~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[Farfromgeneva]

I think there's a very clear distinguishing between the Trump (cult) MAGA folks and other Republicans, indeed Biden was clear that he believes that "most Republicans" are not MAGA.

Cranky Kram is just being intentionally doofus.

Liz Cheney is conservative AF, Republican, and in no way a MAGA.

Most Republicans are not deplorable, mouth breathing, violent, destructive, angry, fascist racists who are so easily duped by a dead end, toxic, criminal narcissist. But, unfortunately, maybe one third to one half of GOP identifiers are.

Like the idiot Marine/NYPD dude that just got 10 years yesterday. Like nihilistic performance artists like MTG, Jim Jordan, Boebert, Gaetz, Scott Perry, Paul Goesart, Cruz and Hawley. Those folks are six miles of bad road and should be opposed by all. Regardless of what your politics are.

The real problem is that the non-MAGA GOP can't live without the noxious deplorable MAGAs. Joe and Liz are rightly calling those folks out. But the normal GOP can't and won't do it. They pray every night for someone, anyone, else to do the job for them -- Liz, Merrick Garland, the Atlanta DA.

Kellyanne captures it perfectly:

Donald Trump’s former White House counselor, Kellyanne Conway, does not think Republicans should move on from her former boss, despite signs his control of the party could cost it the chance to take Congress in November.

Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, Conway said: “Those who want to move on from Trump: You go first.”

The party is captured by that crowd of doughnut holes precisely because of the electoral college system. Ironically if we had something more directly representative it seems like it would be a slam dunk right now to take the middle of this current White House and Dem leadership is considered the moderate wing of their party. Could literally steal their lunch but instead their beholden to a minority crowd because of our system.

[MDlaxfan76]

My son discussed his views post speech as 'there's two parties, one is "majoritarian" and one is "anti-majoritarian". One party wants more people to vote, another wants fewer people to vote. One supports polices that a majority of Americans hold, one opposes those policies.

IMO, that didn't use to be the case for the GOP, but I find it really hard to now find a view or a policy position recently enacted, when the GOP is in full control (as exists in some states now and was the case for the first 2 years of the Trump Presidency) that is desired by a majority of all Americans.

this is a really weird take. The "traditional" GOP - the one beholden to corporate America, the one everyone pines for - was quite clearly the party of limited access to voting. As far as the laws enacted by the GOP, at the federal level I think afan might agree that they have done a very "good" job of doing nothing and leaving no fingerprints. They simply don't seem to want to govern. At the state level, they are enacting laws that their constituents want and not enacting laws they don't want (as in KS with abortion rights). Just like California democrats are enacting laws their citizens want. Some of those laws may not be desired by the majority of all Americans, but that is a FEATURE of the US political experiment, not a bug. Texas and California should have slightly different laws.

The tyranny of the masses is a very real phenomenon - which is what I Kram was getting at in his post. That tyranny can be measured at many levels - federal, state, county, town.... The thing to do is have your system (we happen to have the best one in the world) and let it do its thing. You might be pleasantly surprised at what happens when you let people govern themselves (like in KS) rather than dictate from on high.

mmm, the Kansas voters overruled their GOP legislature. The GOP position was anti-choice. Not a majority position. Had there been a GOP Governor as well, what do you think would have happened? (We're seeing that play out in various states...and, no, what they are doing with that power is definitely not what a majority of their citizens want.

No, not just 'let it do its thing'...vote. Don't allow those who wish to prevent people from voting, or simply ignore their votes, to rule.

And...very importantly, the best defense against the "tyranny of the masses" are constitutionally protected rights of the minority, and especially of the individual. Unfortunately, some States don't have a good history of protecting individual rights...but that's where federal guarantees really matter most.

so, what the GOP did, over decades of work, that paid off over the past few years, was to engineer a dismantling of federally protected individual rights, and simultaneously expanded corporations into "people too", which by effect diminished individual power.

As to prior versions of the GOP, pretty sure that Reagan and George H.W. Bush wanted to win a majority of voters and saw the 'big tent' as the way to accomplish that objective. The 2013 post election analysis by the GOP recommended a return to majoritarian appeal, an expansion of the 'tent'. But unfortunately, the party tacked hard the other way.

[a fan]

his is a really weird take. The "traditional" GOP - the one beholden to corporate America, the one everyone pines for - was quite clearly the party of limited access to voting.

Yes. And while the goal was simply winning elections, the side effect was that these are all racist policies.

As far as the laws enacted by the GOP, at the federal level I think afan might agree that they have done a very "good" job of doing nothing and leaving no fingerprints. They simply don't seem to want to govern.

Yes. See FFG's post on American cities falling apart from a lack of infrastructure spending. We're paying the price for 22 years of historically low effective tax rates, and "forgetting" to spend on our infrastructure. It's going to be a rough ride as long as Republicans keep pretending that taxes are evil. They would rather that their cities fall completely apart than raise taxes. So what will they do? Borrow money from the Federal Government, naturally.

