The Biden Presidency - 2020

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Are you a Russian troll?

Maybe it's just me, but you seem rather keen on pointing out flaws in America (not always unjustified) but you're rather non-chalant about authoritarian Russia invading Ukraine.

What exactly do you want to do? Start a major war over a conflict that has zero impact on your life? Are you willing to enlist and fight for Ukraine or is this another war you'd send other people's kids off to die in? Tell me what you want done.

And yeah, us showing faux concern over authoritarianism is relevant to the discussion. Maybe worry about the issue at home before starting a war in a region we have no business in.

Seriously, tell me what you want done and what skin you're putting in the game.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The EU doesn't care enough. Also, because being a superpower has certain responsibilities, and this is one of them.

Yeah, I'm sure it's about caring and responsibility and not the billions in arms sales.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The EU doesn't care enough. Also, because being a superpower has certain responsibilities, and this is one of them.

IMO we shouldn't have to in the EU/NATO backyard. They are economically big enough, rich enough, militarily strong enough to take care of matters in their own (literally) backyard. Russia is still a feeble version of USSR at her peak.

And if EU/NATO aren't able to, its only because the US is enabling that behavior and we should stop.

We should refocus our efforts vs China (and oil rich Venezuela which, if we do it right, will solve our oil needs ). Let EU/NATO be primary against Russia.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, I'm sure it's about caring and responsibility and not the billions in arms sales.

There are multiple reasons why they don't 'care' enough, and economic interest is one of them. Another is that they are generally on the side of avoiding conflict at all costs. I wasn't trying to make a moral point. I was just saying it's not enough of a priority for them, to put it mildly, for them to take the lead on stopping Russian imperialism.

Originally Posted by Edward64

And if EU/NATO aren't able to, its only because the US is enabling that behavior and we should stop.

And what happens if the EU/NATO just choose not to anyway? How far does the US allow Russian imperialism to go before it becomes our problem, and what is the price of stopping it then compared to the price of doing so now?

This of course is leaving aside any question of what the right thing to do is period, and the responsibility all nations bear who can stop such aggression and choose not to. It seems to me that Ukraine itself is being essentially ignored in this discussion.

[RainMaker]

There is some irony in being upset that Russia is going to invade Ukraine and take their natural resources and then advocating for us to take Venezuela's natural resources.

[Edward64]

See

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There are multiple reasons why they don't 'care' enough, and economic interest is one of them. Another is that they are generally on the side of avoiding conflict at all costs. I wasn't trying to make a moral point. I was just saying it's not enough of a priority for them, to put it mildly, for them to take the lead on stopping Russian imperialism.

They have more skin in the game than we do. It's easy for us to advocate for conflict halfway around the world. It's another thing to when that conflict is taking place on your continent.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

And what happens if the EU/NATO just choose not to anyway? How far does the US allow Russian imperialism to go before it becomes our problem, and what is the price of stopping it then compared to the price of doing so now?

Why do you think the EU/NATO may choose not to?

They may not be able to do it in the current crisis but they should get serious and "choose" to do it in the next.

I think they choose not to do it because they know the US will play the big brother. And therefore we are enabling them.

We've got enough problems of our own. Non-domestically, China is our main threat. Its ridiculous we should take lead in the EU own backyard. It was ridiculous we took lead in the Kosovo crisis and made it happen.

This of course is leaving aside any question of what the right thing to do is period, and the responsibility all nations bear who can stop such aggression and choose not to. It seems to me that Ukraine itself is being essentially ignored in this discussion.

Ukraine is in the position it is in because it's not strong enough and is not a NATO member (and they gave up their nukes). I don't know all the domestic stuff that happened, but basically Russia feels they can push Ukraine around because of those 2 things.

I'm definitely not saying the US should not help stop the aggression. I am saying EU/NATO should take the lead with US support.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Why do you think the EU/NATO may choose not to?

Because they are generally fairly pacifistic. That's an oversimplification, but it's how the EU views foreign issues on the whole. I think if the US does nothing, they'll let Russia do pretty much whatever it wants.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm definitely not saying the US should not help stop the aggression. I am saying EU/NATO should take the lead with US support.

