Biden Transition Thread

[BmorePat87]

(11-24-2020, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: BTW, here's Pelosi and Schumer not on the bandwagon on this issue.

That's Tucker Carlson levels of foolishness. You can be in support of police reform and against institutional racism without supporting any abolition or defund policies. 

[*michaelsean*]

I don’t know if I’m late in this but it looks like that lady has now released the funds. Btw...is it me or does that seem like way too much authority for one person?

Edit: Yeah it’s in the other thread.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-24-2020, 06:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sure, I suggested that the perception differed from reality in my first post. I don't see their agenda changing to match the perception based on the actions they have taken over the last 6 months. 

We shall see.  What isn't up for debate is that the Democrats are now connected to "defund the police", as erroneously as you think that is.  Every single instance of someone calling for that action, every single radical mayor, DA (we just elected a real garbage DA in Los Angeles), city council or county board of supervisors that go with this course of action (and our county board of supervisors is exactly that) will only strengthen that tie.  This die is cast, it would take a full scale and concerted repudiation of the notion to begin to change that and that won't happen because it would enrage many on the far left.

(11-24-2020, 06:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's Tucker Carlson levels of foolishness. You can be in support of police reform and against institutional racism without supporting any abolition or defund policies. 

No, you're not getting the point being made.  You and I can understand this.  While I recognize that picture for the gross pandering that it is many, if not most, see such actions as a full scale embrace of what is being clamored for by some.  As I said above, this label has stuck, and it will be permanently stuck until someone at a very high level makes a concerted effort to disavow this perception.

[GMDino]

(11-24-2020, 04:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, largely true, but what's true isn't important, what is perceived to be true is important.  AOC and her cronies get a lot of media attention and have attached the party to this movement, whether the old hands like it or not.  They're now between a rock and a hard place, they either have to placate a howling mob or have them turn on them or they have to further alienate moderate voters, who just cost them big time in the last election.

That's an interesting "alternate facts" like Trump like take.

But I'd propose that is possible that what you "perceive" may be because of what you believe and that it isn't as persuasive as you think.

[Belsnickel]

(11-24-2020, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We shall see.  What isn't up for debate is that the Democrats are now connected to "defund the police", as erroneously as you think that is.  Every single instance of someone calling for that action, every single radical mayor, DA (we just elected a real garbage DA in Los Angeles), city council or county board of supervisors that go with this course of action (and our county board of supervisors is exactly that) will only strengthen that tie.  This die is cast, it would take a full scale and concerted repudiation of the notion to begin to change that and that won't happen because it would enrage many on the far left.


No, you're not getting the point being made.  You and I can understand this.  While I recognize that picture for the gross pandering that it is many, if not most, see such actions as a full scale embrace of what is being clamored for by some.  As I said above, this label has stuck, and it will be permanently stuck until someone at a very high level makes a concerted effort to disavow this perception.

So, then we have to ask ourselves which do we prefer: politicians perceived to be supporting an anti-police/pro-criminal movement or politicians perceived to be supporting an anti-democracy/pro-corruption movement?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-24-2020, 09:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's an interesting "alternate facts" like Trump like take.

No, it's an actual understanding of how human beings think.

Quote:But I'd propose that is possible that what you "perceive" may be because of what you believe and that it isn't as persuasive as you think.

The GOP's insanely better than expected performance in this election would indicate otherwise.

(11-24-2020, 09:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, then we have to ask ourselves which do we prefer: politicians perceived to be supporting an anti-police/pro-criminal movement or politicians perceived to be supporting an anti-democracy/pro-corruption movement?

Indeed.  Although I would posit, as I have for some time, that Trumpism is gone once he leaves office.  You already see support for him dwindling at the higher levels.  The "defund the police" movement will be a millstone around the Dems neck for a long time.  Especially if we continue to see an upward trend in criminal conduct, which I firmly believe we will.

[GMDino]

(11-24-2020, 10:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's an actual understanding of how human beings think.


