The Biden Presidency - 2020

[PilotMan]

How DID isn't a complete and total disqualification for public office I'll never know. I really only want him for what he says and his name. He's a number to the R party. Nothing more. He's surely not a bright mind who will represent his district with intelligent ideas and sound policy for the betterment of his constituents.

[RainMaker]

Rape victims who receive care at Saint Luke’s 16 health centers in Missouri will no longer have access to Plan B. The hospital system fears that emergency contraception will violate the state's abortion ban, which is both draconian and ambiguous. https://t.co/eMeCkJWkol pic.twitter.com/B8zJcSNKZq

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 29, 2022

[larrymcg421]

Don't underestimate that Warnock is a pretty great candidate. His ads are fantastic, almost completely positive and ingratiating. Even when he goes negative, it's just a clip of Walker talking about magical COVID spray.

[larrymcg421]

Dems winning Senate at 38 cents now. Wondering when I should sell some to hedge.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Dems winning Senate at 38 cents now. Wondering when I should sell some to hedge.

Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to fuck things up between July and November.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Drake

Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to fuck things up between July and November.

Yeah . . . the Dems being part of anything that Liz Cheney is not in charge of tends to go badly for them politically.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Drake

Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to fuck things up between July and November.

NEW from me and @adwolfson: President Biden is poised to nominate an anti-abortion Republican attorney for federal judgeship in Kentucky, in apparent deal with Mitch McConnell: https://t.co/nfheQeLVbl via @courierjournal

— Joe Sonka 😐 (@joesonka) June 29, 2022

[Edward64]

Nice win for NATO (and lesser extent Biden) on the Finland-Sweden-Turkiye "agreement".

I think Finland and Sweden had to compromise their "principles" and face the reality of the situation. Their national security vs some Turkish dissidents and arms sales.

Turkey lifts veto on Finland, Sweden joining NATO, clearing path for expansion | Reuters

Turkey's main demands, which came as a surprise to NATO allies in late May, were for the Nordic countries to stop supporting Kurdish militant groups present on their territory, and to lift their bans on some sales of arms to Turkey.

Stoltenberg said the terms of the deal involved Sweden intensifying work on Turkish extradition requests of suspected militants and amending Swedish and Finnish law to toughen their approach to them.

Stoltenberg said Sweden and Finland would lift their restrictions on selling weapons to Turkey.

Turkey has raised serious concerns that Sweden has been harbouring what it says are militants from the banned Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which took up arms against the Turkish state in 1984. Stockholm denies the accusation.

The Turkish presidency statement said the agreement reached on Tuesday meant, "Full cooperation with Turkey in the fight against the PKK and its affiliates."

It also said Sweden and Finland were "demonstrating solidarity with Turkey in the fight against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations."

[Edward64]

Hmmm. Not sure I agree with this unless the European NATO countries are doing the heavy lifting. Like to better understand the US commitment for boots on the ground. All things held equal, prefer if we focus more on APAC region vs China.

At a summit dominated by the invasion and the geopolitical upheaval it has caused, NATO also invited Sweden and Finland to join and pledged a seven-fold increase from 2023 in combat forces on high alert along its eastern flank against any future Russian attack.

[Edward64]

I think we can all agree we are headed into another Cold War (or already in one). I looked up to see if historians identified when the first Cold War started and found this in wiki

The Cold War was a period of geopolitical tension between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies, the Western Bloc and the Eastern Bloc, which began following World War II. Historians do not fully agree on its starting and ending points, but the period is generally considered to span from the announcement of the Truman Doctrine on 12 March 1947 to the dissolution of the Soviet Union on 26 December 1991.

