The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I'm fine with West Virginia not being a part of the stimulus

Wow.

[GrantDawg]

Timeline now is that the counties have until the 15th to certify. The SOS has until the 22nd, but they can and probably will certify sooner. They should be sworn in before the 20th.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Biden is doing an all time takedown of Trump in this press conference.

[ISiddiqui]

Lol, Biden saying Trump not showing up to the inauguration is one of the few things we agree on.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[CrimsonFox]

it would be nice if the amounts were like dependent on income :P

and oh boy...so are we in for 2 years of Democrats not doing anything because THEY block each other now?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Timeline now is that the counties have until the 15th to certify. The SOS has until the 22nd, but they can and probably will certify sooner. They should be sworn in before the 20th.

Since Loeffler conceded, wouldn't Warnock be certified much sooner? Or do both races have to be certified at the same time?

Nevermind, saw Perdue conceded. I thought conceding sped up the process?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nevermind, saw Perdue conceded. I thought conceding sped up the process?

I don't think so, at least not officially. It's just that normally we have an election, the loser concedes, and we never hear anything else about it again...

[RainMaker]

I think Biden and the Democrats would be smart to push for DC statehood now. The district was turned into a military occupation over the Summer by the government. The government let terrorists run roughshod over them the other day. These people have no representation or voice in government.

That's the argument you make. These people are at the mercy of a federal government they have no representation in.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think Biden and the Democrats would be smart to push for DC statehood now. The district was turned into a military occupation over the Summer by the government. The government let terrorists run roughshod over them the other day. These people have no representation or voice in government.

That's the argument you make. These people are at the mercy of a federal government they have no representation in.

I counter with "You spit in the face of Betsy Ross to invalidate all her hard flag-sewing work"

[CrimsonFox]

Hmmmm Betsy Ross...Betsy Devos....OMG....It's the same woman!

[Brian Swartz]

I second the DC statehood idea.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I second the DC statehood idea.

Me Three

[GrantDawg]

Me four, but then I have long supported statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. I have a really hard time with taxation without representation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

The Dems have both houses of Congress and the White House and an argument for D.C. Statehood that is fresh in people's minds.

If they lack the political courage to do it now, they will never do it.

If they do, maybe the 50 star flag will become the new Confederate flag.

[albionmoonlight]

dola: And considering our Hurricane Maria response, we should make Puerto Rico a state (or two) as well.

May as well take the "They want Black and Hispanic people to have Senators" political hit all at once.

[RainMaker]

Can I talk you into the Wyoming Rule by chance?

Interesting development here. Kind of wonder if maybe a Senator or two would be willing to go independent. Might help the Democrats not have to rely on Manchin. Romney is practically a blue dog Dem who wouldn't be forced to stick with the Republicans on issues he agrees with.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola: And considering our Hurricane Maria response, we should make Puerto Rico a state (or two) as well.

May as well take the "They want Black and Hispanic people to have Senators" political hit all at once.

Funny thing is Puerto Rico is not a lock for Democrats. Their Governor (well as of the election) and non-voting member of the House both endorsed Trump. Puerto Ricans voted for Trump in the mainland. It might actually be a swing state.

[ISiddiqui]

There actually have been rumors that Murkowski is considering going Independent and caucusing with the Democrats.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Thomkal]

Has Puerto Rico had an official vote on whether they want to be a state or not? If not, I'd say they should get that first and if they support it, then we should let them in, whether it would be a Democratic or Republican state.

[GrantDawg]

Murkoski actually today said that Trump should resign and she questioned that she could remain in the party if they don't distance themselves from Trump.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

I think that PR should be a state (if they want), and that it would actually be good if it were neither a D nor an R lock b/c that might make the issue able to pass.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Murkoski actually today said that Trump should resign and she questioned that she could remain in the party if they don't distance themselves from Trump.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Mitch cares only about GOP power.

If Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Collins (LOL), Toomey all go to Mitch and say "Either the Senate removes Trump, or we all become independents and you will never get a majority again," that would inspire Mitch to action.