The GOP's insanely better than expected performance in this election would indicate otherwise.


Indeed.  Although I would posit, as I have for some time, that Trumpism is gone once he leaves office.  You already see support for him dwindling at the higher levels.  The "defund the police" movement will be a millstone around the Dems neck for a long time.  Especially if we continue to see an upward trend in criminal conduct, which I firmly believe we will.

Interesting.

I certainly don't disagree that what people "believe" is often stronger than the truth.  The Cult of Trump is more than enough proof of that.  They believe he tells the truth, is religious, etc.

And "insanely" might be hyperbole given that players like McConnell and  Graham were never seriously in trouble and gerrymandering gives incumbents a stronger chance of winning in general.

Although I'd add losing Georgia looks bad for the GOP.

But to the last bolded sentence:  Can we not apply your own logic? 

After all you said in defense of your OP:

(11-24-2020, 04:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Some Congressional Democrats don't.  Some very prominent ones absolutely do.  I am aware that Biden does not personally believe this, but we'll see how much he'll be able to avoid it. 


Depends on the member.


Your use of the term "right wing echo chamber" became stale several weeks ago.  It's also an obvious attempt to dismiss any argument being made as that wholly unsupported by anything other than the fringe right.  In short, it's clearly not a tactic designed with an open and honest discussion in mind.  You are correct that the next two years will be telling.  If the current rise in crime rates continues, and I believe it will, then there's going to be hell to pay.

(11-24-2020, 04:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, largely true, but what's true isn't important, what is perceived to be true is important.  AOC and her cronies get a lot of media attention and have attached the party to this movement, whether the old hands like it or not.  They're now between a rock and a hard place, they either have to placate a howling mob or have them turn on them or they have to further alienate moderate voters, who just cost them big time in the last election.

So we have Cruz, Jordan, Gaetz, Graham, the list goes on and on of "prominent" members of congress that get a lot of media attention that are sticking with defending Trump and everything he says and does.  Why would Trumpism die out when he's gone if they are backing him/it?  Why wouldn't it continue to be used by Democrats to run against if they can use the "perception" that all of these guys are just like Trump and want to raise taxes on the middle class, end SS, get rid of the healthcare?  Using your own "what's true isn't important" standard even if they are Trump-lite they certainly can be used to show nothing is "dwindling" in their support of Trumpism.

(Although I will concede that there is no doubt that they truly embrace Trumpism and fear losing his base so the example isn't the best.)

Nonetheless saying "some" support something so it can be tied to "all" because the truth doesn't matter still applies to both sides.  
And, yes, you didn't say it didn't.  And, yes, I am stating the obvious.  

In the end, and in general, I think it's just frustration over seeing Trump lose and a desire to tie Biden to whatever cause Trump supporters don't like less than good political thought/discussion about the causes.

[GMDino]

(11-24-2020, 09:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, then we have to ask ourselves which do we prefer: politicians perceived to be supporting an anti-police/pro-criminal movement or politicians perceived to be supporting an anti-democracy/pro-corruption movement?

That choice has been made, pretty clearly, if we argue that the truth doesn't matter so we can willfully accuse one side of being anti-police/pro-criminal while also willfully denying that the other is anti-democracy/pro-corruption.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-24-2020, 11:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Interesting.

I certainly don't disagree that what people "believe" is often stronger than the truth.  The Cult of Trump is more than enough proof of that.  They believe he tells the truth, is religious, etc.

Quit viewing things exclusively through your personal prism.  This is true for all people from all walks of life.

Quote:And "insanely" might be hyperbole given that players like McConnell and  Graham were never seriously in trouble and gerrymandering gives incumbents a stronger chance of winning in general.

Gerrymandering has absolutely zero effect on Senate seats, so this statement is, at best, woefully incomplete.

Quote:Although I'd add losing Georgia looks bad for the GOP.