And the Truman doctrine was

The Truman Doctrine is an American foreign policy that originated with the primary goal of containing Soviet geopolitical expansion during the Cold War. It was announced to Congress by President Harry S. Truman on March 12, 1947,[1] and further developed on July 4, 1948, when he pledged to contain the communist uprisings in Greece and Turkey. Direct American military force was usually not involved, but Congress appropriated financial aid to support the economies and militaries of Greece and Turkey. More generally, the Truman Doctrine implied American support for other nations thought to be threatened by Soviet communism. The Truman Doctrine became the foundation of American foreign policy, and led, in 1949, to the formation of NATO, a military alliance that still exists. Historians often use Truman's speech to date the start of the Cold War.[2]

Kinda similar to the NATO summit this week. So I'm thinking this week is a candidate for Cold War 2 in future history books.

Leaders made major enhancements of NATO's force posture along its eastern edge, increasing the number of high-alert troops by sevenfold. Biden announced new rotational deployments of US troops in the Baltics and Romania, new ships to Spain and planes to the United Kingdom, and for the first time a permanent Army garrison headquarters in Poland.

After dancing around the issue for years, NATO made clear in its updated mission statement that Russia now poses the "most significant threat to Allied security." And it mentioned China for the first time, saying the budding partnership between Moscow and Beijing "runs counter to our values."

[Edward64]

Didn't watch her testimony but sounds like either Hutchinson or Ornato (who said he's willing to testify to the contrary) is lying or greatly "mis-understood" what was said.

Yes, I would like both SS agents Ornato and Engel to testify under oath and let's see how it plays out. I'm willing to bet if Ornato told Hutchinson this, he probably told a bunch of other SS agents this also, so they should get sworn testimony from the presidential team.

‘Ketchup dripping down the wall’: 5 stunning moments from Cassidy Hutchinson’s Jan. 6 testimony - POLITICO

When Trump was told he would return to the White House instead of going to the Capitol that day, while being driven in the presidential vehicle known as “the Beast,” Hutchinson recalled hearing that he became irate.

She said she heard from Ornato that Trump lunged for the steering wheel of the car and was physically restrained by the head of his Secret Service detail, Robert Engel.

Ornato “described [Trump] as being irate. The president said something to the effect of, ‘I am the fucking president. Take me up to the Capitol now,’” Hutchinson said. She added that while Ornato relayed this story to her, Engel sat silent.

[JPhillips]

In one term SCOTUS killed abortion access, gun control, tribal sovereignty, the EPA, redistricting reform and the VRA...

What else am I missing?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In one term SCOTUS killed abortion access, gun control, tribal sovereignty, the EPA, redistricting reform and the VRA...

What else am I missing?

Well, they aren't done yet, soooo

[JPhillips]

They took up an independent state legislature case for next term. They'll probably agree that only a state's legislature can set election law, no veto by the governor, review by courts, or initiative by the people. That will mean a gerrymandered legislature can create whatever election law they choose and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

Freedom.

[larrymcg421]

This theory was attempted back during Bush vs. Gore, but only had 3 votes (Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist). Kennedy pretty much made fun of the Bush lawyer who attempted to make it during oral arguments.

And he deserved to be made fun of, because the argument is ridiculous. It is based on this clause

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors

The argument is the legislature may do it and nobody can check or balance that power. It is a fundamental misreading of the constitution, ignores the clear intent of the founders, and lacks even basic common sense.

There are many clauses that dictate what Congress may do. Under this theory, the executive or judicial branches could not check those powers because only Congress is mentioned.

I'm sorry, but James Madison didn't write Federalist 51 and then write a clause intending to give only one branch the power to do something, with no means of checking it whatsoever.

[larrymcg421]

The media is so bad at its job. So many articles with a headline saying SCOTUS struck down the Remain in Mexico policy. They didn't do that at all. They said Biden could end the policy. The policy could still be re-implemented by a future President.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The argument is the legislature may do it and nobody can check or balance that power. It is a fundamental misreading of the constitution, ignores the clear intent of the founders, and lacks even basic common sense.

I don't think it's a fundamental misreading, I think they all know it's bullshit. But it gives them power and that's the only justification they can to ending democratic elections.

[RainMaker]

Wait, Biden's deal with McConnell is that Biden gets 2 TEMPORARY prosecutors in return for a LIFETIME appointment to the federal bench?!