At the state level, they are enacting laws that their constituents want and not enacting laws they don't want (as in KS with abortion rights). Just like California democrats are enacting laws their citizens want. Some of those laws may not be desired by the majority of all Americans, but that is a FEATURE of the US political experiment, not a bug. Texas and California should have slightly different laws.

Agree. But again the problem is that they're making up for their choice by having Uncle Sam (read: wealthy States) pay for their choices. Not cool. And at some point, Liberal wealthy States will cut them off. Or, hilariously, Republicans will get into office and FINALLY do what they claim they want, and start cutting the heck out of spending (this will never happen, naturally).

The tyranny of the masses is a very real phenomenon - which is what I Kram was getting at in his post. That tyranny can be measured at many levels - federal, state, county, town.... The thing to do is have your system (we happen to have the best one in the world) and let it do its thing. You might be pleasantly surprised at what happens when you let people govern themselves (like in KS) rather than dictate from on high.

And you'd be terrified if the Federal Government balanced the budget, and KS had to find a way to keep its lights on all by themselves.

IMO? Republican States want a rich Daddy that pays for all their bad decisions------money with zero responsibility. They don't want to be self sufficient....yet they will claim with their dying breath that they didn't get one lick of Federal help in their lives. See: complaints about the student debt relief.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Tyranny of the minority is a very real phenomenon as well...

[a fan]

Tyranny of the minority is a very real phenomenon as well...

Yes.

And the irony of millions of white male christians getting upset that they aren't calling 99% of the shots anymore......is that they expect the new American voices to treat them fairly. Yet when they tables were turned, White Male Christians screwed over their fellow Americans, and treated them as unequals every chance they got.

Women couldn't vote, start a business, or attend the college of their choice. My mom was the one who told me that she couldn't get a credit card in the 1970's without my dad co-signing.

If you ask me? It would be fan-freaking-tastic if America's new voices gave us white guys just a small taste of our own medicine for a decade.

"No, you can't attend UVa, you're a man". "No, you can't get the SBA loan without a woman signing on, too". "No, you can't put a bid in on this home, you're a white guy, sorry!" "You're fired because I found out today that you're in a heterosexual marriage....pack your stuff in this box, and security will walk you out"

[MDlaxfan76]

Tyranny of the minority is a very real phenomenon as well...

Yes.

And the irony of millions of white male christians getting upset that they aren't calling 99% of the shots anymore......is that they expect the new American voices to treat them fairly. Yet when they tables were turned, White Male Christians screwed over their fellow Americans, and treated them as unequals every chance they got.

Women couldn't vote, start a business, or attend the college of their choice. My mom was the one who told me that she couldn't get a credit card in the 1970's without my dad co-signing.

If you ask me? It would be fan-freaking-tastic if America's new voices gave us white guys just a small taste of our own medicine for a decade.

"No, you can't attend UVa, you're a man". "No, you can't get the SBA loan without a woman signing on, too". "No, you can't put a bid in on this home, you're a white guy, sorry!" "You're fired because I found out today that you're in a heterosexual marriage....pack your stuff in this box, and security will walk you out"

Sounds like a movie project for Jordan Peele...horror story for us "White Male Christians"...

Or a project for some cartoonists who used to work for the Simpsons or...

[youthathletics]

It was nice to see Biden with a blood red backdrop, pumping his fists, with Marines in the backdrop. At least we know who the real militaristic, control freaks on the room are…now.

[a fan]

It was nice to see Biden with a blood red backdrop, pumping his fists, with Marines in the backdrop. At least we know who the real militaristic, control freaks on the room are…now.

You thinks this is an either/or choice?

[NattyBohChamps04]

It was nice to see Biden with a blood red backdrop, pumping his fists, with Marines in the backdrop. At least we know who the real militaristic, control freaks on the room are…now.

RED, White & Blue. It's literally one of our nation's colors, but if you don't like it, guess you can leave®

Trump made about the worst deal possible with the Taliban regarding pulling out, but Biden followed through with Trump's promise and got us out of Afghanistan in a chaotic but fast operation with about 1% of the casualties the Soviets saw when they withdrew. Super militaristic I guess that makes him.

Letting more people vote is very controlling as well.

Sounds like a snowflake may have been triggered by some politician's speech.

[youthathletics]

"letting more people vote". Next you'll tell us blacks are not allowed to vote b/c they are incapable of getting an ID or even a ballot, indicating they are not smart enough, all while saying you are fine with American soldiers being killed while being put in a situation that was totally avoidable; a great patriot you are.

Questoin....do you have son or daughter in the military or in law enforcement?

