Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Perhaps. A quick Google throws up plenty of articles. I was just providing the link as requested.

Can you provide one for

1. A Trump vaccine existed

2. Biden said he wouldn't trust a vaccine. I'll accept any vaccine for covid, not just the imaginary Trump one

If not, concede you were talking nonsense again[/QUOTE]

Ffs Brian.

I was talking about when trump announced that there would be a vaccine before the end of the year. It was roundly dismissed.

Biden or Harris dismissed it and said they wouldn't take a vaccine that trump endorsed (albeit they did say they would trust it if Faucci gave the say so)

It was a glib through away comment that unfortunately has rounded up the usual jackals to feast on the carcass of anyone who says anything that can be seen as positive about trump.

I'll leave you guys to it. I couldn't be arsed.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can you provide one for

1. A Trump vaccine existed

2. Biden said he wouldn't trust a vaccine. I'll accept any vaccine for covid, not just the imaginary Trump one

If not, concede you were talking nonsense again

Ffs Brian.

I was talking about when trump announced that there would be a vaccine before the end of the year. It was roundly dismissed.

Biden or Harris dismissed it and said they wouldn't take a vaccine that trump endorsed (albeit they did say they would trust it if Faucci gave the say so)

It was a glib through away comment that unfortunately has rounded up the usual jackals to feast on the carcass of anyone who says anything that can be seen as positive about trump.

I'll leave you guys to it. I couldn't be arsed.

Don't "FFS" me. You said something stupid and then doubled down on it. Now you're in a huff because you've been called out on it.

If you don't want people picking apart your posts, don't post stupid stuff

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was a glib through away comment that unfortunately has rounded up the usual jackals to feast on the carcass of anyone who says anything that can be seen as positive about trump.

I'll leave you guys to it. I couldn't be arsed.

600,000 people died. A significant amount of those due to Trump's mishandling of the crisis. But sure, make a glib comment (your words) defending trump and then wonder why people take you to task.

Put your big boy pants on (the right way around) and argue if you think Trump was treated unfairly during covid. But like i said, apply some critical thinking first.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

600,000 people died. A significant amount of those due to Trump's mishandling of the crisis. But sure, make a glib comment (your words) defending trump and then wonder why people take you to task.

Put your big boy pants on (the right way around) and argue if you think Trump was treated unfairly during covid. But like i said, apply some critical thinking first.

Youre right. I should have known better than to make a comment like that if I wasn't arsed to follow it up.

Mea culpa.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Biden or Harris dismissed it and said they wouldn't take a vaccine that trump endorsed (albeit they did say they would trust it if Faucci gave the say so)

They very specifically said, with qualification, that they would not condone cutting corners in verifying the safety and efficacy of a vaccine to rush it out the door as a politicization. Specifically, it was well known that Trump desired to have the vaccine out before election day to help his campaign. It is political spin to suggest that either Harris or Biden indicated they would, so to speak, refuse to take an objectively certifiable vaccination just because Trump had endorsed it (that's the sort of thing Republicans do - eg. voting down Romneycare just because Obama was the one to sign it). Really, the most you can say is that neither Biden or Harris would be satisfied to take the vaccine if one night, Trump came on the TV and said 'I have it, here' - they would only take a vaccine that went through the correct process and was certified by the appropriate agencies, ie. they do not trust Trump to be a stand-in for their doctor.

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Youre right. I should have known better than to make a comment like that if I wasn't arsed to follow it up.

Mea culpa.

Fair enough.

I'm more concerned that you appear to believe it to be true (when it isn't) or *want* it to be true.

I suspect eithet way you listen to some seriously ****ed up "news" source

astrofool

The article literally says that Biden and Harris wouldn't trust trumps announcements on when vaccines would be ready.

They were proven 100% correct as the vaccines arrived after trump said they would.

trump then tried to claim the first developed vaccine as part of his operation warp speed, when it wasn't, it was developed in the EU by a German company.

He still tries to claim that without his administration, vaccines wouldn't exist, again this is 100% a lie.

On top of this, the vaccine supply when Biden took over was completely lacking as trump had spent the previous 2 months losing lawsuits related to his lost election campaign and the Biden administration had to ramp up from almost nothing, set aggressive vaccination targets and ended up doubling them.

Tell me how

astrofool wrote: »

The article literally says that Biden and Harris wouldn't trust trumps announcements on when vaccines would be ready.

