All Things Biden: Is It Over Yet?

[Fletch F. Fletch]

It'll go to them anyways, when we spend it on necessities, rather than toss it onto the Scrooge pile and forget about it like they do with the tax breaks and recues of their own.

[Joe]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Trump did not do so.

He said go peacefully, and the total number of guns siezed by federal law enforcement at the capitol that day will be the bit of data you might use to change my mind.

Otherwise, I'll still think he stepped aside despite being convinced that fraud was why he lost. I'll still think Democrats didn't mind riots including assaults on federal buildings, were quite free about it all summer, but as soon as Biden got in, it was fences and razorwire.

So how were they both on free speech again? Wasn't Trump banned from all major social media platforms, with Biden's tacit approval, as soon as the Biden administration started?

Yeah, I think I know which one is which, when it comes to 1a, 2a, it gets really easy to see which one is more liberal.

Cunt, you don't know what your talking about.

Come on, man. I know who's in the White House.

This isn't just about the Capital riot. Trump used the power of his office to delegitimize and overturn a constitutionally certified election that he lost.

Looks to me like he left, and Biden is in.

As to his pissing and moaning about it, I don't see it as all that different than the 'russian collusion' hoax, which of course you are free to insist wasn't a hoax, didn't delegitimize any election etc.

Dance your rhetorical dances all you want, but those facts are on the record and you're blather doesn't change them. I've read the filings and court orders and would suggest you do the same, but I know you won't because you've repeatedly demonstrated your unwillingness to pursue any avenue of inquiry that might upset your view of things.

My view is that when Trump got in, a bunch of people complained. When Biden got in, a bunch of people complained.

I notice you didn't comment on the other point I made, and I know why. Our system of checks and balances is totally over your head. You know nothing of the American system of government and you demonstrate the fact over and over with simplistic comments such as these. Trumps claims of executive privilege are outrageous affronts to our constitution and I'm not kidding when I bring up King George III. I'd point you to the memo's from Trump's lawyers and historical documents I read to compare his claims of executive privilege to His Majesty's Royal Prerogative, but it'd be a fucking waste of time. You clearly aren't interested in what really happened, being happy rather to troll this forum with trite inanities.

I understand you are not impartial. You can do rhetorical dances too, but I think you started in on this because I said Trump was more liberal than Biden.

Not going to change my mind by insisting that Trump took freedoms away, when he didn't.

Nothing personal Cunt, but you don't have skin in this game and I do. My kids do too, and while we like to clown around here about this stuff, I value my deeply considered view of Trump over yours, and recommend anyone reading this to do so too. After all, I do my fucking homework while you're smoking weed.

You're welcome to your opinion Yellowknife, but if you wrote it down on the softest and most regal of paper, I wouldn't wipe my ass with it.

You can spout anything, I don't mind, and I don't mind you being pissed, but he is more liberal. 1a and 2a don't need much depth of understanding, when anyone tries to squash them, they are the 'bad guy'.

Ah, the usual nonsense. I see you can't address my argument on its own terms, so you fap about with irrelevancies.

For fun, let's take your last claim and beat your position up with it. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the 'bad guy,' the enemy of the First Amendment. Remember this?

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said.

As you may recall, the First Amendment protects press freedom and our libel laws reflect that protection. Donald Trump is the enemy of free speech too. Here's a brief rundown of his pre-Presidential assaults on freedom.

In seven earlier speech-related cases filed by Donald Trump or his companies before he became president, four were dismissed on the merits, two were voluntarily withdrawn, and one was an arbitration won by Trump by default. These findings were compiled by Susan E. Seager, a First Amendment attorney who teaches media law at University of Southern California. Indeed, this appears to be a way of life for the highly litigious Trump, who has been involved in approximately 4,000 legal battles over the past 30 years, both as a plaintiff and defendant. An exhaustive analysis by USA Today detailed those seven libel cases where he initiated the lawsuits and seven more where he was named defendant. These don’t even include the threats of suits, the so-called “I’ll sue you” effect that can too often chill speech.

A common thread of these cases is the pursuit of jumbo damages. Trump alleged $5 billion in damages (in New Jersey state court) because author Timothy O’Brien and his book publishers cast doubt on the size of the real estate mogul’s wealth. Trump lost after five years of litigation but assessed the outcome this way to The Washington Post: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees but they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make [O’Brien’s] life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

Got that? Even before he was elected, he used the courts to 'squash' free speech.