[GrantDawg]

Albion, that would absolutely work.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Has Puerto Rico had an official vote on whether they want to be a state or not? If not, I'd say they should get that first and if they support it, then we should let them in, whether it would be a Democratic or Republican state.

They had a non-binding vote in November which resulted in a Yes.

I actually think it would benefit Republicans more in the long term. Puerto Ricans are one segment of Hispanic voters that are conservative. They would have a good shot of not just winning Senate seats but building support in the mainland with the changing demographics of the country.

Short term it might hurt since they are all in on the white supremacist stuff.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Funny thing is Puerto Rico is not a lock for Democrats. Their Governor (well as of the election) and non-voting member of the House both endorsed Trump. Puerto Ricans voted for Trump in the mainland. It might actually be a swing state.

Trump made gains among Puerto Ricans, but even in Florida, where he had some of his best performance among Hispanic voters, he only got about 33% of Puerto Ricans.

Also, the current Governor, who just got elected on November 3rd, endorsed Biden.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Albion, that would absolutely work.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My favorite bit is that it would be Murkowski, Romney, et al, and they would tell Mitch "And Senator Collins told us to tell you that she is seriously considering joining us."

[GrantDawg]

No joke. Ossoff slapped him around and took his lunch money.

I’m sure Perdue was just still shaken up from Ossoff eviscerating him in a debate that basically sent Perdue into hiding because he got owned so hard https://t.co/7coEZOG4bu

— Jeanna Kelley (@jeannathomas) January 8, 2021

[Edward64]

Interesting article (detailed stats in the article). Essentially there are a lot of FL Reps switching to Independent. Some Dems also switching to Independent but in much lower numbers.

Wonder if this is similar to rest of southern states. If it is, probably good for Biden overall.

Florida sees some post-riot voter registration changes - South Florida Sun-Sentinel

DePalo-Gould said that people who made switches this week may not have suddenly decided to change solely because of what happened on Wednesday. It’s likely, she said, that those people were already contemplating leaving their party, and the week’s events provided the final impetus to do what they’d been thinking about.

[miami_fan]

Trump allies reelected to lead RNC as party faces reckoning - POLITICO

[GrantDawg]

This is the kind of bullshit traps that the Trump administration is leaving for Biden. Now either Biden has a serious and dangerous stand-off with China, or they paint him as "soft on China."

Wow: Pompeo announces lifting of 'self-imposed restrictions' on US-Taiwan relationship, including lifting of regulations on US officials and service members' interactions with Taiwanese government counterparts pic.twitter.com/eAmnBYdimX

— Robbie Gramer (@RobbieGramer) January 9, 2021

[sterlingice]

But, hey, there's no harm in leaving Trump in the office for the next 2 weeks. He didn't just run roughshod over LBGT protections on Thursday and then this.

SI

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But, hey, there's no harm in leaving Trump in the office for the next 2 weeks. He didn't just run roughshod over LBGT protections on Thursday and then this.

SI

To be fair, Pence wouldn't have stopped either.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

To be fair, Pence wouldn't have stopped either.

I'm sure Pence was involved in both more than Trump. Part of why conservatives love Trump is because he pays no attention and lets them do whatever they can et away with.

[Edward64]

MSM is reporting that Biden is getting some GOP pressure to ask Pelosi to stop the impeachment. I feel sorry for Biden because he obviously would not want his administration to start with recriminations, controversy etc. and he does need to work with the GOP.

But it is principle and the country & world is watching so I'm all for impeachment regardless of what the Senate does or not.

Re: Cruz and Hawley and others, he shouldn't get involved. Let Congress deal with it in their own way and process.

[Atocep]

The GOP doesn't want to go on record with a vote and further split their party. Fuck 'em, they deserve everything that comes from this and the Dems shouldn't do them any favors.

[kingfc22]

GOP had four years to do anything and had plenty of reasons to do something last January. They didn’t. Let them implode and don’t let them off the hook.

That doesn’t even get into the real matter which is the President incited a fucking riot where his followers sacked the US Capitol. If that isn’t an impeachable offense what is?

[Jas_lov]

And Biden should tell them to fuck off. Rs in Congress say impeachment would further divide us after they spent months supporting this election fraud crap that led to a violent insurrection. And years supporting Trump destroying our country.