They were proven 100% correct as the vaccines arrived after trump said they would.

trump then tried to claim the first developed vaccine as part of his operation warp speed, when it wasn't, it was developed in the EU by a German company.

He still tries to claim that without his administration, vaccines wouldn't exist, again this is 100% a lie.

On top of this, the vaccine supply when Biden took over was completely lacking as trump had spent the previous 2 months losing lawsuits related to his lost election campaign and the Biden administration had to ramp up from almost nothing, set aggressive vaccination targets and ended up doubling them.

Correction, he has claimed that without 'him' the vaccine wouldn't exist.

astrofool

Tell me how wrote: »

Correction, he has claimed that without 'him' vaccines wouldn't exist.

To be fair, he did allow the scientific world to eliminate disinfectant injections and shoving a lightbulb up his supporters ass as a treatment, the fact that that some of those supporters died is neither here nor there of course:
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/us-coronavirus-deaths-by-bleach-disinfectant-injection-major-rise-trump-covid-19-treatment-616708

duploelabs

astrofool wrote: »

To be fair, he did allow the scientific world to eliminate disinfectant injections and shoving a lightbulb up his supporters ass as a treatment, the fact that that some of those supporters died is neither here nor there of course:
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/us-coronavirus-deaths-by-bleach-disinfectant-injection-major-rise-trump-covid-19-treatment-616708

The anti vax conspiracy documentary on Channel 4 shows the batsh!t origins of the disinfectant and light bulb claims that Trump made.

Faugheen

I see the 'they're both bad, but Biden...' club has a new fully fledged member who's getting in a huff because they made a fool of themselves again.

Tell me how

Joe Manchin has just effectively tied Biden's hands until the mid-terms but quite possible for the remainder of his Presidency.
Let's hope it's actually a rallying cry for Democrats nationwide to try to win greater control of both house and senate in 2022.
It's a fairly clear and obvious campaign message.

Brian?

Tell me how wrote: »

Joe Manchin has just effectively tied Biden's hands until the mid-terms but quite possible for the remainder of his Presidency.
Let's hope it's actually a rallying cry for Democrats nationwide to try to win greater control of both house and senate in 2022.
It's a fairly clear and obvious campaign message.

What did he do?

Overheal

Brian? wrote: »

What did he do?

Doesn’t support HR1 and he doesn’t support ending the filibuster.

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

Doesn’t support HR1 and he doesn’t support ending the filibuster.

Ah ffs, absolutely ridiculous. About 30% of the population holding the country to ransom.

Manic Moran

Tell me how wrote: »

Joe Manchin has just effectively tied Biden's hands until the mid-terms but quite possible for the remainder of his Presidency.
Let's hope it's actually a rallying cry for Democrats nationwide to try to win greater control of both house and senate in 2022.
It's a fairly clear and obvious campaign message.

For whom?

Is there anyone out there who currently cares whether the Democrats have sufficient control of Congress to weather a couple of objectors who isn't already voting on the matter? The Anti-Republicans (And anti-Democrats, in fairness) are already voting.

As opposed to caring about other things such as whether their candidates appeal to their own political philosophies.

Overheal

Let's just all vote online via blockchain, we can make it at least as secure as retrieving tax returns etc. from the IRS, ie. we already know how to ID online users.

Overheal

Anybody down for a little interdimensional cable:

https://twitter.com/NABTU/status/1401931961308905473?s=20

I don't think I've ever heard that much swearing in a campaign commercial, but it kinda works for them.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Let's just all vote online via blockchain, we can make it at least as secure as retrieving tax returns etc. from the IRS, ie. we already know how to ID online users.

Are democrats not by and large opposed to voter I'd? So how would those without it be id'd online?

Brian?

Hhhhh wrote: »

Are democrats not by and large opposed to voter I'd? So how would those without it be id'd online?

They are opposed to some voter ID laws that are designed to discriminate against minorities and young people.

Was it Texas where a new ID law said a firearms permit was legal ID but not a college ID.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

They are opposed to some voter ID laws that are designed to discriminate against minorities and young people.

Was it Texas where a new ID law said a firearms permit was legal ID but not a college ID.

I've no idea. Strange if it was the case.

What are the voter ID laws that are designed to discriminate against minorities (asking in good faith as I genuinely don't know)? And how would discriminating against minorities be prevented if online voting was used, that required I'd?

Brian?

Hhhhh wrote: »

I've no idea. Strange if it was the case.

What are the voter ID laws that are designed to discriminate against minorities (asking in good faith as I genuinely don't know)? And how would discriminating against minorities be prevented if online voting was used, that required I'd?