In a perfect world I'd agree with you. Ofc, in a perfect world it wouldn't even be necessary, but NATO as an entity has always depended on American leadership for good and ill. The EU has shown nothing substantive in it's entire history of existing to my knowledge that indicates they want any part of this kind of role. I don't see any reason to think that waiting for them to do something is productive.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Because they are generally fairly pacifistic. That's an oversimplification, but it's how the EU views foreign issues on the whole. I think if the US does nothing, they'll let Russia do pretty much whatever it wants.

This may be true and a factor.

But beyond pacifism, they know they have big brother to lean on. Do you disagree that we are enabling that behavior?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Weird story that I guess falls in general politics. Workers at a hospital got a better offer from another hospital and took it. Court has now ruled they can't take it and must still work for the other hospital for less pay.

Wisconsin is an at-will state and serfdom is illegal I believe.

What we know the Ascension, ThedaCare court battle over employees

The judge lifted the injunction after hearing from the parties involved: Judge lifts injunction in ThedaCare, Ascension worker dispute

The brief from Ascension is worth a read: https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/fi...briefjan24.pdf

I love how it starts off with a version of "a failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine".

It's still a little bit worrying that a judge didn't understand what "at will" employment actually means.

[cuervo72]

I always thought it meant "we can fire you at any time we want and you get...haha just kidding, fuck you workers!"

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Can you guys explain to me why we care about Russia invading Ukraine?

There are a bunch of reasons, and I suspect it's the fact that there's a bunch of reasons, rather than any one reason in particular.

1. Sovereign states should generally object when one sovereign state intimates it's going to invade and take over another sovereign state, because you could be next.

2. It's Russia. Cold War bogeyman that still has nuclear weapons.

3. From a geopolitical standpoint, Russia taking over Ukraine gives them a port for their navy that isn't icebound all the time (although that was sort of accomplished with Crimea).

4. If Russia takes over Ukraine and no one does anything, it reinforces the idea that if you have nuclear weapons, you can kind of do what you want and the international community will not come back hard at you.

Whether this all amounts to something we should all sign up to go and fight and die over is probably a reasonable argument.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I always thought it meant "we can fire you at any time we want and you get...haha just kidding, fuck you workers!"

True. The judge seems to have issued the initial injunction on the basis that the team leaving would compromise public health (a central point of ThedaCare's request, subsequently eviscerated by Ascension in their brief).

But even in that scenario that judge is inferring that there are limitations to "at will" but those limitations apply to workers, not employers. Which, honestly, is pretty close to the truth.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What exactly do you want to do? Start a major war over a conflict that has zero impact on your life?

Wasn't this the exact argument for avoiding WW2?

I thought that American Isolationism was already done and dead as a failed foreign policy; with all the receipts to prove it?

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Wasn't this the exact argument for avoiding WW2?

I thought that American Isolationism was already done and dead as a failed foreign policy; with all the receipts to prove it?

It's partially back because we just finished losing a 20+ year long war in Afghanistan and if you toss troops into Ukraine next week, you will piss off most Americans who don't care about Eastern Europe and of those, half couldn't find it on a map.

[NobodyHere]

Looks like Stephen Breyer is retiring, giving Biden at least one chance to nominate a judge.

ETA:

Assuming Manchin and Sinema are ok with it.

[albionmoonlight]

I hope that the ass kissing of Manchin has already begun. He just got off two major "Everybody look at MEEEEE!" moments with BBB and Voting Rights. He's probably looking for a third. Let's not make it this.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Looks like Stephen Breyer is retiring, giving Biden at least one chance to nominate a judge.

ETA:

Assuming Manchin and Sinema are ok with it.

We have mid terms this year. We have to wait.

[Flasch186]

That’s right!!! We have to wait until the gop is in control before voting. I forgot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

It's too early to care about the actual numbers, but this shows the problem for the GOP. People would like someone other than Biden, but the actual GOPers that might run are loathed.

NEW POLL: @JoeBiden would lose badly to a generic Republican, 46% to 37%.

But BIDEN would beat leading Republican prospects head to head, including:
➡️ DONALD TRUMP
➡️ MIKE PENCE
➡️ RON DESANTIS
➡️ TED CRUZ https://t.co/tWnmTZxbPL pic.twitter.com/WYDP1dqIoV

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) January 26, 2022

[Flasch186]

We all clamor for a moderate independent gop as an alternative (see Kasich) instead of the current cult of T


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

In fairness, that's always the case.

"Generic Republican" and "Generic Democrat" are by far the strongest politicians we have ever had.

And "Third Party" is by far the most popular party in the country.

It those pesky details that end up bringing down the popularity.

[spleen1015]

I don't want any of the 5 in that graphic, but I would vote for Biden before any of the other 4. If I had to chose between those 4, I wouldn't vote and I would pray for 4 years.

There have to be better options than this.

[cuervo72]

Good luck finding "Generic Republican."

(I guess that is what Youngkin ran as in VA, but he is shedding that very quickly. Hogan, perhaps.)

[albionmoonlight]

An intersection of politics and football that seems custom-made for FOFC:

The weirdest habit of the RBG cult was being super into her dissents. Like being a fan of Lions post-game interviews or something.

— David Weigel (@daveweigel) January 26, 2022

[RainMaker]

Little surprised DeSantis is so low. His whole thing is he's Trump but competent and without the baggage. But maybe the baggage is what people like.

[RainMaker]

Another example of the baggage perhaps benefitting the candidate. Being a wife-beater would have disqualified you years ago, but in Georgia it seems like it might benefit him.

New Quinnipiac poll of GEORGIA:

Senate
Warnock (D-inc) 48
Walker (R) 49

Gov
Abrams (D) 47
Kemp (R-inc) 49

Abrams (D) 48
Perdue (R) 48

GOP Gov Primary
Kemp 43
Perdue 36

(1702 RVs, 666 GOP LVs, 1/19-24)https://t.co/uj7gnjGH7H

— Jacob Rubashkin (@JacobRubashkin) January 26, 2022

Would be interested to see how Gaetz being a pedophile has helped or hurt his standing among the electorate. Seemed to be a negative in Alabama years ago, but a lot has changed.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

We all clamor for a moderate independent gop as an alternative (see Kasich) instead of the current cult of T


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kasich took away my mom's insurance so he could cut taxes on the rich, so fuck that guy.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Another example of the baggage perhaps benefiting the candidate. Being a wife-beater would have disqualified you years ago, but in Georgia it seems like it might benefit him.

Not surprising at all in Georgia. Warnock and Abrams are both loved outside of the state, but the more they are praised everywhere else the less popular they are locally. Really, Walker's best strategy is to say as little as possible and let his name recognition carry him into the end-zone. He will look like an idiot on a debate stage.

[RainMaker]

If it's a referendum on Warnock, I just wonder why you wouldn't pick one of the many Republicans who haven't violently assaulted women throughout their adult life. Unless the violent assaults are something that help with a portion of the electorate.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Not surprising at all in Georgia. Warnock and Abrams are both loved outside of the state, but the more they are praised everywhere else the less popular they are locally. Really, Walker's best strategy is to say as little as possible and let his name recognition carry him into the end-zone. He will look like an idiot on a debate stage.

And it's Hershel Walker... in a year UGA won a National Championship. Before he went off the deep end politically he was probably the second most popular athlete in the state after Hank Aaron. If football name recognition carried Tuberville to a Senate seat in Alabama, Walker could cruse to GA Senate... as long as he does exact what you said.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If it's a referendum on Warnock, I just wonder why you wouldn't pick one of the many Republicans who haven't violently assaulted women throughout their adult life. Unless the violent assaults are something that help with a portion of the electorate.

Trump picked Walker. That's all that was needed.

[albionmoonlight]

FWIW, I think that the PredictIt pricing on the nominee for Bryer's replacement is pretty spot on

Ketanji Brown Jackson at 65%
Leondra Kruger at 23%
J. Michelle Childs at 14%

I don't think that there's any real value there. But if I were placing money, I'd probably go with Childs at 14%. She's from SC, and I think that Biden still likes the aura of bipartisanship, and in this weird way that Senators still sometimes think locally even in 2022, I could see Scott and Graham signaling to the White House that they will support her if nominated and that being appealing to Biden.

All that said, it will likely be Jackson like everyone is predicting.