So let's recap the points I've made:

• Trump tried to overturn a constitutionally certified election he lost.
• He claimed executive privileges reminiscent of an English King's Royal Prerogative.
• He has actively worked against the First Amendment.

Yep, I was right.

Biden is a safer bet for preserving the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

You can believe what you want, but your beliefs are factually unsupported, poorly reasoned, and the smell of old socks.

[Cunt]

Trump didn't try to overturn the election, he tried to have the fraud investigated. Same as the Dems did when their Hillary lost a few years ago.

He is still more pro 1a and 2a than Biden. I didn't say he was great, I said he was better.

And look at results. When Trump was elected, all of media and social media said MANY horrible things about him, and about his win.

Look now, when Biden was elected, all of media and social media said MANY horrible things about Trump, and banned him from most of it.

Now do 2a, and force yourself to admit how much freer are Trump policies than Bidens.

Or don't, I doubt you will convince me that Biden is more liberal. Time will tell, maybe he'll do great things now, but looking at his past, it doesn't look good.

In Trumps past, there is MMA, rasslin, TV shows and banging various supermodels.

In Biden's, a lifetime suckling at the public teat, and making laws to jail more people in poor communities.

[Joe]

Trump didn't try to overturn the election, he tried to have the fraud investigated. Same as the Dems did when their Hillary lost a few years ago.

He is still more pro 1a and 2a than Biden. I didn't say he was great, I said he was better.

And look at results. When Trump was elected, all of media and social media said MANY horrible things about him, and about his win.

Look now, when Biden was elected, all of media and social media said MANY horrible things about Trump, and banned him from most of it.

Now do 2a, and force yourself to admit how much freer are Trump policies than Bidens.

Or don't, I doubt you will convince me that Biden is more liberal. Time will tell, maybe he'll do great things now, but looking at his past, it doesn't look good.

In Trumps past, there is MMA, rasslin, TV shows and banging various supermodels.

In Biden's, a lifetime suckling at the public teat, and making laws to jail more people in poor communities.

Hey Cunt, like I said, you're welcome to your opinion, no matter how divorced from reality it is.

I have the evidence on my side that he tried to overturn the election, but don't worry about it. There are still people who believe the moon landing was faked too.

[Cunt]

When you say 'tried to overturn the election', are you complaining about the legal processes he tried? The fact that he complained when they dismissed it on standing, without reviewing the facts?

Or about his nasty political speech, which is matched on the other side pretty regularly?

I mean, you can say he tried to overturn the election by saying things, but in his country, it is allowed.

You can say a bunch of tourists tried an insurrection, but I'll only take you seriously if you include a count of the guns grabbed by feds during that insurrection.

Otherwise, I'll just consider it the usual political differences, and heat.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, storming the seat of government is "the usual political differences".

[Hermit]

Trump didn't try to overturn the election, he tried to have the fraud investigated. Same as the Dems did when their Hillary lost a few years ago.

Wrong planet, Daggles. More than two months after the 2020 election Trump urged his supporters to overturn the election result by force. Clinton congratulated Trump on his win on the night of the election in 2016 and made a formal concession speech the following day.

[Joe]

When you say 'tried to overturn the election', are you complaining about the legal processes he tried? The fact that he complained when they dismissed it on standing, without reviewing the facts?

Or about his nasty political speech, which is matched on the other side pretty regularly?

I mean, you can say he tried to overturn the election by saying things, but in his country, it is allowed.

You can say a bunch of tourists tried an insurrection, but I'll only take you seriously if you include a count of the guns grabbed by feds during that insurrection.

Otherwise, I'll just consider it the usual political differences, and heat.

Now Cunt, you don't seem to be able to let this go. Maybe not so sure of yourself?

It's all been covered in this forum before, and it's in the public record. I'm not the only person saying he tried to overturn the election, it's an accepted fact on both sides of the American political spectrum. I'm not going to relitigate a settled matter with the likes of you. Here, argue with this guy,

Then we can talk about your ignorance of standing.

[Cunt]

He did nothing I can see that is any worse that what the Dems did with their 'russian collusion' hoax, then their 'ukraine collusion' hoax, then whatever other shit they did in their desperate scramble to do anything to get him out.

Now he's out, exactly as the establishment (and some forum members) wanted, and the Dem's haven't had nearly as much static as Trump did coming in.

Of COURSE you guys will oppose reality. Heck, some have maintained that Trump supporters (a diverse, multicultural group from across the economic spectrum of the US) are fundamentally racist. To hold a view like that, one has to have some special kinds of blinders on. I can't insist you stop being blind, but I'm not keen to join you. I prefer a broader tent, as it were.

