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

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/