What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[frunk]

OK, so these are all very reasonable arguments to make.

But this is where Democrats just seem very bad at politics.  The average voter hears "we should make sure that only citizens can vote" and thinks "yeah, makes sense".  GOP proposes a bad bill with the purpose of ensuring only citizens can vote.

Instead of Democrats making these kinds of policy arguments, or proposing alternative legislation, just stand up on principle and attack GOP's motives and say they'll veto any bill.  Because that kind of action gets a positive response from the very-online-left.  But the average voter hears it and thinks "huh, maybe they do want illegal aliens to vote".

There's no winning move for Democrats on this.  They can propose legislation and it'll get blocked.  They can make policy arguments and it'll get ignored.  See what happened with immigration.  An obstructionist party is a destructive party, and the media is interested in fireworks and man bites dog not actual constructive action.

I should add going down dumb rabbit holes the Republicans cook up doesn't get anywhere, it's better to try and articulate a better path than just arguing against legislation backed by conspiracy theories and xenophobia.

[Jacob]

Aren't most major media outlets in the US owned by GOP sympathizing oligarchs?

[Barrister]

Aren't most major media outlets in the US owned by GOP sympathizing oligarchs?

Conspiracy much?

Almost all "major media outlets" are all public companies, not owned by anyone in particular.  Disney(ABC), Comcast(NBC), Paramount(CBS), Warner Bros Discovery (CNN).

And not quite clear what you mean by "major media outlets" so I focused on the big TV channels.  But you can also look at NYT (NYT), Jeff Bezos/Amazon (Wash Post), Netflix, Apple, Sony... but again other than Bezos none controlled by any one oligarch, and in the case of Bezos he's definitely not a GOP sympathizer.

FOX is the only one you can say that about - controlled by the Murdoch family, who is Australian but yes GOP sympathizing.

So look I'm all here for media criticizing.  You can even argue that the way the US media covers the US election is in some ways benefitting Trump.  But it's definitely not because the media is "owned by GOP sympathizing oligarchs".

[Barrister]

OK, so these are all very reasonable arguments to make.

But this is where Democrats just seem very bad at politics.  The average voter hears "we should make sure that only citizens can vote" and thinks "yeah, makes sense".  GOP proposes a bad bill with the purpose of ensuring only citizens can vote.

Instead of Democrats making these kinds of policy arguments, or proposing alternative legislation, just stand up on principle and attack GOP's motives and say they'll veto any bill.  Because that kind of action gets a positive response from the very-online-left.  But the average voter hears it and thinks "huh, maybe they do want illegal aliens to vote".

There's no winning move for Democrats on this.  They can propose legislation and it'll get blocked.  They can make policy arguments and it'll get ignored.  See what happened with immigration.  An obstructionist party is a destructive party, and the media is interested in fireworks and man bites dog not actual constructive action.

I should add going down dumb rabbit holes the Republicans cook up doesn't get anywhere, it's better to try and articulate a better path than just arguing against legislation backed by conspiracy theories and xenophobia.

See, I think on immigration the Democrats DID do the winning move.  GOP was screaming about immigration, Democrats proposed what were some fairly tough immigration reforms, GOP refused to go along with them.  Democrats can now go "hey look we tried".  It's a way, way better message than saying "WTF you talking about - immigration isn't a problem!".  Because that's the message they're taking on voting reform.

[OttoVonBismarck]

To be clear we don't have "oligarchs" in the United States. We certainly have plenty of billionaires, but they are not oligarchs.

[The Minsky Moment]

To be clear we don't have "oligarchs" in the United States. We certainly have plenty of billionaires, but they are not oligarchs.

Quite so, in modern usage an oligarch is someone who controls vast economic power but is subordinated to state control, as in Russia.  In America, it increasingly works the other way around, such that American foreign policy in Ukraine has to dance around Elon Musk. Because no one in DC has the balls to trigger eminent domain and seize Starlink as an essential national security asset currently under the control of an erratic, drug addled man-child whose net worth depends on maintaining good working relationships with the Chinese Communist Party.

[Barrister]

To be clear we don't have "oligarchs" in the United States. We certainly have plenty of billionaires, but they are not oligarchs.

Quite so, in modern usage an oligarch is someone who controls vast economic power but is subordinated to state control, as in Russia.  In America, it increasingly works the other way around, such that American foreign policy in Ukraine has to dance around Elon Musk. Because no one in DC has the balls to trigger eminent domain and seize Starlink as an essential national security asset currently under the control of an erratic, drug addled man-child whose net worth depends on maintaining good working relationships with the Chinese Communist Party.

Not disagreeing with much of what you say about Musk, but you couldn't just ED Starlink - you'd have to ED all of SpaceX.  And that would be one hell of a shitshow...