That's unconscionable. @DickDurbin should pledge that Meredith will receive no hearing. And @SenSchumer should pledge he'll get no floor vote. pic.twitter.com/4lV5BTpq1A

— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) July 1, 2022

[albionmoonlight]

I'm much less anti-Biden than most. But if that really was the deal, then I'm glad it got scuttled.

[PilotMan]

Biden looks like a chump making a deal like that, considering the past 13 years of McConnell.

[Edward64]

I can easily believe Deese mispoke about "liberal world order". But if this is a preview of Biden/Dem's mid-term messaging, I think its a bad idea.

During an appearance on CNN Thursday, National Economic Council director Brian Deese was asked by anchor Victor Blackwell: “What do you say to those families who say, ‘Listen, we can’t afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years. This is just not sustainable’?”

“What you heard from the president today was a clear articulation of the stakes,” Deese answered. “This is about the future of the liberal world order and we have to stand firm.

“But at the same time, what I’d say to that family and to Americans across the country is you have a president, an administration that is going to do everything in its power to blunt those price increases and bring those prices down,” Deese added.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yes, I would like both SS agents Ornato and Engel to testify under oath and let's see how it plays out. I'm willing to bet if Ornato told Hutchinson this, he probably told a bunch of other SS agents this also, so they should get sworn testimony from the presidential team.

An article I read today said that story (or an approx) has been circulating around the SS agents. It may come down to the definition of "lunge" but think there is enough there to say Hutchinson didn't completely make it out of thin air.

[RainMaker]

I think Pritzker might run against Biden. He has been taking shots at Biden lately and has been surprisingly good here in Illinois.

[cuervo72]

This is what they want, I guess.

Ohio girl, 10, among patients going to Indiana to get abortion

[Ksyrup]

No, they don't want that. "Sending it back to the states" is just step one until they regain enough power to implement a nationwide ban or, in the interim given a full legislative session, implement criminal penalties and extra-territorial jurisdiction laws to stop all abortions.

[cuervo72]

No, I mean they want pregnant 10yo.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Don't underestimate that Warnock is a pretty great candidate. His ads are fantastic, almost completely positive and ingratiating. Even when he goes negative, it's just a clip of Walker talking about magical COVID spray.

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. Yes, he is a great candidate. That is part of the factor. Walker being a bad candidate is another. I also wonder how much Abrams being a black woman hurts her, and how much of the demonization she gets for being basically being good at her job at getting voter turn-out. Like the "Hilary Clinton" affect.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I can easily believe Deese mispoke about "liberal world order". But if this is a preview of Biden/Dem's mid-term messaging, I think its a bad idea.

Why? Why do you think it was an errant statement?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

No, I mean they want pregnant 10yo.

They would use messaging like “all life matters” and that “Mary was only 12-14 when she gave birth to Jesus.”

Def need to be locking up whomever raped a 10 year old though. Prob a family member

[PilotMan]

The entire "all life matters" argument is not really accurate. It's more accurate to say that unborn life is more important than a living, breathing human. Because if you're forcing said living, breathing human to carry to term, without regard for any circumstance that got it there, or what damage it might do to the living, breathing human carrying it. That says that there's a clear pecking order of importance to me.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

No, I mean they want pregnant 10yo.

As the ruling said, they want to increase the supply.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The entire "all life matters" argument is not really accurate. It's more accurate to say that unborn life is more important than a living, breathing human. Because if you're forcing said living, breathing human to carry to term, without regard for any circumstance that got it there, or what damage it might do to the living, breathing human carrying it. That says that there's a clear pecking order of importance to me.

The funniest part of this is that it's really an evolutionary argument (i.e., you exist just to transmit genes to the next generation; once you've replicated enough to ensure your genetic survival and a bit of diversity, you cease to matter.)