You have to get into the detail of each law. Some make it extremely difficult to get the required ID. Putting the place you have to get the ID in more affluent areas etc.. Poor minorities are statistically less likely to have a drivers licence or passport.

The GOP play a very clever game to keep minorities away from the polls. Stacey Abraham’s in Georgia countered every move they made, which carried Georgia for Biden.

Smee_Again

This link from the ACLU give a brief overview of the issues created by Voter ID laws and corroborates the claim above that Texas accept a firearms permit but not a college id.

everlast75

I see the DOJ under Biden are sticking with their right to intervene in a case against an official "acting in the course of his duty", and in this example, the defence of Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case.

While I am aware that successive DOJs will inherently look to defend their rights to intervene in cases and other stances, and that this will invariably protect previous administrations, IMHO unless DOJs see the bigger picture here and allow previous administrations to be taken to task, then there will be no accountability.

Manic Moran

Hhhhh wrote: »

I've no idea. Strange if it was the case.

One is a statewide ID issued by the government which requires verification of identity, a background check and fingerprints. The other is an ID printed by one of hundreds (there are 170 colleges in Texas) of institutions, most of which are private.

Why should it be strange that the former be considered more acceptable than the latter?

What are the voter ID laws that are designed to discriminate against minorities (asking in good faith as I genuinely don't know)? And how would discriminating against minorities be prevented if online voting was used, that required I'd?

It's a bit tautological, but the ones which are intended to be more difficult to obtain ID amongst certain demographics. There are two common barriers, the supporting documentation which prove you are who you say you are, and the cost of obtaining. Most States which require an ID to vote will provide a State ID card for free or minimal cost, but there can be issues with supporting documentation such as a requirement to provide a birth certificate. The trick is in trying to come up with a voter ID law (Supreme Court has upheld the concept) which achieves the function without excessive burden.

Whether the law has a discriminatory intent need not match with the results and often is viewed through a political lens. Texas's voter ID law has been through the wringer for most of the 2010s. About 2016 it was ruled discriminatory in its effect by the Fifth Circuit hearing en banc because of the number of Texans apparently unable to provide documentation, but the court also specifically opined that it was not shown that discrimination was the intent of the law. The law was tweaked a bit as a result, some folks claiming it was still discriminatory, but the Fifth let the tweaked version stand after another round of cases. Supreme Court has not taken a case since 2008 on the matter.

Overheal

One is a statewide ID issued by the government which requires verification of identity, a background check and fingerprints. The other is an ID printed by one of hundreds (there are 170 colleges in Texas) of institutions, most of which are private.

Why should it be strange that the former be considered more acceptable than the latter?

Why not bring the latter up to a government standard? It can be done in public education?

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

One is a statewide ID issued by the government which requires verification of identity, a background check and fingerprints. The other is an ID printed by one of hundreds (there are 170 colleges in Texas) of institutions, most of which are private.

Why should it be strange that the former be considered more acceptable than the latter?



It's a bit tautological, but the ones which are intended to be more difficult to obtain ID amongst certain demographics. There are two common barriers, the supporting documentation which prove you are who you say you are, and the cost of obtaining. Most States which require an ID to vote will provide a State ID card for free or minimal cost, but there can be issues with supporting documentation such as a requirement to provide a birth certificate. The trick is in trying to come up with a voter ID law (Supreme Court has upheld the concept) which achieves the function without excessive burden.

Whether the law has a discriminatory intent need not match with the results and often is viewed through a political lens. Texas's voter ID law has been through the wringer for most of the 2010s. About 2016 it was ruled discriminatory in its effect by the Fifth Circuit hearing en banc because of the number of Texans apparently unable to provide documentation, but the court also specifically opined that it was not shown that discrimination was the intent of the law. The law was tweaked a bit as a result, some folks claiming it was still discriminatory, but the Fifth let the tweaked version stand after another round of cases. Supreme Court has not taken a case since 2008 on the matter.

Isn't it also the case though that the actual process of applying can be especially onerous for certain demographics?

The physical offices that you need to attend are not readily available in certain districts meaning you have to travel quite a distance, the open hours are very restrictive especially if you are working in a low paid/hourly type job - Much easier to slip out for an hour or two to go to the "ID Office" from an Office job than it is to get time off from flipping Burgers in Arby's or whatever.

