Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

But wouldn't good technocrats AT LEAST be doing more to protect the "technical" aspects of our elections ???

nonequals wrote:

agip wrote:

the Ds are hamstrung by not having their own media infrastructure. The Rs start with a massive headstart because their idiot voters live in a right wing medialand that tells them Ds are communists and very confused about their sexuality. So Rs don't have to sell their ideas...Fox and Rogan and Hannity do it for them.

The Ds have to work with the traditional media, which both-sides things to death and refuses to accept that the R party is off the rails and involved in sedition.

And the Ds are technocrats who believe in their souls that a good policy will work and will win elections. Fools.

But wouldn't good technocrats AT LEAST be doing more to protect the "technical" aspects of our elections ???

Feds can't do too much....states are in charge of elections.

Dems tried a voting rights bill but Manchin and Sinema canned the idea. And no trumpist would ever vote for such a bill.

So now the feds are trying to rewrite the electoral voting law. Which is exactly what you are asking them to do - protect the technical side.

Bottom line tho...this is a union of states and the feds have limited powers.

More succinct, perhaps: If roughly half are willing to vote for Trump, why would we think that enough would vote for the very capable people?

Is anyone expecting Biden to be on Mt. Rushmore? No. But could any reasonable person not have expected him to handle COVID (or a million other things) better than the idiot? But a whole bunch of moderates said, "Uh......nah, staying with the incompetent autocrat."

Put another way, I'm not sure that we have a crisis of competence (or lack of brilliance). We DO have a crisis of principle and cowardice, at all levels. And interestingly, it was the principled state/local Rs with the mostly non-fancy resumes who saved up from Trump last year. Will enough of them still be around next time?

And don't get me wrong, I'll ALSO take more impressive national leaders.....!!!

agip wrote:

nonequals wrote:

But wouldn't good technocrats AT LEAST be doing more to protect the "technical" aspects of our elections ???

Feds can't do too much....states are in charge of elections.

Dems tried a voting rights bill but Manchin and Sinema canned the idea. And no trumpist would ever vote for such a bill.

So now the feds are trying to rewrite the electoral voting law. Which is exactly what you are asking them to do - protect the technical side.

Bottom line tho...this is a union of states and the feds have limited powers.

Right, but a year after the threat was made clear. That's all I'm pointing out in this case. Again, to the casual news consumer, there seems a lack of urgency. And if something like this could only be done in series, OK. But anything that can be done in parallel ought to be. And if that means that they spend less time doing less important things that politicians do, so be it.

well you can only vote for the people who run

if the high quality people don't run, then the lower quality people will run and get the votes that should have gone to some lady who is instead managing a division at a global conglomerate making 4x the salary of a member of congress.

agip wrote:

Are there any American institutions left that the 'conservatives' like? Anything?

Newsmax and OAN... and maybe even Fox News.

They may also like THEIR churches and NRA.

There is no bottom to the Biden presidency. He just keeps falling.

Lets go Brandon!

#FJB

nonequals wrote:

Right, but a year after the threat was made clear. That's all I'm pointing out in this case. Again, to the casual news consumer, there seems a lack of urgency. And if something like this could only be done in series, OK. But anything that can be done in parallel ought to be. And if that means that they spend less time doing less important things that politicians do, so be it.

Umm... looks like you are not watching MSDNC... I mean, MSNBC. ;)

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

nonequals wrote:

Right, but a year after the threat was made clear. That's all I'm pointing out in this case. Again, to the casual news consumer, there seems a lack of urgency. And if something like this could only be done in series, OK. But anything that can be done in parallel ought to be. And if that means that they spend less time doing less important things that politicians do, so be it.

Umm... looks like you are not watching MSDNC... I mean, MSNBC. ;)

Yeah, they've been talking about it more, no doubt. I guess Ds either don't watch it enough, or simply haven't been persuaded !!

I'm curious if anyone can quickly explain why there are two voting bills? If you're dealing with a public that barely pays attention, and Rs who would surely prefer bills with lesser items that they can use to justify "No," its seems that you'd want a single bill that addresses only THE most important threats to voting/counting/certifying. Is two bills with a lot of stuff smart politics, dumb politics, or somewhere in between?

The Biden presidency is a failure. He just keeps failing. Turn on Tucker Carlson instead of Cuomo or Maddow tonight to see the proof. The MSM won't tell you how bad it is. They will just drone on about the January 6th protest. Watch Fox or OAN if you don't want to be a sheep.

Lets go Brandon!

#FJB

Depends on the definition of "quality." The quality that is important to me right now is simply not being a Trumper, or at least not deathly afraid of Trump. Don't you suppose that there are plenty of folks who roughly meet the benchmark you've set above who voted for Trump, and even actively supported him? And if they ran for office, certainly wouldn't be bucking him?

Taking it a bit further, aren't there ALREADY a whole bunch of folks in Congress who meet that benchmark, and still support and/or cower before Trump? Hell, even someone like Mitt Romney - who certainly meets the benchmark - has seemed to be pretty un-courageous with respect to Trump in the last year or so.

You guys have nothing but to keep bringing up Trump. There are 10s of mllions of conservatives who want nothing to do with TRump. We hate what Biden is doing to the country. You know there is going to be a red landslide in the mid-terms and all you have is to keep bringing up Trump. Trump, trump and trump! That is all you have. Pathetic.

Trump, Trump and more Trump! Quit talking about Trump. He is gone.

we seem to be talking across each other.

Certainly I agree that the non-trumpers are failing the nation and themselves. Sure.

I'm focusing on why there aren't any real leaders among the Dems. Why isn't there a charismatic young person who can lead men and women away from autocracy and decadence? There's no one.

I think a big reason for that absence is that a person like that will stay far away from politics because it is a sh/tshow. Whereas American business or science is the best in the world. Easy choice for a smart ambitious young person. They have left the field to the incompetent, bland and crazy.

nonequals wrote:

I'm curious if anyone can quickly explain why there are two voting bills? If you're dealing with a public that barely pays attention, and Rs who would surely prefer bills with lesser items that they can use to justify "No," its seems that you'd want a single bill that addresses only THE most important threats to voting/counting/certifying. Is two bills with a lot of stuff smart politics, dumb politics, or somewhere in between?

You are talking in two different directions. Your suggestion will increase the number of bills to THREE, since you still have all the other provisions after you take out the most urgent ones.

agip wrote:

I think a big reason for that absence is that a person like that will stay far away from politics because it is a sh/tshow. Whereas American business or science is the best in the world. Easy choice for a smart ambitious young person. They have left the field to the incompetent, bland and crazy.

In addition to the 1988 election I wrote above, I think the impeachment of Bill Clinton has also dissuaded many qualifies candidates. All the presidents before him (except maybe Carter and Ford) had some scandals, but none received such close scrutiny. I think this was a product of two things. The first is the 24/7 cable news that thrived on sensationalism, and the second is the politics of confrontation as performing arts popularized by Newt Gingrich (which used the 24/7 cable news as their theatre.)

nonequals wrote:

I'm curious if anyone can quickly explain why there are two voting bills? If you're dealing with a public that barely pays attention, and Rs who would surely prefer bills with lesser items that they can use to justify "No," its seems that you'd want a single bill that addresses only THE most important threats to voting/counting/certifying. Is two bills with a lot of stuff smart politics, dumb politics, or somewhere in between?

Grandstanding. One bill is reasonable bi-partisan stuff to fix the problem, the way votes are counted. The other is Democrat fantasyland stuff that they know won't pass, wasn't designed to be passed, and probably isn't constitutional.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

agip wrote:

I think a big reason for that absence is that a person like that will stay far away from politics because it is a sh/tshow. Whereas American business or science is the best in the world. Easy choice for a smart ambitious young person. They have left the field to the incompetent, bland and crazy.

In addition to the 1988 election I wrote above, I think the impeachment of Bill Clinton has also dissuaded many qualifies candidates. All the presidents before him (except maybe Carter and Ford) had some scandals, but none received such close scrutiny. I think this was a product of two things. The first is the 24/7 cable news that thrived on sensationalism, and the second is the politics of confrontation as performing arts popularized by Newt Gingrich (which used the 24/7 cable news as their theatre.)

They wanted revenge for what happened to Nixon and waited until the time was right.

Sensational news has been around for a long time, as have presidential scandals. Teapot Dome was a pretty big deal back in the day - these days it'd probably be even bigger.

I think the major factor is really the internet. Just way too many people talking at once and information, regardless of what it is, spreads really quickly and, crucially, quite cheaply as well. If you have to work a little for your information, just a little (and the bar is quite low) then it can be productive. I think there's studies done that show "learning" from social media or straight from TV is actually detrimental, possibly to the point where you literally lose IQ points (i.e. inductive and deductive reasoning)

Hardloper wrote:

nonequals wrote:

I'm curious if anyone can quickly explain why there are two voting bills? If you're dealing with a public that barely pays attention, and Rs who would surely prefer bills with lesser items that they can use to justify "No," its seems that you'd want a single bill that addresses only THE most important threats to voting/counting/certifying. Is two bills with a lot of stuff smart politics, dumb politics, or somewhere in between?

Grandstanding. One bill is reasonable bi-partisan stuff to fix the problem, the way votes are counted. The other is Democrat fantasyland stuff that they know won't pass, wasn't designed to be passed, and probably isn't constitutional.

The "bi-partisan stuff" has ZERO Republican support, and only ONE is even willing to discuss it (Murkowski). All the other Rs are in favor of partisan vote counting.