And their entire argument last impeachment was that we shouldn't impeach because the voters should decide. Then we decided and over half of them voted to throw our votes out.

[Edward64]

It's not the GOP hurt feelings I care about.

We need to give Biden a chance to work with GOP and get things done. Bring back some semblance of bi-partisanship.

I know, I know. Many of you now "got yours" (e.g. Presidency and Congress) and don't care about working with the opposition party. I get that.

But I voted for Biden, and one big reason is because I hoped we could go back to the old days (pre-Obama) where (stereotyping) politicians made deals with a quid-pro-quo handshake, sipping cognac in a smoke filled room.

So in a perfect world, Biden get a nice, fresh start but in reality, he'll have to deal with repercussions of the impeachment.

[SirFozzie]

Ok, honest question here. If McConnell said to Biden: "Look, you guys drop the impeachment thing, and I will give enough hall passes for $2000 stimulus and most (if not all) of HR1 to get past the filibuster", would you say it's a bad deal to take it?

I mean, let's put the supposed "bi-partisanship" and "Wanting to make a deal" to the test early.

[RainMaker]

The impeachment should have nothing to do with politics or dealing. It is to punish a terrorist.

[Flasch186]

I also think if you have a politician of import, say the president of the United States saying things over and over like “fight!” And then telling those same people to go to the capital.... and they do. Then they kill a police officer and get more people killed while chanting to hang the VP something has to be done or else... when? That was pretty insurrection like behavior no? I get it that we all want to move on but as Susan Collins might ask, “hopefully they learn their lesson,” but with no penalties at all what lesson is being learned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Ok, honest question here. If McConnell said to Biden: "Look, you guys drop the impeachment thing, and I will give enough hall passes for $2000 stimulus and most (if not all) of HR1 to get past the filibuster", would you say it's a bad deal to take it?

I mean, let's put the supposed "bi-partisanship" and "Wanting to make a deal" to the test early.

Really good hypothetical question for a nice discussion. I had to look up what HR1 says, see below. For me it's a good first try but no cigar (pun intended). The $2000 is not much of a bargaining chip, Biden and Dems will pass something anyway. Bullets 1 & 3 are less of a big deal to me but 2 is a little tempting. Not so much safer and easier to vote, but "ending gerrymandering" is a good prize.

IMO, it's not just one resolution (important as it is), it's the tone for the entire 4 years and it's also how the nation and world looks at the US.

Now what would move the needle for me? In addition to HR1, effectively guarantee the passage of Biden's first 100 days plans and

+ Trump censure with the majority of GOP Senators voting for it

I'm not sure what Biden's 100 days plans (which will take rest of his term to do) are but assume - Covid, economic assistance, holistic immigration reform, gun reform, student debt, something for climate change, corporate tax cuts, criminal justice reform, and strengthening Obamacare.

So yeah, a quid-pro-quo of HR1 + 100 days plan + Trump censure is definitely worth dropping the Trump impeachment #2. I'd take 100 days + Trump censure.

“H.R. 1 addresses fundamental governance problems including political money corruption in Washington, voter suppression and discrimination, partisan gerrymandering, government ethics abuses and foreign interference in our elections,” according to Wertheimer.

Biden also announced that a Biden administration is committed to:

• Ending the dominance of big money in politics by bringing dark money into the light, empowering small donors in our elections through a small dollar public financing program for federal elections and introducing a constitutional amendment to entirely eliminate private dollars from our federal elections, and strengthening rules and enforcement of our campaign finance laws.
• Making sure every vote is counted and protected by ending discrimination at the ballot box, making it safer and easier to vote, ending gerrymandering, and giving states and localities the funding they need to maintain the integrity of our elections particularly during the current health pandemic.
• Ensuring accountability in Washington by strengthening ethics rules for federal officials, reducing the power of lobbyists, and giving ethics watchdogs more power to hold violators accountable.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I also think if you have a politician of import, say the president of the United States saying things over and over like “fight!” And then telling those same people to go to the capital.... and they do. Then they kill a police officer and get more people killed while chanting to hang the VP something has to be done or else... when? That was pretty insurrection like behavior no? I get it that we all want to move on but as Susan Collins might ask, “hopefully they learn their lesson,” but with no penalties at all what lesson is being learned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is where I am - I think you have to hold Trump to account at the very least, probably Don Jr, Guiliani and maybe Cruz. I don’t know enough about what Hawley did/said before this week, but I see he is lumped in with Cruz in most discussions.