It's ok with me if you want to think of it as a insurrection, or think of all the other attacks on federal buildings over the summer as insignificant.

[Animavore]

March 7, 2021 (Sunday)

Black Americans outnumbered white Americans among the 29,500 people who lived in Selma, Alabama, in the 1960s, but the city’s voting rolls were 99% white. So, in 1963, Black organizers in the Dallas County Voters League launched a drive to get Black voters in Selma registered. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, a prominent civil rights organization, joined them.

In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, but it did not adequately address the problem of voter suppression. In Selma, a judge had stopped the voter registration protests by issuing an injunction prohibiting public gatherings of more than two people.

To call attention to the crisis in her city, Amelia Boynton, who was a part of the Dallas County Voters League but who, in this case, was acting with a group of local activists, traveled to Birmingham to invite Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., to the city. King had become a household name after the 1963 March on Washington where he delivered the “I Have a Dream” speech, and his presence would bring national attention to Selma’s struggle.

King and other prominent members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference arrived in January to press the voter registration drive. For seven weeks, Black residents tried to register to vote. County Sheriff James Clark arrested almost 2000 of them for a variety of charges, including contempt of court and parading without a permit. A federal court ordered Clark not to interfere with orderly registration, so he forced Black applicants to stand in line for hours before taking a “literacy” test. Not a single person passed.

Then, on February 18, white police officers, including local police, sheriff’s deputies, and Alabama state troopers, beat and shot an unarmed 26-year-old, Jimmie Lee Jackson, who was marching for voting rights at a demonstration in his hometown of Marion, Alabama, about 25 miles northwest of Selma. Jackson had run into a restaurant for shelter along with his mother when the police started rioting, but they chased him and shot him in the restaurant’s kitchen.

Jackson died eight days later, on February 26. The leaders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Selma decided to defuse the community’s anger by planning a long march—54 miles-- from Selma to the state capitol at Montgomery to draw attention to the murder and voter suppression. Expecting violence, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee voted not to participate, but its chair, John Lewis, asked their permission to go along on his own. They agreed.

On March 7, 1965, the marchers set out. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, named for a Confederate brigadier general, Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan, and U.S. senator who stood against Black rights, state troopers and other law enforcement officers met the unarmed marchers with billy clubs, bull whips, and tear gas. They fractured John Lewis’s skull, and beat Amelia Boynton unconscious. A newspaper photograph of the 54-year-old Boynton, seemingly dead in the arms of another marcher, illustrated the depravity of those determined to stop Black voting.

Images of “Bloody Sunday” on the national news mesmerized the nation, and supporters began to converge on Selma. King, who had been in Atlanta when the marchers first set off, returned to the fray.

Two days later, the marchers set out again. Once again, the troopers and police met them at the end of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, but this time, King led the marchers in prayer and then took them back to Selma. That night, a white mob beat to death a Unitarian Universalist minister, James Reeb, who had come from Massachusetts to join the marchers.

On March 15, President Lyndon B. Johnson addressed a nationally televised joint session of Congress to ask for the passage of a national voting rights act. “Their cause must be our cause too,” he said. “[A]ll of us… must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome.” Two days later, he submitted to Congress proposed voting rights legislation.

The marchers remained determined to complete their trip to Montgomery, and when Alabama’s governor, George Wallace, refused to protect them, President Johnson stepped in. When the marchers set off for a third time on March 21, 1,900 members of the nationalized Alabama National Guard, FBI agents, and federal marshals protected them. Covering about ten miles a day, they camped in the yards of well-wishers until they arrived at the Alabama State Capitol on March 25. Their ranks had grown as they walked until they numbered about 25,000 people.

On the steps of the capitol, speaking under a Confederate flag, Dr. King said: “The end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience. And that will be a day not of the white man, not of the black man. That will be the day of man as man.”

That night, Viola Liuzzo, a 39-year-old mother of five who had arrived from Michigan to help after Bloody Sunday, was murdered by four Ku Klux Klan members tailing her as she ferried demonstrators out of the city.

On August 6, Dr. King and Mrs. Boynton were guests of honor as President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Johnson recalled “the outrage of Selma” when he said "This right to vote is the basic right without which all others are meaningless. It gives people, people as individuals, control over their own destinies."

