity managed to go to the moon and make vaccines against Covid but can't figure out how to hold fair and democratic elections that makes it as easy as possible for people to use their right to vote?






/jarmo

Isn't that how it is in countries in the EU? Permanent residents can vote in local elections?

[tim_m]

I don't think you can look at a whole group and call them all extremist based on what a few people are doing.  The answer to every question is a negotiation/compromise because everybody doesn't do it exactly my way and I don't have the answer to every question. 

My personal opinion on a person killing other folks is kill them on the spot.  Why waste money and time taking them alive only to convict them and have to deal with all that shit afterwards?  But you know society says we go the try to take them alive way. Okay fine as long as you make them stop and keep them from doing it again.  But with terrorist groups running around the world there's too many of them to run after and they pop up every where, we have to find out what's going on here and settle it down some other way then just killing them and trying to put them all in prison.  We're going to have to work this one out.

Who said anything about a group of people?

Do you not see how people can manipulate you by simply taking the most extreme position possible so that the "compromise" always ends up in their favor? Do you really not see how treating compromise as the solution to everything is like thinking a hammer will drill a hole because it worked when you needed to drive a nail into something? One thing cannot possibly be the solution to everything. That's just silly.

If you're saying that you would compromise with terrorists, then you really aren't a moderate in any sense of the word. So you would be willing to negotiate/compromise over how many hostages they kill instead of taking a stand against their disregard for human rights?

You have a disagreement with me and your solution is punching me in the face?  Alternate solution is more physical aggression?  Now who is not being reasonable?  You kind of go for the extremes when that is not where most situations end up going.  But you punch me in the face, I'm pressing charges and coming to court.  Hopefully, I didn't have a knee jerk reaction before I could get myself under control and I'm not facing assault charges along with you.

... seriously? That was an analogy. You have to be kidding me. Are you even reading the words I am writing? It really doesn't seem like it.

I think our communication problem is I'm talking about large groups of people and you want to talk about radical small groups.  I don't consider those groups when working on coming together for the whole group.  You seemed really concerned with them like they can take over.  The large group doesn't allow that.  They can stir up shit but in the end they go down or out of power. 

You kind of scare me how you go for the radical examples and are focus on that.  Are your responses to crisis situations always forceful?

I don't think they're as small as you think at least in congress. Look at how many voted against certifying the election in the house and senate.

[jarmo]

Isn't that how it is in countries in the EU? Permanent residents can vote in local elections?

Since I'm not sure how it's done in other countries, I can only speak from personal experience. I live in a country that I'm not a citizen of.

I can vote in Swedish local elections, but not the general election where the winning party usually gets to pick the Prime Minister.

I can vote in all Finnish elections from Sweden (general, presidential etc.) as well as European Union elections (I can choose to vote in Finland or Sweden for the EU elections).




/jarmo

[cineater]

I don't think you can look at a whole group and call them all extremist based on what a few people are doing.  The answer to every question is a negotiation/compromise because everybody doesn't do it exactly my way and I don't have the answer to every question. 

My personal opinion on a person killing other folks is kill them on the spot.  Why waste money and time taking them alive only to convict them and have to deal with all that shit afterwards?  But you know society says we go the try to take them alive way. Okay fine as long as you make them stop and keep them from doing it again.  But with terrorist groups running around the world there's too many of them to run after and they pop up every where, we have to find out what's going on here and settle it down some other way then just killing them and trying to put them all in prison.  We're going to have to work this one out.

Who said anything about a group of people?

Do you not see how people can manipulate you by simply taking the most extreme position possible so that the "compromise" always ends up in their favor? Do you really not see how treating compromise as the solution to everything is like thinking a hammer will drill a hole because it worked when you needed to drive a nail into something? One thing cannot possibly be the solution to everything. That's just silly.

If you're saying that you would compromise with terrorists, then you really aren't a moderate in any sense of the word. So you would be willing to negotiate/compromise over how many hostages they kill instead of taking a stand against their disregard for human rights?

You have a disagreement with me and your solution is punching me in the face?  Alternate solution is more physical aggression?  Now who is not being reasonable?  You kind of go for the extremes when that is not where most situations end up going.  But you punch me in the face, I'm pressing charges and coming to court.  Hopefully, I didn't have a knee jerk reaction before I could get myself under control and I'm not facing assault charges along with you.

... seriously? That was an analogy. You have to be kidding me. Are you even reading the words I am writing? It really doesn't seem like it.

I think our communication problem is I'm talking about large groups of people and you want to talk about radical small groups.  I don't consider those groups when working on coming together for the whole group.  You seemed really concerned with them like they can take over.  The large group doesn't allow that.  They can stir up shit but in the end they go down or out of power. 

You kind of scare me how you go for the radical examples and are focus on that.  Are your responses to crisis situations always forceful?

I don't think they're as small as you think at least in congress. Look at how many voted against certifying the election in the house and senate.

They are voting down party lines.  I think we have to be pretty insistent that kind of voting is not acceptable.  We can't have the parties ganging up and dividing us into 2 separate groups.  I would like to see them work together.