It would if GA cost them the White House.  If they win both Senate seats (which I find likely) or even one it doesn't mean squat.

Quote:But to the last bolded sentence:  Can we not apply your own logic? 

After all you said in defense of your OP:

Absolutely.

Quote:So we have Cruz, Jordan, Gaetz, Graham, the list goes on and on of "prominent" members of congress that get a lot of media attention that are sticking with defending Trump and everything he says and does.  Why would Trumpism die out when he's gone if they are backing him/it?  Why wouldn't it continue to be used by Democrats to run against if they can use the "perception" that all of these guys are just like Trump and want to raise taxes on the middle class, end SS, get rid of the healthcare?  Using your own "what's true isn't important" standard even if they are Trump-lite they certainly can be used to show nothing is "dwindling" in their support of Trumpism.

I've explained this in great detail several times, but seeing as how repeating yourself is a bit of a necessity here I'll reiterate.  Once Trump is gone, so is all of the rest.  Trump is one person, he's certainly popular, but he's not inextricably linked to the GOP.  He's still a Washington "outsider" for many of his supporters.  You can't be an "outsider" and simultaneously be representative of a major political parties platform.  Once Trump is gone pretty much all of his baggage is gone too, at least on a party level.  Individuals will certainly have to answer for their support, but it's certainly not a GOP wide phenomena.  If it was you'd have seen a commensurate GOP failure in down ballot races, which you absolutely did not.

Quote:(Although I will concede that there is no doubt that they truly embrace Trumpism and fear losing his base so the example isn't the best.)

Nonetheless saying "some" support something so it can be tied to "all" because the truth doesn't matter still applies to both sides.  

t didn't.  And, yes, I am stating the obvious.  
Actually it doesn't have to, at all.  What matters is what sticks to the national "brand".  As I've already stated "defund the police" is now completely entwined with the Democratic party.  Why is simple, because there isn't a single GOP candidate on board with it and there are numerous Dems, some of them very prominent, who are.  This is not tied to one person, it's a nationwide position.  It's not going away until the Dems make it go away and they will have a very hard time doing so.

Quote:In the end, and in general, I think it's just frustration over seeing Trump lose and a desire to tie Biden to whatever cause Trump supporters don't like less than good political thought/discussion about the causes.

This is one of your nonsense dismissive statements that do nothing but try and belittle those who think differently than you.  Not a good note to end on.

[Benton]

(11-24-2020, 10:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed.  Although I would posit, as I have for some time, that Trumpism is gone once he leaves office.  You already see support for him dwindling at the higher levels.  The "defund the police" movement will be a millstone around the Dems neck for a long time.  Especially if we continue to see an upward trend in criminal conduct, which I firmly believe we will.

Trumpism? Sure. But Trumpism is just a synonym for that brand of extremism. It's been around for decades and will be around with a new face after he leaves office. 

[GMDino]

(11-25-2020, 12:01 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quit viewing things exclusively through your personal prism.  This is true for all people from all walks of life.

Physician heal thyself. Routinely your posts are based solely on your personal experiences with no outside citations to support them.

(11-25-2020, 12:01 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Gerrymandering has absolutely zero effect on Senate seats, so this statement is, at best, woefully incomplete.

Oh! So your sentence about republicans doing "insanely" better than expected was only about the senate? And you're also ignoring/misrepresenting what I said that the two senators would be hard to beat AND that gerrymandering helps the incumbent.

If you're saying that the Senate Republicans did "insanely" well then you had no idea what was going on in the Senate races.

(11-25-2020, 12:01 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It would if GA cost them the White House.  If they win both Senate seats (which I find likely) or even one it doesn't mean squat.

Going Blue for the first time for the first time since 1992...and for only the 4th time since 1972 means a lot.

I get that holding on to the senate would be great for Republicans but it's silly to imply that you don't care about losing the Presidency.

(11-25-2020, 12:01 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely.