[SCLaxAttack]

"letting more people vote". Next you'll tell us blacks are not allowed to vote b/c they are incapable of getting an ID or even a ballot, indicating they are not smart enough, all while saying you are fine with American soldiers being killed while being put in a situation that was totally avoidable; a great patriot you are.

Questoin....do you have son or daughter in the military or in law enforcement?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... times.html

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/92452767 ... polling-pl

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... iting-vote

Answer - My son-in-law’s Army, my son was a deputy sheriff. Not sure why that’s important to the topic of voting difficulty.

[youthathletics]

"letting more people vote". Next you'll tell us blacks are not allowed to vote b/c they are incapable of getting an ID or even a ballot, indicating they are not smart enough, all while saying you are fine with American soldiers being killed while being put in a situation that was totally avoidable; a great patriot you are.

Questoin....do you have son or daughter in the military or in law enforcement?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... times.html

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/92452767 ... polling-pl

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... iting-vote

Answer - My son-in-law’s Army, my son was a deputy sheriff. Not sure why that’s important to the topic of voting difficulty.

Two separate issues in my reply to natty. Much like his reply that inserted additional talking points.

It is not just a race issue...unless you make it one. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/08/check-o ... polls.html

My question was about the comment that he was accepting a 1% casualty.

[MDlaxfan76]

"letting more people vote". Next you'll tell us blacks are not allowed to vote b/c they are incapable of getting an ID or even a ballot, indicating they are not smart enough, all while saying you are fine with American soldiers being killed while being put in a situation that was totally avoidable; a great patriot you are.

Questoin....do you have son or daughter in the military or in law enforcement?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... times.html

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/92452767 ... polling-pl

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... iting-vote

Answer - My son-in-law’s Army, my son was a deputy sheriff. Not sure why that’s important to the topic of voting difficulty.

Two separate issues in my reply to natty. Much like his reply that inserted additional talking points.

It is not just a race issue...unless you make it one. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/08/check-o ... polls.html

My question was about the comment that he was accepting a 1% casualty.

I think you may be either missing, or in denial, about the point being made about voting.

The issue is not (you) "making it about race", rather it's about politicians in control of certain jurisdictions/states actively seeking to make it harder for particular sets of voters than others to vote. It may or not be explicitly about "race", but the practical effect of making it harder to vote for people predicted to vote for the competitive party is voter suppression, and when there's a known, strong correlation with race as such predictor, that's indeed what the party in power seeks to isolate and impact negatively.

And yeah, that's actually happening (and has happened since Emancipation and Jim Crow). Voter ID restrictions and requirements are just one mechanism that has been abused at times to such end.

Average 45 minutes indeed is too long...but how about 5 hours? How does a person with two jobs get to vote? No mail in or drop in ballots allowed. "early voting" only during work hours?

What do I want the GOP to do?...make it easier to vote for all... and compete for the support of the majority of voters with smarter, more effective policies than the competition, and with better candidates.

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/def ... lained.pdf

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/92452767 ... polling-pl

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/opinions ... index.html

[NattyBohChamps04]

"letting more people vote". Next you'll tell us blacks are not allowed to vote b/c they are incapable of getting an ID or even a ballot, indicating they are not smart enough, all while saying you are fine with American soldiers being killed while being put in a situation that was totally avoidable; a great patriot you are.

Questoin....do you have son or daughter in the military or in law enforcement?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... times.html

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/92452767 ... polling-pl

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... iting-vote

Answer - My son-in-law’s Army, my son was a deputy sheriff. Not sure why that’s important to the topic of voting difficulty.

Two separate issues in my reply to natty. Much like his reply that inserted additional talking points.

It is not just a race issue...unless you make it one. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/08/check-o ... polls.html

My question was about the comment that he was accepting a 1% casualty.

My kids aren't old enough to serve. I've lost immediate family serving in wars though. I wasn't accepting of a 1% casualty rate, but the fact that we lost 12 people instead of close to 1,000 like the Russians did when they withdrew from Afghanistan shows Biden did a much better job even when dealt a terrible hand from the previous admin.

My comments about allowing more people to vote and ending a war were comments in contrast to your claims about Biden being controlling and militaristic.

[a fan]

Two separate issues in my reply to natty. Much like his reply that inserted additional talking points.

It is not just a race issue...unless you make it one. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/08/check-o ... polls.html

Correction: Republicans make it a race issue. Stop mucking with access to elections, and the complaint goes away. Simple.

My question was about the comment that he was accepting a 1% casualty.

That's bad math. You don't get to compare it to zero, my man. You MUST compare Biden's exit casualties with the cost of life had he chose to keep troops there.

Wanna go over those numbers? The US annual deaths from when we got OBL, until we bailed...... 2012-2020? I'd guess that you don't. Because it makes Trump and Obama look like they don't care about our troops.

And since we're looking at the numbers: do you know how many US soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2022?

