[Discussion] Welcome to the Biden Administration!

Anything related to Biden and his upcoming administration. May this thread be less active and controversial as that last guys thread.

Mostly I was just trying to point out to Malor that, as he well knows, we've been doing that for decades already within the US.

Tanglebones wrote:

Mostly I was just trying to point out to Malor that, as he well knows, we've been doing that for decades already within the US.

Not at the Federal level, and not with missiles from loitering drones.

By any standard, that would be far worse. We've been committing these horrific crimes abroad; bringing them home is not the right solution.

We have lots (and lots and lots and lots) of police. We have lots of judges. We have lots of prisons. We can easily handle the load of arresting, charging, and jailing seditionists.

edit: I mean, goddammit, we're supposed to stand for something in this country. Assassinating people we don't like, no matter what color we or they are, is definitely not it.

Using past crimes as an excuse for new crimes is not a good argument. It doesn't make them not crimes.

Jail time does not deter these people, further, jail tends to radicalize prisoners even more.

So what is the punishment for shutting down the government by violent means? Because that’s what happened. I know the US Code says ten years in prison and a big fine. That won’t do diddly and could very likely make things worse.

So what now?

BadKen wrote:

Jail time does not deter these people,

How do you know this? I'd be interested in further evidence.

further, jail tends to radicalize prisoners even more.

Additional evidence also requested. We know that long prison sentences can increase criminality, but I'm not aware of radicalization as being a thing.

Further, it's been shown by social scientists that a relatively short jail or prison sentence has a strong deterrent effect on future crime. The two things that seem to prevent crime the most: A) certainty of being caught, and B) if there is any jail sentence associated. The humiliation in being sent to prison is a very strong disincentive for the great majority of people. Sentences don't need to be excessive, and in fact long jail terms are often counterproductive, destroying someone's ability to rejoin society. (our whole legal code is seriously messed up: length of prison stay has almost no deterrent effect at all, and can destroy a person's entire life.)

So what is the punishment for shutting down the government by violent means? Because that’s what happened. I know the US Code says ten years in prison and a big fine. That won’t do diddly and could very likely make things worse.

As far as I can tell, you are just making that up. You are inventing imaginary people that are not deterred by jail, and pretending that these imaginary people are the seditionists. In reality, six-month sentences would have a very strong deterrent effect, with longer sentences for the relatively few repeat offenders, or ones who were particularly egregious.

Sedition, btw, is up to 20 years in prison, so there's a really high top end there. Anyone who does it twice can be put away for a huge fraction of their total lifespan. The political landscape would be completely changed by the time they got out.

Malor wrote:
BadKen wrote:

Jail time does not deter these people,

How do you know this? I'd be interested in further evidence.

Hitler, Adolph.

Also, the point isn't to deter the already radicalized. They are lost causes. The point is to deter people on the edges from joining the groups or helping them materially.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Malor wrote:
BadKen wrote:

Jail time does not deter these people,

How do you know this? I'd be interested in further evidence.

Hitler, Adolph.

psst, there was only one of him.

edit: anyway, this is supposed to be the Biden thread, not the 'stop American Nazis' thread, so I'll shut up now.

Clearly, some people here really don't take the MAGA threat very seriously. But as Masha Gessen writes in The New Yorker, "We do not fear those whom we see as being like us; we fear the other." The Capitol police, despite all the damage done and injuries they suffered, simply didn't fear the MAGA terrorists. But they goddam well feared unarmed black people protesting state violence. Oh yes they did.

farley3k wrote:
Natus wrote:

Regarding the events of yesterday, I find Machiavelli in his Discourses On Livy to provide some sage advice if the incoming administration and current law enforcement will listen:

"for when the entire safety of our country is at stake, no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel, praiseworthy or shameful, must intervene. On the contrary, every other consideration being set aside, that course alone must be taken which preserves the existence of the country and maintains its liberty."

--Book III, Chapter XLI

Umm so which side are you using this for? I am pretty sure the rioters felt that no consideration for what was just, or shameful was important. They felt - heck feel - that all must be set aside to preserve their country. And I am pretty sure they feel their liberty is being trampled by losing elections.

So from their point of view they are acting completely correctly. Maybe that is what you meant but my sense of this group/board is that is not true but I don't know you personally so I could be wrong

You know who also thought they were acting completely correctly? Nazis, not yesterday (and there were many, in case you missed the slogans on the t-shirts), but Nazis from 1933-1945. You know who else thought they were acting completely correctly? The Khmer Rouge. The Soviets. The Japanese. Pinochet. Shall I go on? Every band of genocidal fanatics think they are operating "completely correctly."

It doesn't matter what they think. It simply matters what we do in response or, best case, preemptively. What you saw yesterday was nothing to what they will do when Biden is sworn in.

Mixolyde wrote:

Cause it's always wrong? Also it will be more abused when the fascists regain control of the government.

They cannot regain control of the government. Not ever. It's sobering to think that is a controversial statement.