[RainMaker]

If people want diversity on the court, they should look less at race/gender and more at background. How about a nominee that didn't go to one of the handful of elite law schools? How about a nominee who worked as a public defender at one point or had a unique background to becoming a judge?

Seems like everyone on the court took a similar path to get there. The difference is whether they have to bow to the Federalist Society or not. Deviating from that might bring some unique voices to the court.

[JPhillips]

I'm all in for a nominee with a public school JD.

[albionmoonlight]

I also think that this confirmation will be decidedly low-key.

It isn't for control of the Court.
It is replacing a liberal with a liberal.
Everyone on the short list is a moderate/institutionalist
The GOP couldn't stop this if it wanted
The GOP has huge tailwinds going into the mid-terms

I just don't see why the GOP would want to pick a huge fight that it probably can't win that might end up resetting a table that looks really good for them right now.

Let it go through. Put up token resistance. Let the Senators from far-right states give some speeches and vote against her. But kind of keep it off the news. Don't let it seem like a great "win" when she's confirmed.

And then go back to focusing on the issues (CRT/inflation/etc.) that are working for you.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If people want diversity on the court, they should look less at race/gender and more at background. How about a nominee that didn't go to one of the handful of elite law schools? How about a nominee who worked as a public defender at one point or had a unique background to becoming a judge?

Seems like everyone on the court took a similar path to get there. The difference is whether they have to bow to the Federalist Society or not. Deviating from that might bring some unique voices to the court.

Ketanji Brown Jackson was a federal public defender at one point FWIW.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I just don't see why the GOP would want to pick a huge fight that it probably can't win that might end up resetting a table that looks really good for them right now.

Let it go through. Put up token resistance. Let the Senators from far-right states give some speeches and vote against her. But kind of keep it off the news. Don't let it seem like a great "win" when she's confirmed.

And then go back to focusing on the issues (CRT/inflation/etc.) that are working for you.

The right is probably going say that Biden's pick is going to be some out of control liberal judicial activist and is going to want to be seen putting up a valiant if futile effort in trying to stop the nomination. Every decision ever issued by the judge will be looked over with a fine tooth comb.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I also think that this confirmation will be decidedly low-key.

It isn't for control of the Court.
It is replacing a liberal with a liberal.
Everyone on the short list is a moderate/institutionalist
The GOP couldn't stop this if it wanted
The GOP has huge tailwinds going into the mid-terms

I just don't see why the GOP would want to pick a huge fight that it probably can't win that might end up resetting a table that looks really good for them right now.

Let it go through. Put up token resistance. Let the Senators from far-right states give some speeches and vote against her. But kind of keep it off the news. Don't let it seem like a great "win" when she's confirmed.

And then go back to focusing on the issues (CRT/inflation/etc.) that are working for you.

I think the party incentives and individual incentives are at odds. Each person running in 2022(Senate) or 2024(Pres) are going to want to use this has a way to prove their bonafides. For example, I expect the GOP primary in Ohio to be all SCOTUS all the time, with each of the GOP candidates trying to out extreme the others. I agree, how much of this will spill over into the confirmation is the question, but you can be sure Ted Cruz and others will be lookig for the all of the attention they can muster.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The right is probably going say that Biden's pick is going to be some out of control liberal judicial activist and is going to want to be seen putting up a valiant if futile effort in trying to stop the nomination. Every decision ever issued by the judge will be looked over with a fine tooth comb.

The "liberal" label has lost the power it once had. This nominee is guaranteed to be labelled a Communist or Marxist. We've already moved past Socialist.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The right is probably going say that Biden's pick is going to be some out of control liberal judicial activist and is going to want to be seen putting up a valiant if futile effort in trying to stop the nomination. Every decision ever issued by the judge will be looked over with a fine tooth comb.

Also, there's a reason Democrats never miss with their SCOTUS picks: they overtly choose wild Leftists. That's the only real qualification. They wouldn't care whether Biden nominated an HLS grad who clerked for Breyer or Cardi B, so long as that person voted reliably Left.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 27, 2022

[Lathum]

Got my 6419 today, the tax form for the child tax credit. Plugged it in to Turbo Tax and my return dropped by 2K. I expected that but man, there are going to be a lot of people who don't and are going to be wicked pissed.