Nobody ever mentions that in church, though.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Drake

The funniest part of this is that it's really an evolutionary argument (i.e., you exist just to transmit genes to the next generation; once you've replicated enough to ensure your genetic survival and a bit of diversity, you cease to matter.)

Nobody ever mentions that in church, though.

One guy running for something somewhere (I forget who and for what, not worth giving that much thought to said jackass) asserted that marriage should be solely for procreating (and hence, no same-sex coupling). So, um, yeah -- we finished up on that 20 years ago. I guess my wife and I should be required to divorce? Or for that matter every woman past child-rearing age? (My mom's second marriage immediately came to mind. Shouldn't have been allowed at all.)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

One guy running for something somewhere (I forget who and for what, not worth giving that much thought to said jackass) asserted that marriage should be solely for procreating (and hence, no same-sex coupling). So, um, yeah -- we finished up on that 20 years ago. I guess my wife and I should be required to divorce? Or for that matter every woman past child-rearing age? (My mom's second marriage immediately came to mind. Shouldn't have been allowed at all.)

It's terrible doctrine, and I've never heard it preached in any actual church I've ever attended...though I have heard it from politicians and the sort of evangelists who have television shows and radio programs (or these days, I suppose TikToks and YouTube channels.)

I'd explain all of the ways it's wrong, but you probably don't want to read it and I don't want to look up all the references. Let's just say it's roughly equivalent to boiling football down to "if you have the ball, you should only be trying to score."

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

One guy running for something somewhere (I forget who and for what, not worth giving that much thought to said jackass) asserted that marriage should be solely for procreating (and hence, no same-sex coupling). So, um, yeah -- we finished up on that 20 years ago. I guess my wife and I should be required to divorce? Or for that matter every woman past child-rearing age? (My mom's second marriage immediately came to mind. Shouldn't have been allowed at all.)

This was the argument made by conservatives in the Obergfell and other gay marriage cases. I don't for a second think they actually believed it,but had to come up with some legal theory for why they could justify gay marriage bans. The conservative lawyers were asked those very same questions during oral arguments and didn't have a good answer, because there isn't one.

Unfortunately, three of the justices in dissent are still on the court today, and they would only need two of Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh to overturn that ruling.

[RainMaker]

Biden screwed Beshear by agreeing to a deal with McConnell to nominate an antiabortion federal judge in exchange for two temporary prosecutors.

So Beshear seems to have leaked that Biden originally scheduled the nomination for the day Roe was overturned. https://t.co/kAfIcLVAnG

— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) July 3, 2022

[JPhillips]

Durbin and Schumer can and should make it clear that they won't hold a vote on this nominee.

[RainMaker]

They haven't given much of a shit about judicial nominees. They've been slow to confirm and there is a good chance they won't be able to confirm anymore come next year.

This was something Harry Reid was actually really good at.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They haven't given much of a shit about judicial nominees. They've been slow to confirm and there is a good chance they won't be able to confirm anymore come next year.

This was something Harry Reid was actually really good at.

They've been slow to confirm lately, but through June 1 of Biden's 2nd year he has more confirmations than any President going back to Reagan. Trump confirmations took off at this point in his presidency out of the remote fear of losing Senate though.

My problem with the confirmations is the dems are still adhering to the norms that the GOP shit on. The two Tennessee senators don't like Andre Mathis. Who gives a shit? Confirm him and move on.

I also expect the dems to go back to norms when it comes to a lame duck senate if they lose the midterms. Ignoring the fact that McConnell hammered 14 judges through with a lame duck senate.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

They've been slow to confirm lately, but through June 1 of Biden's 2nd year he has more confirmations than any President going back to Reagan. Trump confirmations took off at this point in his presidency out of the remote fear of losing Senate though.

My problem with the confirmations is the dems are still adhering to the norms that the GOP shit on. The two Tennessee senators don't like Andre Mathis. Who gives a shit? Confirm him and move on.

I also expect the dems to go back to norms when it comes to a lame duck senate if they lose the midterms. Ignoring the fact that McConnell hammered 14 judges through with a lame duck senate.