But beyond that, I think an olive branch probably is the best course of action for the long term, and it strikes something of a middle ground between accountability and rapprochement

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But I voted for Biden, and one big reason is because I hoped we could go back to the old days (pre-Obama) where (stereotyping) politicians made deals with a quid-pro-quo handshake, sipping cognac in a smoke filled room.

So in a perfect world, Biden get a nice, fresh start but in reality, he'll have to deal with repercussions of the impeachment.

As others have said, there's zero chance of that happening anytime soon, because that requires both parties to want to do that. The only chance it has of happening the long term is if there are real consequences to egregious actions.

[JPhillips]

I'm convinced there need to be public congressional hearings on what happened. All of it needs to be made public, the planning, the response, the specific events, everything. Don't let the story end with whatever the media can dig up.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As others have said, there's zero chance of that happening anytime soon, because that requires both parties to want to do that. The only chance it has of happening the long term is if there are real consequences to egregious actions.

Yes, I agree this is reality. It will not happen anytime soon if at all.

But it doesn't mean we can't try to do this, start the process, test the waters ... whatever. Because of Biden's history in Congress and many on both sides seems to think he's a likable fella, if anyone can succeed (maybe not 100% but if he moves the dial some), it will be him (certainly more than Bernie or Warren).

I don't think having impeachment #2 is the "only chance of it happening longer term". Per the hypothetical question above, it's the right quid-pro-quo where both sides perceives a win-win. Compromise.

[miked]

Again I'll ask, why is it always up to the Dems to be reaching across the aisle and bi-partisan. One party has spent the better part of 12 years (maybe more) in bending rules, breaking rules, and going out of their way to not compromise. Obama was a moderate, Hillary was a moderate, but few on the R side want to deal. I mean, this is a party that would not allow for a SC nomination months before an election, and then jams theirs through weeks before they are about to lose power, even laughing at themselves saying they would not do it 4 years ago. Yet the ball is in the Dems court to be the party of compromise?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by miked

Again I'll ask, why is it always up to the Dems to be reaching across the aisle and bi-partisan. One party has spent the better part of 12 years (maybe more) in bending rules, breaking rules, and going out of their way to not compromise. Obama was a moderate, Hillary was a moderate, but few on the R side want to deal. I mean, this is a party that would not allow for a SC nomination months before an election, and then jams theirs through weeks before they are about to lose power, even laughing at themselves saying they would not do it 4 years ago. Yet the ball is in the Dems court to be the party of compromise?

Because do you want a better country, which will only happen is there is less of a schism, or do you want petty revenge?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miked

Again I'll ask, why is it always up to the Dems to be reaching across the aisle and bi-partisan. One party has spent the better part of 12 years (maybe more) in bending rules, breaking rules, and going out of their way to not compromise. Obama was a moderate, Hillary was a moderate, but few on the R side want to deal. I mean, this is a party that would not allow for a SC nomination months before an election, and then jams theirs through weeks before they are about to lose power, even laughing at themselves saying they would not do it 4 years ago. Yet the ball is in the Dems court to be the party of compromise?

In my hypothetical answer to SirFozzie's hypothetical question, there is much the GOP would be compromising on e.g. HR1, Biden's 100 days, Trump's censure

In real life, Biden has said he wanted to find ways to work across the aisle (as he should). Picking at scabs from the past ain't gonna help.

The way to do that is negotiate where both parties see it as win-win not a win-loss, and compromise will be needed. So give him a chance to make it happen (admittedly lower odds). With that said, not going forward with impeachment #2 and not forcing GOP to vote yea-nay is a big prize and will need a big concession(s) from the GOP.

[Flasch186]

The first step to compromise is the gop go back to being the gop and cut out the cancerous cult that has hostilely taken it over and admitted to doing so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk