discuss Joe Biden - NOW USA President

[Shojib]

Joe Biden - 284
Donald Trump - 214

Congratulations on victory.

 

[Joe N]

no disrespect intended ... but your country allows and fully excepts such ideology as Harris carries... her ideology ..why may be excepted by 50% of the US ... is not excepted by the other 50% ... her ideology does not fit into the system of the USA

Which is exactly what makes them progressive ideas... Just because they don't fit into the system, doesn't mean they can't work. Maybe the system should be tweaked, or outright changed?

No system is perfect, and the US is pretty much the most archaic of all democracies. Yes, as a country the US has stayed true to its founding ideals, and that's great in some ways. In other ways it's to the country's own detriment. America's unwillingness to evolve might be at the very heart of the extreme polarization of its citizens' views. If only everyone could find more common ground, and be willing to bend on their opinions a bit...

Anyway, you're absolutely right about Canada. We're a more progressive country. We have our own issues and our own divisiveness to deal with. But one thing I have always liked about Canada is that we have been willing to challenge our ideals over the years and modernize them without losing who we are at the core.

 

[bmugford]

Georgia elections chief says Trump 'suppressed' GOP vote, cost himself state

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...s-trump-depressed-gop-vote-cost-himself-state

Georgia’s Republican secretary of state said Tuesday that President Trump’s attacks on the integrity of mail-in voting contributed to his loss in the Peach State.

“Twenty-four thousand people did not vote in the fall; either they did not vote absentee because they were told by the president ‘don’t vote absentee, it’s not secure,’ ” Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) said in an interview with WSB-TV, an Atlanta-area ABC affiliate. “But then they did not come out and vote in person. He would have won by 10,000 votes. He actually depressed, suppressed his own voting base."

OOPS.

 

[.X.]

Which is exactly what makes them progressive ideas... Just because they don't fit into the system, doesn't mean they can't work. Maybe the system should be tweaked, or outright changed?

No system is perfect, and the US is pretty much the most archaic of all democracies. Yes, as a country the US has stayed true to its founding ideals, and that's great in some ways. In other ways it's to the country's own detriment. America's unwillingness to evolve might be at the very heart of the extreme polarization of its citizens' views. If only everyone could find more common ground, and be willing to bend on their opinions a bit...

Anyway, you're absolutely right about Canada. We're a more progressive country. We have our own issues and our own divisiveness to deal with. But one thing I have always liked about Canada is that we have been willing to challenge our ideals over the years and modernize them without losing who we are at the core.

i personally don’t oppose tweaking .. evolving and such ... I am willing to go 50-50 on it all ... I have yet to talk to a Democrat that is willing to give 50% back ... they want the system completely their way or the highway ... so to speak ... that isn’t going to work ... not without a fight first... if they can win that fight .. it’s theirs ...

 

[bmugford]

Man, from all the reports coming out Rudy Giuliani is getting absolutely wrecked from all sides in court.
He is an embarrassment.

A normal lawyer would probably get disbarred for this display, but jokes on them... Rudy committed perjury when he applied to represent this case. He has no actual license to practice law to revoke, like he said he did.

Andrew Feinberg
@AndrewFeinberg
Wow. Giuliani is getting flayed by whichever lawyer is speaking now.
4:14 PM · Nov 17, 2020


Jon Swaine
@jonswaine
49m
For the past half-hour, attorney Mark Aronchick – representing PA counties being sued by Trump – has loudly torn into @RudyGiuliani
, saying he is ignorant of the law, living in "some fantasy world" and pushing wild allegations that are "disgraceful in an American courtroom."


Neal Katyal
@neal_katyal
· 7m
OMG. Judge just now asks Giuliani and other Trump lawyers "you are asking me to throw out" many thousands of votes, "can you tell me how this result can even possibly be justified?" After a long pause, Giuliani...does not answer the question. Just repeats his fraud allegations


Law Boy, Esq.
@The_Law_Boy
· 3m
Giuliani spent huge amounts of time openly claiming that there was massive voter fraud, and then when the judge pointed out that a higher pleading standard applies to fraud claims he immediately did a 180 and said there was no fraud claim

 

[.X.]

People headed to Atlanta Georgia to the capital in protest of Georgia ... although it may not make any difference .... I think it is good on the people’s part that believe the fraud took the election

 

[bmugford]

People headed to Atlanta Georgia to the capital in protest of Georgia ... although it may not make any difference .... I think it is good on the people’s part that believe the fraud took the election

That is fine, they can believe what they want.

The numbers tell a different story, especially in Atlanta.

Tomorrow is a big day for Trump. Georgia will be certified, and then he can decide if he wants to blow $8M on a lost cause in Wisconsin.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

i personally don’t oppose tweaking .. evolving and such ... I am willing to go 50-50 on it all ... I have yet to talk to a Democrat that is willing to give 50% back ... they want the system completely their way or the highway ... so to speak ... that isn’t going to work ... not without a fight first... if they can win that fight .. it’s theirs ...

I have said this before. I would be more than willing to have a policy discussion.

I think many people agree on a lot of things. It is hard to reach any middle ground with the divisiveness though.

Brad

 

[.X.]

I have said this before. I would be more than willing to have a policy discussion.

I think many people agree on a lot of things. It is hard to reach any middle ground with the divisiveness though.

Brad

the same here ... I have been all about finding middle ground ... you are actually the first that has offered to try and reach middle ground

 

[bmugford]

the same here ... I have been all about finding middle ground ... you are actually the first that has offered to try and reach middle ground

The people I know on both sides can agree on like 70% of most things, or you could come to a reasonable middle ground. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game where one side makes the other side fully capitulate.

Some things just are not comaptible as views are too different, but many things are actually doable. I would rather focus on those.

My biggest issue is healthcare. I think access to reasonable, affordable healthcare is a right under (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

I think the majority of the people realize the status quo is not sustainable, that people need guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions.

I don't think it is reasonable for a person to lose what they worked an entire life for in one random medical event. I have seen this happen in my family.

There are lots of potential reasonable middle ground solutions.

Brad

 

[.X.]

The people I know on both sides can agree on like 70% of most things, or you could come to a reasonable middle ground. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game where one side makes the other side fully capitulate.

Some things just are not comaptible as views are too different, but many things are actually doable. I would rather focus on those.

My biggest issue is healthcare. I think access to reasonable, affordable healthcare is a right under (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

I think the majority of the people realize the status quo is not sustainable, that people need guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions.

I don't think it is reasonable for a person to lose what they worked an entire life for in one random medical event. I have seen this happen in my family.

There are lots of potential reasonable middle ground solutions.

Brad

I agree with you on healthcare 100% ... I was pro ACA ..

Healthcare
Police reform
Justice reform

those are my BIG three

 

[Joe N]

We often get so fired up about the issues and people that divide us, we forget there's a lot of middle ground to be found.

 

[bmugford]

I agree with you on healthcare 100% ... I was pro ACA ..

Healthcare
Police reform
Justice reform

those are my BIG three

The ACA does several things right IMO.

The plan is actually very similar to the GOP response to Hillarycare in the early 90's and later Romneycare.

1.) It can untie health insurance from your job. Why is health insurance not tied to the person instead?

This is a large reason big business does not like it. It gives workers more freedoms.
Many people get stuck in a job because of their healthcare.

With the ACA you could for instance start your own business. You can sign up under the exchange and you get a subsidy based on your yearly income (not assets). So if you are a startup losing money for a few years you might get a 90% or 100% subsidy. It actually spurs people to innovate by giving them freedom.

2.) It guarantees protections for pre-existing conditions. This a major issue now, and going forward with COVID.

3.) All plans are required to cover certain things, having a bare minimum of quality of service provided.

4.) It doesn't try to fully rip the insurance companies out of the system, it fact if give them more clients.
You need more people covered though, including healthy people. You can't just have only sick people covered.