[youthathletics]

Two separate issues in my reply to natty. Much like his reply that inserted additional talking points.

It is not just a race issue...unless you make it one. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/08/check-o ... polls.html

Correction: Republicans make it a race issue. Stop mucking with access to elections, and the complaint goes away. Simple.

My question was about the comment that he was accepting a 1% casualty.

That's bad math. You don't get to compare it to zero, my man. You MUST compare Biden's exit casualties with the cost of life had he chose to keep troops there.

Wanna go over those numbers? The US annual deaths from when we got OBL, until we bailed...... 2012-2020? I'd guess that you don't. Because it makes Trump and Obama look like they don't care about our troops.

And since we're looking at the numbers: do you know how many US soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2022?

I most certainly can compare it to zero, each situation presents its own circumstances; we are not baking the same cake each time. You guys and your scoreboard....who's winning again?

[a fan]

I most certainly can compare it to zero, each situation presents its own circumstances; we are not baking the same cake each time.

Sure we can.

You're asking the impossible......you want to pull out of Afghanistan with zero casualties. And the only reason you're asking that is that Biden is a Democrat. Because if a R was in office, you wouldn't be here pretending like that was possible. You'd accept the casualties of withdrawal.

So, for example, pretend your perfect plan for exiting Afghanistan takes a year. Look at the numbers, YA....how many deaths would you expect in that time? Hint: it ain't zero.

You guys and your scoreboard....who's winning again?

Is this a serious question?

The answer is: the troops, their families, anyone who cares about them. In 2022, not one of them died or were injured in Afghanistan. You claim to care about our troops......then you don't get to pretend likes this isn't a very real scoreboard.

All because Joe Biden had the stones and foresight to get them out, when Obama and Trump did not.

[OCanada]

The USA began its Vietnamization of the war in the early 1970s rather than just withdraw. It proved to be a disaster on many levels. Military performance came close to collapsing; morale collapsed; war crimes increased; etc. casualties were in the tens of thousands between SV and the USA. Before withdrawal was complete. Zero casualties? Please.

Trump signed the agreement and maliciously made the time provided for withdrawal too short to allow for a Zero casualty result. He also freed 5,000 terrorists including the next leader. That decision speaks for itself. Biden got it extended a bit.

The GOP is all about suppressing minority voting and using multiple strategies to achieve it eg closing polling places, moving polling places at the last minute, gerrymandering, requiring ID but then slow walking applications or closing local offices etc. A number of years ago they looked at demographics and trends and realized they would never win control if they needed a majority of voters to win so they hsd to limit the numbers of voters or expand the appeal. The latter was never really considered. The GOP has become qwhite the party. There are studies on this. The strategy began to be developed back in the late 1960s and is still evolving.

My family has a bit of military involvement:
Father served USN
Mother served USN triage.
Brother served USN Medic (service related death)
Brother in Law USN SEAL ret. MCPO.

Not counting uncles, cousins, or history

[youthathletics]

I most certainly can compare it to zero, each situation presents its own circumstances; we are not baking the same cake each time.

Sure we can.

You're asking the impossible......you want to pull out of Afghanistan with zero casualties. And the only reason you're asking that is that Biden is a Democrat. Because if a R was in office, you wouldn't be here pretending like that was possible. You'd accept the casualties of withdrawal.

So, for example, pretend your perfect plan for exiting Afghanistan takes a year. Look at the numbers, YA....how many deaths would you expect in that time? Hint: it ain't zero.

I suppose I am far too optimistic afan...I guess I should resign to being a pessimist b/c I have been an optimist for so long. It just rubbed me the wrong way that any percentage of casualties was acceptable. By comparison, roughly 100 soldiers/year in the 20 year War in Afghanistan. 13 died in one day in the recent separation of the overnight vacancy.

You guys and your scoreboard....who's winning again?

Is this a serious question?

The answer is: the troops, their families, anyone who cares about them. In 2022, not one of them died or were injured in Afghanistan. You claim to care about our troops......then you don't get to pretend likes this isn't a very real scoreboard.

All because Joe Biden had the stones and foresight to get them out, when Obama and Trump did not.

My scoreboard comment was lost in the wash of the thread, was not intended for the soldier discussion. Just a closing comment about how Trump is always inserted anytime a critque of Biden or democrat is mentioned.

Responses in Blue

[youthathletics]

My family has a bit of military involvement:
Father served USN
Mother served USN triage.
Brother served USN Medic (service related death)
Brother in Law USN SEAL ret. MCPO.

Not counting uncles, cousins, or history

+1

My point, was when you have skin/family in the game, it can certainly change ones perspective. Sure, they know what they are signing up for, and would certainly die for all the right reasons.....those reasons can become questionable when political theatre is the motive.

Enjoy the Holiday, OCanada!