They're adhering to the norms that only one side adheres to. There are a ton of judicial openings. They still don't have a bunch of other positions like a head of FCC in place. It's a colossal failure.

[Edward64]

The article is proposing Hillary as best to run in 2024. I don't necessarily agree she is the best but agree she is prob better than a Biden or Kamala as of right now (and I do want to see who else pops up).

Yes, I think she can beat Trump in 2024 assuming we are still not in the throes of a recession/depression/inflation/stagflation etc.

Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton | The Hill

As John Ellis wrote this week, “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton to get out of stealth mode and start down the path toward declaring her candidacy for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.”

Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.

Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”

[Edward64]

I'm all for picketing and protesting at justices houses assuming it's lawful and following the rules (e.g. supposedly there were bullhorns which may or not be approved?). I'm also okay for them to be provided extra protection.

Sure its intimidation, payback. And it won't change any of their minds. The protests will eventually go away, and if not, the justices can move to a nice multi-story condo.

[Lathum]

Maybe they should do the kind of peaceful protesting Trump et al are claiming happened on Jan 6th?

Something tells me if a bunch of people wielding rainbow flags with spikes on the end broke through ACBs windows with a gallows erected out front they those on the right would look at it differently.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The article is proposing Hillary as best to run in 2024. I don't necessarily agree she is the best but agree she is prob better than a Biden or Kamala as of right now (and I do want to see who else pops up).

Yes, I think she can beat Trump in 2024 assuming we are still not in the throes of a recession/depression/inflation/stagflation etc.

Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton | The Hill

I'm a big weirdo who actually liked Hillary and Jeb. These managers-who-can-actually-run-things types really appeal to me.

But running a candidate like that in 2022 is party suicide. The Dems ran Hillary. She was super unpopular and lost. No need to rerun that show.

[Lathum]

I do wonder if there are a lot of people who voted Trump, or stayed home, then after witnessing the continued horror show would vote Hillary almost as a do over.

Fool me once and all that stuff....

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I do wonder if there are a lot of people who voted Trump, or stayed home, then after witnessing the continued horror show would vote Hillary almost as a do over.

Fool me once and all that stuff....

Not sure about that, and I'm certainly not willing to bet on it. From '16 to '20 his vote total went up by close to 12MM.

[bob]

I can’t imagine a pairing as destructive for this country as Clinton - Trump, so I assume that’s exactly what will happen.

[Edward64]

Yeah, what else does Biden have to do (and worry about) besides your SO and personally respond. Sorry she is caught up in geopolitics & Ukrainian stuff but nah, pretty low on the priority list.

Cherelle, who has only spoken recently to her wife through letters, said she feels that Griner decided to write to President Joe Biden directly because the family has had no luck in contacting him.

"It kills me every time that, you know, when I have to write her and she's asking, 'Have you met with them yet?' And I have to say no... I'm sure she is like 'I'm going to write him and ask now because my family has tried to no avail, so I'm going to do it myself,'" said Cherelle.

Even after yesterday's letter was delivered, Cherelle said she has not heard from Biden directly and she said that is "very disheartening."

Griner was arrested at a Moscow airport in February after officials in Russia claimed she had cannabis oil in her luggage. A Russian judge ordered Griner, the Phoenix Mercury center who played in Russia during the WNBA off-season, to remain in custody. If convicted on drug smuggling charges, Griner could face 10 years in a Russian prison. Her trial will resume on July 7.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I do wonder if there are a lot of people who voted Trump, or stayed home, then after witnessing the continued horror show would vote Hillary almost as a do over.

Speaking of do overs, I wonder if Hillary's campaign staff would have her make at least one visit to the state of Wisconsin?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah, what else does Biden have to do (and worry about) besides your SO and personally respond. Sorry she is caught up in geopolitics & Ukrainian stuff but nah, pretty low on the priority list.

I saw a comment that if it was LeBron he'd already be out. Probably true, but what if it was Allen Iverson?