Everything that I've read about this issue seems to suggest that it is the cumulative impact of multiple things , each of which in isolation seem manageable but when taken in their entirety make it much much more difficult than it should be for certain (typically Democrat leaning) demographics to achieve compliance with the rules.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Why not bring the latter up to a government standard? It can be done in public education?

Oh, it can most certainly be done both public and private. North Carolina has such a system, though it does seem a little convoluted and not very cost-effective.

Why not just get a government ID? Of all the downtrodden, disadvantaged people in the US who have neither time, money nor documentation to get a government ID, I suspect folks attending college do not make a significant portion of them.

Isn't it also the case though that the actual process of applying can be especially onerous for certain demographics?

The physical offices that you need to attend are not readily available in certain districts meaning you have to travel quite a distance, the open hours are very restrictive especially if you are working in a low paid/hourly type job - Much easier to slip out for an hour or two to go to the "ID Office" from an Office job than it is to get time off from flipping Burgers in Arby's or whatever.

Sometimes, yes. It's why the Supreme Court has allowed affidavits to be used instead of ID cards, if people can provide a good reason why they cannot provide an ID. This requirement has itself been challenged (unsuccessfully) as discriminatory because it's argued that people will feel intimidated by the fact that being convicted of lying in the affidavit is a chargeable offense.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, it can most certainly be done both public and private. North Carolina has such a system, though it does seem a little convoluted and not very cost-effective.

Why not just get a government ID? Of all the downtrodden, disadvantaged people in the US who have neither time, money nor documentation to get a government ID, I suspect folks attending college do not make a significant portion of them.

thatsthejoke.png

I was talking about just making the colleges issuers of a State ID. Make High Schools do it when kids graduate or something. State ID has nothing to do with driving, so why depend on the DMV

SEPT 23 1989

This will be a very memorable visit

duploelabs

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

This will be a very memorable visit

I imagine some manners being put on Boris by Biden with respect to the NI protocol

Leroy42

duploelabs wrote: »

I imagine some manners being put on Boris by Biden with respect to the NI protocol

What can he say? Johnson doesn't seem overly worried about how the UK is being seen and tbf he only has to care about the voters in the UK and up to now they seem to love Johnson appearing to break the rules.

The likelihood of a US trade deal is pretty low no matter what he does so he will lose nothing. And Biden is interested in rebuilding allies, no breaking them further.

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

What can he say? Johnson doesn't seem overly worried about how the UK is being seen and tbf he only has to care about the voters in the UK and up to now they seem to love Johnson appearing to break the rules.

The likelihood of a US trade deal is pretty low no matter what he does so he will lose nothing. And Biden is interested in rebuilding allies, no breaking them further.

Well it seems joe Biden gave David frost and another official a diplomatic bollocking today according to the times newspaper. They’ve lodged an official complaint over the carry on that the UK have been doing around the Protocol.

Faugheen

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well it seems joe Biden gave David frost and another official a diplomatic bollocking today according to the times newspaper. They’ve lodged an official complaint over the carry on that the UK have been doing around the Protocol.

Before anyone comes in saying it means nothing etc, this action is unprecedented between the UK and the US.

Itssoeasy

Faugheen wrote: »

Before anyone comes in saying it means nothing etc, this action is unprecedented between the UK and the US.

Yes, the article makes it very clear this isn’t the done thing and is not normally done between allies.

y0ssar1an22

what about birthing people?

keep pursuing that nonsense and the dems wont last 15 months.

i expect a sly re writing.

duploelabs

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

what about birthing people?

keep pursuing that nonsense and the dems wont last 15 months.

i expect a sly re writing.

Well Google translate failed me on this one

Leroy42

Faugheen wrote: »

Before anyone comes in saying it means nothing etc, this action is unprecedented between the UK and the US.

It unprecedented that a UK government would purposely break international law.
Its unprecedented that a PM would lie to the queen.
Its unprecedented that minister's would hand out so many contracts to their mates.
Its unprecedented that a national government would sign a deal with no intention of trying to sort implement it.
And there are plenty more.

The point being that Biden can say whatever he wants, but it won't make a difference. Do you think Frost is going to suddenly change course, that Johnson will now decide that a deal is a deal?

One thing we know after 5 years, and more so after 2 years of Johnson, is that unprecedented means nothing

The Raging Bile Duct

duploelabs wrote: »

Well Google translate failed me on this one

Supposedly maternity literature in the States will replace the word 'mothers' with 'birthing people'. It's the kind of story that means zilch but makes the right wing forecast the end of the world.

duploelabs

Leroy42 wrote: »

What can he say? Johnson doesn't seem overly worried about how the UK is being seen and tbf he only has to care about the voters in the UK and up to now they seem to love Johnson appearing to break the rules.