SallyNasty wrote:

I am not a mod but can we please just not?

+1 million

jdzappa wrote:

EDIT: probably time to start a Civil War/Insurrection thread unless the mods tell me not to.

jdzappa wrote:

Also, I figure it might be time for a Boogaloo catch all thread.

DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I am not a mod but can we please just not?

+1 million

~mod~

I am a mod. Please absolutely do not. The discussion of insurrection can thrive in the aptly ironic Hope to Remember thread as it already exists. I would strongly suggest that it belongs there (since they're his legacy anyway) and have the thrust of this thread be more about the Biden administration specifically.

I explicitly do not want to be creating threads about specific terrorist cells and framing that as an acceptable discussion on the table. Discussing their development and impact in the greater context of fascism is a different conversation and that's the conversation you should be having. Don't center a bunch of f*ckwit clownshoes asshats high on their own white supremacy.

Thank you.

Natus wrote:

They cannot regain control of the government. Not ever. It's sobering to think that is a controversial statement.

Yeah.

But they will.

Biden and the Dems need to come down on this hard. We just got lucky that the current would be dictator can't find his butt with both hands and a map. If the next one has any skills at all it will be much worse.

Mixolyde wrote:
Natus wrote:

They cannot regain control of the government. Not ever. It's sobering to think that is a controversial statement.

Yeah.

But they will.

Not if the defenders of the republic act at all appropriately. In this current moment, though, it seems like too much to ask.

Natus wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
Natus wrote:

They cannot regain control of the government. Not ever. It's sobering to think that is a controversial statement.

Yeah.

But they will.

Not if the defenders of the republic act at all appropriately. In this current moment, though, it seems like too much to ask.

So I recognize I was pissed off yesterday after fighting with multiple stranger asshats and conservative family members who now view me as a traitor. I’m in a really bad place and maybe shouldn’t have leaned in to the power fantasies. Meebs, I hope I didn’t give you too much headaches and sorry if I did.

That out of the way... I’m still convinced we are balancing on a knife’s edge between restoration and civil war. Maybe not 1861 but definitely late 1850s. We therefore need to at least consider worst case scenarios. To bring this back to the Biden discussion, at this point he has what he needs to prosecute most of these asshats. I mean nearly all of them have been doxxed already just go get them. The problem though is I’m sure Trump will pardon them all on the way out, so the administration will need to watch them carefully and build future cases.

Malor wrote:
BadKen wrote:

Jail time does not deter these people,

How do you know this? I'd be interested in further evidence.

further, jail tends to radicalize prisoners even more.

Additional evidence also requested. We know that long prison sentences can increase criminality, but I'm not aware of radicalization as being a thing.

I responded here.

I get you, jdzappa. A bunch of my family has gone whole hog Trump. It's painful but I just try not to talk politics with them, and ignore the occasional PragerU email link they send me by mistake. Chin up. You can be a conservative and still understand that many Republican politicians have gone sideways. Doesn't mean you have to become a liberal. (And I mean that literally, not as a tweak; we should have no issues here with old-school Republicans. You've been pushed aside by the crazies just like we have.)

Looks like $2k stimulus checks were too much to hope for.

Biden campaigned last year on a promise to take the pandemic more seriously than President Donald Trump, and the package aims to put that pledge into action with an influx of resources for the coronavirus vaccine rollout and economic recovery.
The incoming administration will work with Congress on the quick stimulus package after Biden takes office on Jan. 20, although the impeachment of Trump threatens to consume lawmakers in the initial weeks.

The stimulus package has a price tag above $1.5 trillion and includes a commitment for $1,400 stimulus checks, according to a source familiar with the proposal, and Biden is expected to commit to partner with private companies to increase the number of Americans getting vaccinated.

e: Yes, I'm aware of the maths and that adding $1400 to $600 is $2000. It's still not enough, still needs to be monthly instead of... once... and needs to be retroactive.

That might be $1400 additional, added to the $600 already passed.

r013nt0 wrote:

Looks like $2k stimulus checks were too much to hope for.

Biden campaigned last year on a promise to take the pandemic more seriously than President Donald Trump, and the package aims to put that pledge into action with an influx of resources for the coronavirus vaccine rollout and economic recovery.
The incoming administration will work with Congress on the quick stimulus package after Biden takes office on Jan. 20, although the impeachment of Trump threatens to consume lawmakers in the initial weeks.

The stimulus package has a price tag above $1.5 trillion and includes a commitment for $1,400 stimulus checks, according to a source familiar with the proposal, and Biden is expected to commit to partner with private companies to increase the number of Americans getting vaccinated.

e: Yes, I'm aware of the maths and that adding $1400 to $600 is $2000. It's still not enough, still needs to be monthly instead of... once... and needs to be retroactive.