The Voting Rights Act authorized federal supervision of voter registration in districts where African Americans were historically underrepresented. Johnson promised that the government would strike down “regulations, or laws, or tests to deny the right to vote.” He called the right to vote “the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men,” and pledged that “we will not delay, or we will not hesitate, or we will not turn aside until Americans of every race and color and origin in this country have the same right as all others to share in the process of democracy.”

But less than 50 years later, in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. The Shelby County v. Holder decision opened the door, once again, for voter suppression. Since then, states have made it harder to vote. And now, in the wake of the 2020 election, in which voters handed control of the government to Democrats, legislatures in 43 states are considering sweeping legislation to restrict voting, especially voting by people of color. Among the things Georgia wants to outlaw is giving water to voters as they wait for hours in line to get to the polls.

Today, 56 years after Bloody Sunday, President Biden signed an executive order “to promote voting access and allow all eligible Americans to participate in our democracy.” He called on Congress to pass the For the People Act, making it easier to vote, and to restore the Voting Rights Act, now named the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act after the man who went on from his days in the Civil Rights Movement to serve 17 terms as a representative from Georgia, bearing the scars of March 7, 1965, until he died on July 17, 2020.

The fact sheet from the White House announcing the executive order explained: “democracy doesn’t happen by accident. We have to defend, strengthen, and renew it.” Or, as Representative Lewis put it: “Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble.”

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 4557238708

[Tero]

Trump didn't try to overturn the election, he tried to have the fraud investigated. Same as the Dems did when their Hillary lost a few years ago.

He is still more pro 1a and 2a than Biden. I didn't say he was great, I said he was better.

And look at results. When Trump was elected, all of media and social media said MANY horrible things about him, and about his win.

Look now, when Biden was elected, all of media and social media said MANY horrible things about Trump, and banned him from most of it.

Now do 2a, and force yourself to admit how much freer are Trump policies than Bidens.

Or don't, I doubt you will convince me that Biden is more liberal. Time will tell, maybe he'll do great things now, but looking at his past, it doesn't look good.

In Trumps past, there is MMA, rasslin, TV shows and banging various supermodels.

In Biden's, a lifetime suckling at the public teat, and making laws to jail more people in poor communities.

What fraud? The three dead Republicans in Pennsylvania? Since the constitution gives states unlimited power in organizing elections, rules can be changed any day. As long as all the votes are treated the same, it can even be a week before election. Let me quote the election clause:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Due to lack of detail, there may be some confusion and states and congress may fight over it from time to time. The supreme court is not involved other than overseeing that federal election laws (women, 18 year olds etc voting) are followed. The president is not involved at all, and not his justice department.

All of these variations are allowable under the constitutional design. As the Supreme Court wrote in McPherson v. Blacker (1892), which rejected a constitutional challenge to a Michigan law providing for selection of Electors by a district system, “the appointment and mode of appointment of Electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.” We have no uniform national system for appointing Electors, which means the legislatures do not have to consult the public at all. When members of the Florida legislature in 2000 threatened to abandon the results of the statewide popular contest and appoint Electors for a particular candidate, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000) appeared to endorse their power to do so by denying that citizens have a constitutional right to vote in presidential elections. As the majority put it, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for Electors for the President of the United States. . .” When it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... lauses/350

[Cunt]

What would it look like, if the media treated Biden the way that care workers treated the severely mentally handicapped...?
(spoilered to protect the feelings of Biden supporters)

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Brian Peacock]

[Cunt]

They treat him so gently, respectfully, and deferentially.

It makes it very believable that the media establishment is fair and balanced. At least if you don't look very deep. (Dem's are low-information voters, after all)

[Joe]

He did nothing I can see that is any worse that what the Dems did with their 'russian collusion' hoax, then their 'ukraine collusion' hoax, then whatever other shit they did in their desperate scramble to do anything to get him out.

Now he's out, exactly as the establishment (and some forum members) wanted, and the Dem's haven't had nearly as much static as Trump did coming in.

Of COURSE you guys will oppose reality. Heck, some have maintained that Trump supporters (a diverse, multicultural group from across the economic spectrum of the US) are fundamentally racist. To hold a view like that, one has to have some special kinds of blinders on. I can't insist you stop being blind, but I'm not keen to join you. I prefer a broader tent, as it were.

It's ok with me if you want to think of it as a insurrection, or think of all the other attacks on federal buildings over the summer as insignificant.

Oh, so now he DID try to overturn the election, but whatabout, whatabout, wah, wah, wah!

I do like how you use a strawman to set up a personal attack on unnamed forum members though. Pretty malicious trolling there.

Bad Cunt!