There are negatives as well, but the GOP wants to basically rip all that away without any replacement plan. They have not come up with a viable alternative in over a decade.

Brad

 

[.X.]

The ACA does several things right IMO.

The plan is actually very similar to the GOP response to Hillarycare in the early 90's and later Romneycare.

1.) It can untie health insurance from your job. Why is health insurance not tied to the person instead?

This is a large reason big business does not like it. It gives workers more freedoms.
Many people get stuck in a job because of their healthcare.

With the ACA you could for instance start your own business. You can sign up under the exchange and you get a subsidy based on your yearly income (not assets). So if you are a startup losing money for a few years you might get a 90% or 100% subsidy. It actually spurs people to innovate by giving them freedom.

2.) It guarantees protections for pre-existing conditions. This a major issue now, and going forward with COVID.

3.) All plans are required to cover certain things, having a bare minimum of quality of service provided.

4.) It doesn't try to fully rip the insurance companies out of the system, it fact if give them more clients.
You need more people covered though, including healthy people. You can't just have only sick people covered.

There are negatives as well, but the GOP wants to basically rip all that away without any replacement plan. They have not come up with a viable alternative in over a decade.

Brad

the one thing that I am “Life or Death” about .... our Constitution .... that is only thing I will not budge on

 

[bmugford]

the one thing that I am “Life or Death” about .... our Constitution .... that is only thing I will not budge on

I am not trying to take away anyone's rights.

I mean free speech is well protected, but not unlimited. Courts have determined that many times.

There are very few situations though where it is limited such as the famous "Saying fire in a crowded theater", inciting violence, etc.

I am not trying to take away anyone's guns either, at the same time I don't think your average Joe owning a rocket launcher is reasonable.

I think it is reasonable to require background checks on gun purchases.

I don't like only having discussions with people I agree with. Then it just creates an echo chamber.

Brad

 

[.X.]

I am not trying to take away anyone's rights.

I mean free speech is well protected, but not unlimited. Courts have determined that many times.

There are very few situations though where it is limited such as the famous "Saying fire in a crowded theater", inciting violence, etc.

I am not trying to take away anyone's guns either, at the same time I don't think your average Joe owning a rocket launcher is reasonable.

I think it is reasonable to require background checks on gun purchases.

I don't like only having discussions with people I agree with. Then it just creates an echo chamber.

Brad

I agree on 1A .. for instance .. I do not believe in hate speech websites or groups ...we have gone to far as a society with 1A ... people have used loopholes in 1A to abuse it IMO

2A if used as it was written is great .. again .. loopholes have been used by people to abuse the amendment ...

We have to be more responsible with regards to firearms ... I have never opposed the Brady bill or any checks that is deemed necessary in the sale of firearms .. I respect magazine requirements per each state law .

I feel that do to loopholes being used on our constitution it has hurt the constitution as it written and intended... getting back to the basics and keeping it simple as we did for 200 years is something to think about IMO

 

[.X.]

One thing I do feel strongly about .... the governing of covid 19 .... I believe that ONLY the president .. that by executive order can shut a state or the complete country down ... and mandates that run in conjunction with the constitution must be mandated by the president otherwise it is can be construed unconstitutional by the people ...

 

[JB Lions]

Krebs said we had the most secure election in American history, Trump just fired him. Krebs was Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328852352787484677

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328852354049957888

 

[RogueWriter]

....and the US is pretty much the most archaic of all democracies.

You say archaic, I say majestic. That is the primary difference between you and me.

 

[Joe N]

One thing I do feel strongly about .... the governing of covid 19 .... I believe that ONLY the president .. that by executive order can shut a state or the complete country down ... and mandates that run in conjunction with the constitution must be mandated by the president otherwise it is can be construed unconstitutional by the people ...

That's an issue I've seen Candace Owens discuss. She likes that the decision rests with the state, because it gives people a chance to get a better feel for the priorities of their leaders.