I've explained this in great detail several times, but seeing as how repeating yourself is a bit of a necessity here I'll reiterate.  Once Trump is gone, so is all of the rest.  Trump is one person, he's certainly popular, but he's not inextricably linked to the GOP.  He's still a Washington "outsider" for many of his supporters.  You can't be an "outsider" and simultaneously be representative of a major political parties platform.  Once Trump is gone pretty much all of his baggage is gone too, at least on a party level.  Individuals will certainly have to answer for their support, but it's certainly not a GOP wide phenomena.  If it was you'd have seen a commensurate GOP failure in down ballot races, which you absolutely did not.


t didn't.  And, yes, I am stating the obvious.  
Actually it doesn't have to, at all.  What matters is what sticks to the national "brand".  As I've already stated "defund the police" is now completely entwined with the Democratic party.  Why is simple, because there isn't a single GOP candidate on board with it and there are numerous Dems, some of them very prominent, who are.  This is not tied to one person, it's a nationwide position.  It's not going away until the Dems make it go away and they will have a very hard time doing so.

But again you are ignoring your own theory that it doesn't matter what is true. You have loud, national voices espousing "Trumpism" (which is just extremism) and running as proud Trump supporters. That is tied to the man with the millions of Twitter followers (I know how you hate blue checks) that will still be loudly pushing his agenda...as will his children.

I think you're being slightly foolish to think that it goes away with Trump in January.

(11-25-2020, 12:01 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is one of your nonsense dismissive statements that do nothing but try and belittle those who think differently than you.  Not a good note to end on.

Don't take it too personally.

My belief is that that's just coming from frustration that the party, and many of its public, national leaders, have embraced Trump and his style. So there is a denial from conservatives who held their nose to support Trump so they could get their agenda pushed through (and got nothing except a permanent tax cut for the ultra rich and three SCJ...the second being a bigger deal) that Trump's stink won't stick to the party for quite a while.

You/republicans/Trump supporters had to hitch your wagon to a smelly old horse just to hope to get to the finish and you didn't make it. That makes you less mad/frustrated about Trump as much as it does about your party.

I think all the Trump supporters are mad he lost and they want to start campaigning NOW for 2024. Just like Democrats did in 2016. And to that end you, in this thread, have created a scenario where no matter what Biden does you will tie him to the more extreme left part of the party ("truth doesn't matter") and specifically to a cause you care a lot about "Defunding" the police. And it doesn't matter what Biden actually said and did on the subject. AND after five years of "Trump didn't mean what he said" (not something you often did personally but that happened) or that we had to wait and se what "actions" Trump took (you would say that) that comes off as a bit disingenuous.

[fredtoast]

(11-24-2020, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you're not getting the point being made.  You and I can understand this.  While I recognize that picture for the gross pandering that it is many, if not most WHO ONLY GET THEIR NEWS FROM RIGHT WING SOURCES, see such actions as a full scale embrace of what is being clamored for by some. 

Fixed it for you.

All the right-wing news sources are saying is that the extremist have taken over the Democratic party.  But the reality is different.  And as the recent election shows not everyone gets all their information from right wing sources.  Biden would not be President if everyone fell for that silly "pro-criminal" line Fox News is feeding the rubes.

The Democrats certainly need to work on their message, but in two years it will be clear that they are not going to eliminate law enforcement.  They will se that the Green New Deal does not gameplan for the current Democratic leadership, and even if it was it does not turn over the means of production to the government.

Rightwing news sources are able to fool people for a while with stories like Obama being born in Kenya or a Democrat congress taking away everyone's guns or same sex marriage destroying the country, but eventually the truth prevails.

[GMDino]

(11-25-2020, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Fixed it for you.

All the right-wing news sources are saying is that the extremist have taken over the Democratic party.  But the reality is different.  And as the recent election shows not everyone gets all their information from right wing sources.  Biden would not be President if everyone fell for that silly "pro-criminal" line Fox News is feeding the rubes.