So, first, you claimed it wasn't $2K, so Biden is terrible. When I pointed out that it probably is $2K, they're just adding the amount that didn't make it through the last Congress, now you've changed the goalposts, bringing up things that have never been on the table, so that Biden is still terrible.

I think I may be detecting a theme, here.

Cool, now show where I said that Biden was terrible anywhere in that post.

e: Also I edited my post before I saw yours, not that I have a way to provide evidence for that.

e2: I didn't move any goal posts. The arguments for monthly payments, including residual, have existed for nearly a year at this point. Dems are about to have the ability to shove through legislation without needing to confer with the Republican party. Now is the time to just do the right thing for people, without worrying about hurting the feelings of the party of insurrection, or even working with them on a bipartisan basis.

But that's now what it looks like the party will do, and I find that disappointing.

The $600 wasn't enough. $2000 isn't enough. $2000/month isn't enough but it's getting there.

e3: It is perfectly normal to criticize your own "side" when you disagree with their policies. It is possible to criticize a politician without calling them terrible.

There are two themes here. The first is that I will speak my mind about candidates, even if they are on my "side," and that I will never Stan for any of these people because this isn't a sport or a fandom. It is politics. And I am far to the left of any of these people. So yeah... I've got criticisms. I also have positive feedback when they deserve it.

The 2nd is that this is not the first, and not the second, and probably not the third time you've lazily and baselessly tried to label me some type of sleeper agent for Conservatives or whatever it is you're constantly implying. It's incredibly tiresome, a direct attack on me, personally, and I'd rather you cease reading my posts than continue.

r013nt0 wrote:

It's still not enough, still needs to be monthly instead of... once... and needs to be retroactive.

So much this. One off checks to individuals are pretty meaningless. Obviously anything helps a little, but it's a weird little bandaid on a gushing wound. The flow of money during the pandemic is so weird. Like, why are landlords being paid for anything right now? We should be in survival mode with money going toward critical services that get us out of survival mode so we can get back to our regularly scheduled crippling capitalism.

r013nt0 wrote:

Cool, now show where I said that Biden was terrible anywhere in that post.

LOL. I was just coming to post that! You very clearly did not say that. You implied it and taken with other posts I would say a reasonable person would believe you feel that but you very carefully didn't say it.

I am tired of people being called out for things they clearly mean but don't explicitly say.

farley3k wrote:

I am tired of people being called out for things they clearly mean but don't explicitly say.

Are you tired of them being called out for it, or are you tired of the inevitable "I didn't literally type those words even though a reasonable person would clearly conclude that sentiment from my writings!"

yeah the wording was terrible. sorry.

I am tired of the inevitable bit.

I know from their posts that r013nt0 doesn't like Biden. In all reality it probably goes between mild dislike to thinking Biden is terrible depending on the issue. So the "I didn't explicitly say it response" is weak.

I definitely agree that it should be monthly. How sustainable that is, I have no clue. Though I'd wager it is a hell of a lot more sustainable than the Trump tax cuts. Especially since that money has been proven to go directly into the economy.

farley3k wrote:

LOL. I was just coming to post that! You very clearly did not say that. You implied it and taken with other posts I would say a reasonable person would believe you feel that but you very carefully didn't say it.

I am tired of people being called out for things they clearly mean but don't explicitly say.

Is it also possible, perhaps, that some of us choose very specific words because we mean very specific things? I used the phrase I did, when linking an article that isn't implying that Biden is terrible in any way whatsoever, because I find it disappointing. Saying that something was too much to hope for is a sign of disappointment. I didn't say anything about him being terrible because, in this instance, I don't think he is being terrible. $1400 more is better than nothing. It's not what we need, and not good enough, and therefore I find it disappointing. Terrible would be not acting at all. Or blocking efforts, like Mitch.

It's nothing more than that. Anything else you want to read into what I wrote is on you, not me.

farley3k wrote:

yeah the wording was terrible. sorry.

I am tired of the inevitable bit.

I know from their posts that r013nt0 doesn't like Biden. In all reality it probably goes between mild dislike to thinking Biden is terrible depending on the issue. So the "I didn't explicitly say it response" is weak.

Buckle up for a lot of that then because anytime he posts anything critical, some people are incapable of simply addressing the criticism and apparently can't stop themselves from "interpreting" what he said into something they can dismiss entirely.

You framed that link in the most negative possible way, "Looks like $2k stimulus checks were too much to hope for." And then when you realized that, hey, it actually is $2K total, then suddenly that still wasn't good enough.

That looks like an agenda to me. You wanted it to be a disgruntled post, so you had to come up with something else to be disgruntled about....mid-post!

I'm well known for calling Biden terrible and saying exactly what I think of him, but I'm also well known for couching my words carefully to hide my true feelings about Biden because I'm a secret donald supporter sent here, to this video game forum, to sew doubt and discord.

IMAGE(https://i.ibb.co/p141FYf/Galaxybrain.webp)

That does not look like good faith argumentation. It looks like your position is shifting, mid-post, so you can still be upset.