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

12gauge dave wrote: »

That will only fly for so long.

Don't you agree that 3 weeks in control of a pandemic that started 11 months ago is far too short a time to have an effect?

Biden will have it under control by summer, leading by example, memories of trump will be like a fart on the wind at that stage.

12gauge dave wrote: »

More Americans have died from COVID-19 in the first three weeks of Joe Biden's presidency than during the entire Vietnam War, a grim milestone for a leader who vowed to make ending the pandemic "the first priority, the second priority, and the third priority" of his administration.

Besides being absolutely mortifying for you to post this nonsense, this is actually an attack on your guy. I mean, if you're so upset that there have been thousands of deaths since Biden took office (mostly people who got sick while your Dear Leader was in office), you must be extremely angry and upset at the hundreds of thousands of people who died under your guys watch, when things went from bad to worse to absolutely appalling and he fanned the flames that led to the current situation.

2 questions (these are both asked in the general sense, and could apply to any president):

can someone explain what reconciliation is, and why its so important?

a president takes an oath that says 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. how can any president issue any EO that is in contravention of the constitution? some get overturned in courts, but the fact that something was overturned in court requires the EO initially to be in contravention of their oath. surely any EO should go through the courts 1st, to establish if it is against the constitution? and if so, you cannot do it as it breaks your oath of office.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not attacking you here but just curious, why have you asked for the definition and usefulness of something on a discussion forum? Is it the case that you e.g. have read the Wikipedia page about it but are still confused?

i've not read that. watched a very brief youtube vid where it says you dont need ~66% senate consent, but 50% if you can prove its part of a bigger bill or something.

it was one of those new youtube shorts from legal eagle (i think) but it was only like 45 seconds.

robinph wrote: »

Always worth sticking certain posters contributions into Google search before bothering to reply, you'll often find it's just a copy and paste and zero thought of their own.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebeacon.com/satire/bidens-vietnam-60k-americans-dead-from-covid-19-in-first-three-weeks-of-presidency/amp/

Not a site I've heard of before, but the URL suggests it's basically Waterford Whispers which makes the reposting of it here under the guise of being original content even sillier.

Its a conservative site which does humor, its not particularly interesting and obviously biased but in American MSM this is the era of the echo chamber so its not exactly alone.

I think Politico is one of the few sites left which tries to somewhat do balance and does try to hold its ground when the echo chamber warriors come for it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well if you have any questions after reading it feel free to ask.

ay jaysus, i was hoping for an abridged version :P

ETA: just read the 1st paragraph...

The Senate filibuster effectively requires a 60-vote super-majority for the passage of most legislation in the Senate, but reconciliation provides a process to prevent the use of the filibuster and thereby allow the passage of a bill with simple majority support in the Senate.

am i right in thinking that a senate filibuster is only used to block legislation? as in, you dont need reconciliation if you have bipartisan agreement (or 60 seats).

just for myself here:

ineligible for reconciliation—in six cases:[2]

If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues; spend less, or generate more? net affect 0.
If it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions; no clue, but sounds like 1
If it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
If it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of ten years);[c] or
If it recommends changes in Social Security.

i'm non the wiser TBH. it seems to be a way to pass certain legislation (without needing 60% senate approval).

robinph wrote: »

Always worth sticking certain posters contributions into Google search before bothering to reply, you'll often find it's just a copy and paste and zero thought of their own.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebeacon.com/satire/bidens-vietnam-60k-americans-dead-from-covid-19-in-first-three-weeks-of-presidency/amp/

Not a site I've heard of before, but the URL suggests it's basically Waterford Whispers which makes the reposting of it here under the guise of being original content even sillier.

If you actually read the content in the link it states, at the very top of the piece, that it is satire.

mcmoustache wrote: »

The two sides thing is something I could have accepted 20 years ago but now, it's not a left v right thing at all. It's reality v nonsense and that can definitely make the mainstream media look like an echo chamber. The crazy media like fox oann, the blaze, gatewaypundit and the likes aren't read by serious people. Their content is aimed at morons. Serious people get their info from serious media, even if it's slanted because it bears a much stronger resemblance to reality. When the picture painted by FT, Reuters, AP and so on are showing one reality and OANN, Newsmax, FOX and so on are showing another, it's not hard to compare both sides to reality and one side here is clearly bonkers.

I think that is grossly over simplistic.

A lot of the people at the Capitol on the 6th of January were highly educated, relatively wealthy, employed, business owners etc. Were they motivated to attend based on the content on Reuters, AP, FT etc?

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

lets not build walls, cos they dont work


i know you will say X,Y, or Z but the reality is that walls do work. why would joe build them to stop unscrupulous characters?

You should consider this in the context of that scene from Fr Ted where they discussed the concept of scaling.

y0ssar1an22 wrote:

i must confess, never watched father ted.

a few clips, but i dont get the inside jokes

Highly intelligent comedy.
Go give yourself a good laugh. It's great to give the mind a break from reality, you might find you'll have lots of rational, well-founded opinions if you do.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

2 questions (these are both asked in the general sense, and could apply to any president):

can someone explain what reconciliation is, and why its so important?

a president takes an oath that says 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. how can any president issue any EO that is in contravention of the constitution? some get overturned in courts, but the fact that something was overturned in court requires the EO initially to be in contravention of their oath. surely any EO should go through the courts 1st, to establish if it is against the constitution? and if so, you cannot do it as it breaks your oath of office.

eagle eye wrote: »

Highly intelligent comedy.
Go give yourself a good laugh. It's great to give the mind a break from reality, you might find you'll have lots of rational, well-founded opinions if you do.

never mind father ted.

tell me this, appointing people on merit? whats your view?

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

lets not build walls, cos they dont work



i know you will say X,Y, or Z but the reality is that walls do work. why would joe build them to stop unscrupulous characters?

Shoes work but putting a giant pair of shoes on the United States won’t make it run faster.

Such lazy false equivalencies between sovereign border security and property barricades. (must have missed the endangered migratory animals that traverse between Lafayette square and the rose garden?)