The Democrats certainly need to work on their message, but in two years it will be clear that they are not going to eliminate law enforcement.  They will se that the Green New Deal does not gameplan for the current Democratic leadership, and even if it was it does not turn over the means of production to the government.

Rightwing news sources are able to fool people for a while with stories like Obama being born in Kenya or a Democrat congress taking away everyone's guns or same sex marriage destroying the country, but eventually the truth prevails.

One the things overlooked (I think) from those on the right is that Biden won states like PA and WI and MI not so much by increasing turnout in the urban areas as he got a larger percentage from the rural areas.  Maybe not enough to win those counties but enough to cut into the thin margin Trump won with there in 2016.

I doubt he got those votes because he was perceived as an extreme left win progressive as some would like to label him.

[*Nately120*]

(11-25-2020, 11:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: One the things overlooked (I think) from those on the right is that Biden won states like PA and WI and MI not so much by increasing turnout in the urban areas as he got a larger percentage from the rural areas.  Maybe not enough to win those counties but enough to cut into the thin margin Trump won with there in 2016.

I doubt he got those votes because he was perceived as an extreme left win progressive as some would like to label him.

You don't flip states because you are a fringe nut. Trump 16 and Biden 20 both won because they appealed to undecideds or apathetic voters who wanted something different and/or to send a message. 

That's my take.  Trump's takeover of the blue wall didn't last once people in the middle saw how much he catered to his extreme base. 

[SteelCitySouth]

(11-25-2020, 01:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Trump's takeover of the blue wall didn't last once people in the middle saw how much he catered to his extreme base. 

This soooooo much

[GMDino]

(11-25-2020, 01:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You don't flip states because you are a fringe nut. Trump 16 and Biden 20 both won because they appealed to undecideds or apathetic voters who wanted something different and/or to send a message. 

That's my take.  Trump's takeover of the blue wall didn't last once people in the middle saw how much he catered to his extreme base. 

Exactly.

Trumps never changed and voters saw that and changed.

I expect Biden will not suddenly change and can hold his voters even if a Trump-like (or Trump) runs in 2024.

[fredtoast]

Funny how some Republicans are frothing at the mouth about picking up a dozen seats in the House.  Calling it a "massacre" and a signal of the end of the Democratic Party.

Guess they forgot that Republicans lost FORTY-TWO seats in the House in the 2018 election.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-25-2020, 10:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: Physician heal thyself.  Routinely your posts are based solely on your personal experiences with no outside citations to support them.

Based on the topic, sure.  But you're projecting your opinion on to others, hence my point.  A point, I would add, that you just conceded.

Quote:Oh!  So your sentence about republicans doing "insanely" better than expected was only about the senate?  And you're also ignoring/misrepresenting what I said that the two senators would be hard to beat AND that gerrymandering helps the incumbent.

If you're saying that the Senate Republicans did "insanely" well then you had no idea what was going on in the Senate races.

Pretty much everyone thought the Dems would flip the senate.  They only won the two races in which they were a dead certainty. They lost every single other race, thus far.  If the GOP wins both GA seats then this election is a disisaster for the Dems outside the WH race.

Quote:Going Blue for the first time for the first time since 1992...and for only the 4th time since 1972 means a lot.

I get that holding on to the senate would be great for Republicans but it's silly to imply that you don't care about losing the Presidency.

I never had the presidency, was never a Trump supporter and would happily have voted for a better candidate.  I cannot vote for any Dem for national office until they get their party in order.  Thankfully I am not limited to only two choices, hence I routinely exercise a third option.

Quote:But again you are ignoring your own theory that it doesn't matter what is true.  You have loud, national voices espousing "Trumpism" (which is just extremism) and running as proud Trump supporters.  That is tied to the man with the millions of Twitter followers (I know how you hate blue checks) that will still be loudly pushing his agenda...as will his children.

I think you're being slightly foolish to think that it goes away with Trump in January.