[Admiral Yi]

Quite so, in modern usage an oligarch is someone who controls vast economic power but is subordinated to state control, as in Russia.  In America, it increasingly works the other way around, such that American foreign policy in Ukraine has to dance around Elon Musk. Because no one in DC has the balls to trigger eminent domain and seize Starlink as an essential national security asset currently under the control of an erratic, drug addled man-child whose net worth depends on maintaining good working relationships with the Chinese Communist Party.

  Is seizing private property on national security grounds even a thing?  I can't think of any historical precedent.  Maybe Lincoln's Contraband Slave decree.

I think to be an oligarch your wealth needs to be derived from the state and you have to be in a symbiotic relationship, i.e. trading wealth for favors.

Calling US billionaires oligarchs is part of the troubling trend of diluting once potent words until they're meaningless, e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing, homophobic, etc., etc., etc.

[Admiral Yi]

The main objection to voter ID is that is disenfranchises poorer & ethnic minority voters disproprotionately. In the last UK general election as many as 400,000 may have been affected. Whereas the amount of voter fraud since 2019 (all elections) has been less than 1500 cases, of which 11 were convicted and 4 cautioned

Doesn't the UK have a national ID?  How can 1 person, let alone as many as 400,000 be affected?

[Sheilbh]

Doesn't the UK have a national ID?  How can 1 person, let alone as many as 400,000 be affected?

No national ID system - although voting isn't based on citizenship alone here.

My main objection to voter ID has been addressed in the UK - you can get voter ID for free. All you need is a photo and your National Insurance number. I think the other forms of acceptable ID are tilted to the elderly which is a problem and should be equalised. I also broadly back Labour's plans to start automatic enrolment (and potentially votes at 16).

Having said all that it is mad, the area where there is some evidence of voter fraud (and reports of problems more generally) is postal voting and that doesn't require ID/isn't addressed at all. I say as someone who recently voted by post.

[Admiral Yi]

Having said all that it is mad, the area where there is some evidence of voter fraud (and reports of problems more generally) is postal voting and that doesn't require ID/isn't addressed at all. I say as someone who recently voted by post.

You've mentioned this about six times and several times I've asked you how to detect voter fraud in a system that has no checks in it, that essentially relies on the honor system.  Maybe it's different in the UK; maybe the UK voter's name is run through the Zion Mainframe and ding it comes back that this voter is not entitled to vote.  In the US names are not run through the Zion Mainframe, there is no ding.

A while back I read a story about a Green Card holder who had mistakenly checked the box "I am a US citizen" and voted in the general election.  Some states allow Green Card holders to vote in state elections, FYI.  She was subsequently deported to Mexico.  She was caught because she turned herself in.  No system caught her and dinged her.

So in a system that does not check citizenship how can you think the number of people caught and convicted represents the actual number of non citizens voting?  It could be 12, it could be 20 million.

[grumbler]

Not disagreeing with much of what you say about Musk, but you couldn't just ED Starlink - you'd have to ED all of SpaceX.  And that would be one hell of a shitshow...

Why couldn't the government ED Starlink LLC?  Why would it need to add SpaceX to that process?

[Sheilbh]

Isn't it nice living in a high trust society?

So there's checking of the registering to vote and monitoring for unusual activity on registering to vote. With automatic registration that would only really be relevant for people moving or non-citizens who are entitled to vote. There's about 5-600 investigations a year and very, very few prosecutions. But politicians have in the past been convicted of other electoral offences and there are reasons to think there are bigger issues in postal voting.

But I don't know what else to say - there are entire bodies dedicated to investigating and preventing electoral fraud, they produce annual reports on what they do each year, at no point in modern British history has electoral fraud been a big deal. There is no reason to think that fraud's a real issue. But I'm not sure there's any way to prove it isn't. It's like any conspiracy or "they're all on the take" theory - the very absence of evidence is an indication of the problem.

Non-citizens can be entitled to vote here. Citizenship isn't necessarily that relevant for who is entitled to vote. The ID purpose is to prove that you are the person who is registered to vote (and I'd add they looked more closely at the picture than anywhere else I've ever been IDed).

At national elections British, Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens are entitled to vote (that basically means Commonwealth citizens with a right to reside in the UK). EU citizens (who were here pre-Brexit) have a right to vote in local elections too.

In Scotland they've gone further and in Scottish parliamentary and local elections anyone with a legal right to reside has a right to vote.

[HVC]

A while back I read a story about a Green Card holder who had mistakenly checked the box "I am a US citizen" and voted in the general election.  Some states allow Green Card holders to vote in state elections, FYI.  She was subsequently deported to Mexico.  She was caught because she turned herself in.  No system caught her and dinged her.

That's why you should never do the right thing.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is seizing private property on national security grounds even a thing?

Property can be taken for ANY public purpose as long as compensation is paid.