The likelihood of a US trade deal is pretty low no matter what he does so he will lose nothing. And Biden is interested in rebuilding allies, no breaking them further.

Post brexit Britain is in a much more precarious trade situation and is in a bad need on one with the us, and also for them to scale back on the global corporate tax agreement in the G7.

Look like my prediction of a rebuke has been there for a week already

It is reported that the United State's most senior diplomat in the UK, Yael Lempert, told Brexit Minister David Frost that his government was "'inflaming' tensions in Ireland and Europe with its opposition to checks at ports in the province".

https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2021/0610/1227241-biden-uk/

charlie_says

Leroy42 wrote: »

It unprecedented that a UK government would purposely break international law.
Its unprecedented that a PM would lie to the queen.
Its unprecedented that minister's would hand out so many contracts to their mates.
Its unprecedented that a national government would sign a deal with no intention of trying to sort implement it.
And there are plenty more.

The point being that Biden can say whatever he wants, but it won't make a difference. Do you think Frost is going to suddenly change course, that Johnson will now decide that a deal is a deal?

One thing we know after 5 years, and more so after 2 years of Johnson, is that unprecedented means nothing

Is it really though?

Fr Tod Umptious

In other Biden Presidency news poor Harris got into bit of bother a few days ago telling Guatemalans not to try coming to America, and she reiterated it too.

Getting plenty of heat from the progressives of the Democratic party too over it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57408094

Also she has yet to visit the southern border, even though Joe gave it to her as part of her portfolio back in March

Quin_Dub

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

In other Biden Presidency news poor Harris got into bit of bother a few days ago telling Guatemalans not to try coming to America, and she reiterated it too.

Getting plenty of heat from the progressives of the Democratic party too over it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57408094

Also she has yet to visit the southern border, even though Joe gave it to her as part of her portfolio back in March

I don't get the obsession with a physical visit - What exactly is a Politician supposed to be able to achieve standing in the Desert in Texas or New Mexico pointing at a fence or whatever that couldn't be better achieved in a meeting in Washington.

It's a Photo ops nothing more..

everlast75

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

In other Biden Presidency news poor Harris got into bit of bother a few days ago telling Guatemalans not to try coming to America, and she reiterated it too.

Getting plenty of heat from the progressives of the Democratic party too over it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57408094

Also she has yet to visit the southern border, even though Joe gave it to her as part of her portfolio back in March

1) She should get stick for what she said
2) She shouldn't get stick for not visiting the border. They're only getting the pandemic under control.
3) any Republican expressing concern for people coming over the border can go and do one.

Water John

Not sure as to why KH should get stick for telling people not to come to the US illegally. That's Govn't policy.
The developments arising from Biden's first foreign trip will be interesting and hopefully positive.

WhomadeGod

WhomadeGod wrote: »

Kamala Harris hasnt been to europe either remember.

What exactly is your point?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly is your point?

I think he is congratulating her for not unnecessarily travelling during a pandemic.

Glad to see he has come to his senses.

Fr Tod Umptious

Water John wrote: »

Not sure as to why KH should get stick for telling people not to come to the US illegally. That's Govn't policy.
The developments arising from Biden's first foreign trip will be interesting and hopefully positive.

The push back from AOC and the like is because it's totally legal to turn up at the US border and seek entry.

They have taken her statement
“I want to be clear to folks in the region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border,” she said. “Do not come. Do not come.”
not in the context of "don't try and enter illegally" but in the context of "don't even bother turning up at the border".

WrenBoy

When questioned in an interview on her not visiting the southern border she laughed and said that she hasn't been to Europe yet either .
Strange answer but thats the context I believe.

Fr Tod Umptious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't get the obsession with a physical visit - What exactly is a Politician supposed to be able to achieve standing in the Desert in Texas or New Mexico pointing at a fence or whatever that couldn't be better achieved in a meeting in Washington.

It's a Photo ops nothing more..

She has been given special responsibility for the crises at the southern border.

I know optics is a huge part of it but the optics would be for someone like herself to be "seen" to be doing something by visiting the area where the crises is occurring.
Whether she can do a better job from a far I have no idea.

As for traveling during the pandemic, travel has been pretty regular in the US for months now, it's not like Ireland where we were locked down so much for so long.