I'm not ignoring it at all, I'm stating that it doesn't have legs.  Those people are not going to start voting Dem because Trump is gone.  They are politically active, as has been shown by their turnout in the last two presidential elections.  They will continue to vote GOP as there is no other alternative they would find even remotely palatable.  You may see an enthusiasm gap, but I don't think that will translate into much lower voting numbers.

Quote:Don't take it too personally.  

I don't.  You grossly overestimate your ability to actually affect me.  I find many of your statements to be impalatable, and you have certainly crossed a line with me on a personal level, but I don't care about what you think, at all.  I point out your conduct because it deserves to be called out and because some people still can't "see it"

Quote:My belief is that that's just coming from frustration that the party, and many of its public, national leaders, have embraced Trump and his style.  So there is a denial from conservatives who held their nose to support Trump so they could get their agenda pushed through (and got nothing except a permanent tax cut for the ultra rich and three SCJ...the second being a bigger deal) that Trump's stink won't stick to the party for quite a while.  

Nah, this couldn't be further from the mark.  I find myself nauseated as neither political party has a platform I can even half heartedly embrace.  As of this moment in time I find the Dems much less appealing, as I cherish personal freedom and don't want a populace beholden to the government.  I also support actual law and order, which is rapidly becoming a rarity on the left.  I also think it's going to get much worse before it gets better.

Quote:You/republicans/Trump supporters had to hitch your wagon to a smelly old horse just to hope to get to the finish and you didn't make it.  That makes you less mad/frustrated about Trump as much as it does about your party.

Not a trump supporter and your frequent attempts to slap that label on me are as childish as they are tiresome.

Quote:I think all the Trump supporters are mad he lost and they want to start campaigning NOW for 2024.  Just like Democrats did in 2016.  And to that end you, in this thread, have created a scenario where no matter what Biden does you will tie him to the more extreme left part of the party ("truth doesn't matter") and specifically to a cause you care a lot about "Defunding" the police.  And it doesn't matter what Biden actually said and did on the subject.  AND after five years of "Trump didn't mean what he said" (not something you often did personally but that happened) or that we had to wait and se what "actions" Trump took (you would say that) that comes off as a bit disingenuous.

You really should change the first two words of this paragraph to "I feel".  As to how Biden conducts himself, I am not optimistic, but we shall see.  I doubt he has the gravitas to stand up to the loud, radical, elements in his party.  He's an old school guy though, so I hope he surprises me by showing more backbone than I can currently give him credit for.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-25-2020, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Fixed it for you.

No you didn't.  Also, what you did is against forum rules, so kindly unedit my quote like someone who actually cares about following the rules here.

Quote:All the right-wing news sources are saying is that the extremist have taken over the Democratic party.  But the reality is different.  And as the recent election shows not everyone gets all their information from right wing sources.  Biden would not be President if everyone fell for that silly "pro-criminal" line Fox News is feeding the rubes.

This really comes off as wishful thinking.  I'm getting the impression this is being said as much to convince yourself as you hope to convince others.

Quote:The Democrats certainly need to work on their message, but in two years it will be clear that they are not going to eliminate law enforcement.  They will se that the Green New Deal does not gameplan for the current Democratic leadership, and even if it was it does not turn over the means of production to the government.

Yes, we shall see.

Quote:Rightwing news sources are able to fool people for a while with stories like Obama being born in Kenya or a Democrat congress taking away everyone's guns or same sex marriage destroying the country, but eventually the truth prevails.

Do you check under your bed at night for "right wing news sources"?  You appear to think about them quite a lot.

[fredtoast]

(11-25-2020, 02:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do you check under your bed at night for "right wing news sources"?  You appear to think about them quite a lot.

They are very important.  They have a great influence on the political beliefs in this country.


But I don't bring them up any more than people on the right mention the "mainstream media".  Or what really cracks me up is when people on the right just say "the media" and pretend none of the right-wing news sources are even a part of "the media".