Additionally, I can see why it makes sense to let the states decide... There are a lot of different concerns to take into account that could be unique to each individual state or county, and it would be difficult for the president to really stay abreast of all that while also trying to run the country and drive national policy.

 

[.X.]

Krebs said we had the most secure election in American history, Trump just fired him. Krebs was Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328852352787484677

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328852354049957888

Yep ... he may go coo coo .... I am sure many advisors are keeping an eye on him though

 

[Joe N]

You say archaic, I say majestic. That is the primary difference between you and me.

The beauty of differing opinions in action.

 

[.X.]

That's an issue I've seen Candace Owens discuss. She likes that the decision rests with the state, because it gives people a chance to get a better feel for the priorities of their leaders.

Additionally, I can see why it makes sense to let the states decide... There are a lot of different concerns to take into account that could be unique to each individual state or county, and it would be difficult for the president to really stay abreast of all that while also trying to run the country and drive national policy.

if we were in normal times I would agree ... a lot of the decisions being made by governors may be unconstitutional.. so as opposed as to having roving covid 19 decisions all over the country ... I feel it would be best to rest on the shoulders of the president .... although many of these governors feel they are doing what is best for their state .. they may not be educated or may fail to recognize their decisions to be unconstitutional in this specific circumstance .

the Constitution is a “Live by the sword” “Die by the sword” IMO .... it is not to played with IMO .... except by the president who would be held responsible by the people .. elections every 4 years ..

 

[Cannuck]

Freedom of Speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. America has spoken. The office of the President comes with no guarantee to listen.

 

[Joe N]

if we were in normal times I would agree ... a lot of the decisions being made by governors may be unconstitutional.. so as opposed as to having roving covid 19 decisions all over the country ... I feel it would be best to rest on the shoulders of the president .... although many of these governors feel they are doing what is best for their state .. they may not be educated or may fail to recognize their decisions to be unconstitutional in this specific circumstance .

the Constitution is a “Live by the sword” “Die by the sword” IMO .... it is not to played with IMO .... except by the president who would be held responsible by the people .. elections every 4 years ..

Does the constitution factor in because you feel that lockdowns are unconstitutional? Is there not room for those decisions to be made at a national level when the government interprets a situation as a national security or health threat?

I hope you see the irony in saying the decision should have been on Trump while also saying some of the governors may be uneducated...

I think the real danger in Trump's handling of the COVID situation was the lack of a clear message. There was never a sense that he consulted with the scientists, spoke with advisors, examined the data, and then took a clear and informed position on how to proceed. Most of what I saw from him was a lot of mocking and pressure for more concerned governors to end the lockdowns, and a lot of very strange and false statements about possible cures.

COVID and lockdowns are both damaging in their own ways, but I don't think either on its own is nearly as devastating as a president that doesn't lead his citizens through a crisis.

 

[.X.]

Does the constitution factor in because you feel that lockdowns are unconstitutional? Is there not room for those decisions to be made at a national level when the government interprets a situation as a national security or health threat?

I hope you see the irony in saying the decision should have been on Trump while also saying some of the governors may be uneducated...

I think the real danger in Trump's handling of the COVID situation was the lack of a clear message. There was never a sense that he consulted with the scientists, spoke with advisors, examined the data, and then took a clear and informed position on how to proceed. Most of what I saw from him was a lot of mocking and pressure for more concerned governors to end the lockdowns, and a lot of very strange and false statements about possible cures.

COVID and lockdowns are both damaging in their own ways, but I don't think either on its own is nearly as devastating as a president that doesn't lead his citizens through a crisis.

no .... I don’t feel lockdowns in themselves are unconstitutional .... it can be the amendments made to the lockdown.. added by a governor of a state that can be unconstitutional.... the complete order of lockdown should rest on the presidents shoulders IMO ... Example: if the covid numbers are very high in a state and the president feels a lockdown is necessary ... mask mandate and ect .... not the governor of a state .