[AlexB]

Race is on to reach sunken US plane... before China

This is a fascinating situation: finders keepers on a whole different level

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Got my 6419 today, the tax form for the child tax credit. Plugged it in to Turbo Tax and my return dropped by 2K. I expected that but man, there are going to be a lot of people who don't and are going to be wicked pissed.

It is impacted by earned income. If you are above certain individual or married income thresholds (like in your case, I imagine), it is gradually phased out.

Child Tax Credit 2021-2022: What It Is & How to Claim It - NerdWallet

Who qualifies for the child tax credit?
For the 2021 tax year, you can take full advantage of the expanded credit if your modified adjusted gross income is under $75,000 for single filers, $112,500 for heads of household, and $150,000 for those married filing jointly.
The credit begins to phase out above those thresholds.
First phaseout: Income exceeds the above thresholds but is below $400,000 (married filing jointly) or $200,000 (all other filing statuses). Your total credit per child can be reduced by $50 for each $1,000 (or a fraction thereof). This phaseout will not reduce your credit below $2,000 per child.
Second phaseout: Income exceeds $400,000 (married filing jointly) or $200,000 (other filing statuses). The phaseout will continue docking $50 per each $1,000 and begin to reduce your credit per child below $2,000. You may be disqualified from the credit altogether.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I also think that this confirmation will be decidedly low-key.

It isn't for control of the Court.
It is replacing a liberal with a liberal.
Everyone on the short list is a moderate/institutionalist
The GOP couldn't stop this if it wanted
The GOP has huge tailwinds going into the mid-terms

I just don't see why the GOP would want to pick a huge fight that it probably can't win that might end up resetting a table that looks really good for them right now.

Let it go through. Put up token resistance. Let the Senators from far-right states give some speeches and vote against her. But kind of keep it off the news. Don't let it seem like a great "win" when she's confirmed.

And then go back to focusing on the issues (CRT/inflation/etc.) that are working for you.

If you're Mitch, this is how you want it to go. You even get some reliable GOP folks to vote for the nominee. That way you can trot out the fake claim that when Biden does reasonable middle-of-the-road things like this nomination and the infrastructure handout bill, the GOP definitely aren't crazy obstructionists, hell bent on destroying democracy. But they're here to protect you from crazy Joe's other radical liberal policies. And, at the end of the day, you were just playing strategically because replacing a liberal with a liberal in a court where you have a 2 justice advantage is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Ketanji Brown Jackson was a federal public defender at one point FWIW.

That's good to hear.

If anyone listens to podcasts, ALAB is a great series by some lawyers. They have a few episodes that cover how the top judges in this country all come from the same pipeline. Little to no diversity on the bench. You have to go one of a couple schools and clerk for one of a couple judges to ever have a chance at a high position in this country.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How about a nominee that didn't go to one of the handful of elite law schools?

Like Amy Coney Barrett? (or the Harriet Miers nomination for that matter)

Generally Presidents nominate SCOTUS justices from Harvard and Yale law schools because they don't want to run into accusations that the judge isn't qualified (same reason that former SCOTUS clerks get nominated).

[Atocep]

I guess ice cream is Biden's tan suit.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But beyond pacifism, they know they have big brother to lean on. Do you disagree that we are enabling that behavior?

A good question that I neglected answering. I would call that unknown and unknowable. There are a couple of points of distinction. As I'm sure you are very much aware, the EU doesn't have a central political figurehead such as a US president to make such decisions. So the EU, as an entity, would be more comparable to a group of US states all needing to independently come to the same conclusion. And we know how likely that would be. The EU exists more for economic cooperation than any unified foreign policy. NATO has always existed for the common defence of its members, which sort of puts Ukraine outside of its charter as you mentioned. Neither is really comparable to the way a superpower nation functions in the modern world.

Vis a vis enabling - the thing about that is, to stop enabling them if we want to call it that, we have to be willing to fully and truly 'call the bluff'. That is, we don't get involved, and we accept the consequences if they really just don't want to get involved either. I think there is some aspect of enabling going on *probably*, but unless we are really willing to become isolationists in regards to major regions of the world, we can't really test that hypothesis.