Sponsored Links

[Eeyore]

Okay the premise here is that you are advising Biden.

Premise #1: You want to address 3 major issues that affect the country
Premise #2: You want bipartisan support for your short list of policies that Biden should pursue out the gates

Okay, so you know that Biden's party faired relatively poorly in the election and that the midterms almost always go poorly for the party that won the election.
You want Biden's first term to be a revival of centrism, and you want ti to be successful so that your fee in the future will be sky high.



What three issues are you going to promote?
How are you going to achieve bipartisan support for each of the issues?

[droop224]

Premise #1: You want to address 3 major issues that affect the country

1. Weed Legalization
2. Police Reform
3. Incarceration Reform

These are items that aren't about putting money in the pocket of anyone. With the possible exception of weed\marijuana legalization. The incoming President and VP have stains on their records when it comes to the other 2 issues.

How are you going to achieve bipartisan support for each of the issues?

Now this isn't about Biden. These issues should easily be doable with bipartisan support, but is putting a W in the column for Biden something that can be done without the Senate going Blue due to McConnel obstructionist policy?

[Eeyore]

Premise #1: You want to address 3 major issues that affect the country

1. Weed Legalization
2. Police Reform
3. Incarceration Reform

I think new thinking will be required for Biden to succeed. He will need to have some votes where he loses some Progressive Democratic votes in the Senate.

The new thinking needed is to find the more conservative ideals among groups of key constituents, in this case African Americans, and to get those conservative ideals out front and center, or center-right out front.

I believe job one will need to be Covid policies that highlight the benefit to the domestic economy as effective covid policy helps bring the United States to or above par with other similar nations in COVID effectiveness. This will have to be done in a way that does not get bogged down in liberty issues.

As to Droop's policies, how to get them on the top three list and have them be focused on in a conservative light.

In part, perhaps linkage with item one to reduce prison population because of the health risks associated with prison. Linking with #2 addresses the issue that marijuana should never have been criminalized and that rolling back convictions of marijuana related offenses could be a part of legislation.

#2 Should likely be economic recovery directly. As part of an economic recovery plan, an item could be legalization of marijuana in order to harness tax revenues. The liberty anti-nanny state idea can be run here. The economic recovery should be aggressively targeted at the middle class. Small business, holding employment. Checks from the IRS, college tuition credits maybe.

Police reform. How to increase the effectiveness of police in a way that focuses on equality before the law? I think in general, this item, while gravely needed, is the hardest to use to align with conservative goals. ........ At this point, I would have to say it would be a no go.

[droop224]

Police reform. How to increase the effectiveness of police in a way that focuses on equality before the law? I think in general, this item, while gravely needed, is the hardest to use to align with conservative goals.

. Honestly let me ask the question, what do you believe are those goals. Because I have no clue.

[Eeyore]

Police reform. How to increase the effectiveness of police in a way that focuses on equality before the law? I think in general, this item, while gravely needed, is the hardest to use to align with conservative goals.

. Honestly let me ask the question, what do you believe are those goals. Because I have no clue.

A growing economy, a limited government, a strong defense those would be my short list of conservative goals, and polcies couched in doing either of these things have a chance of getting enacted.

Democrats and Republicans agree on some surprising issues, but not on how to solve them

In regards to a specific issue, income inequality is a growing problem in the country, but it will never get it fixed if you call the policy wealth redistribution or tax increases.


for an example
A majority of Republicans actually support a wealth tax—if you don’t call it that

Crap only one free article...

well sadly tucked into yahoo sports I think this is the article

Here is area of reform is marketed effectively that can be passed. But the Democrats market for crap. Also, it requires Republican support. I know a republican or two can be picked off here and there for the right thing, but I want ten to empower the middle and stop the RINO shaming.

If the Trump tax cuts are rolled back, perhaps a return of estate taxes too. Perhaps taking payroll taxes and removing the cap on income and lowering the income tax... tax reform is likely what it would need to be, something that was revenue neutral for the federal government....but I digress

[Blackstone]

These issues should easily be doable with bipartisan support, but is putting a W in the column for Biden something that can be done without the Senate going Blue due to McConnel obstructionist policy?

Are you implying that Republicans actually agree with you on the issues you mention, and would only come out against it in order to prevent Biden from looking good, and not because of any genuine disagreements on policy? If so, what are you basing this on?

How to increase the effectiveness of police in a way that focuses on equality before the law? I think in general, this item, while gravely needed, is the hardest to use to align with conservative goals.

Because conservatives are against effective policing with equality before the law? Please explain.

[Eeyore]

name='Eeyore' post='100035892' date='Dec 5 2020, 07:43 PM']How to increase the effectiveness of police in a way that focuses on equality before the law? I think in general, this item, while gravely needed, is the hardest to use to align with conservative goals.
Because conservatives are against effective policing with equality before the law? Please explain.

I think conservatives are not generally in favor of police reform. I did not communicate extremely well, but I was connecting to Droop's policy goals.
I believe that focusing on equality before the law is the starting point for engagement in discussions in the area of police reform. When the wrong chords are struck in this debate I think it turns into Black lives matter versus Blue live matter and the ears shut and each side retreats to obstructionism.

Droop will likely do just fine. But McConnell was pretty on the record in trying to stop the Obama administration as his top priority.

Blackstone What 3 policies would you advise Biden to pursue in using bipartisanship to solve important problems facing the nation?


to highlight the problems facing the democratic party.... this NYT piece shows how the Dems are missing targets for winning working class votes---of all colors.


Good morning. We’re looking at Democrats’ biggest weakness, and why it matters in Georgia.

How can Democrats do better with the working-class? It’s not an easy question. (Left-leaning parties in Europe are having similar struggles.)

But there are some hints. Many working-class voters, across racial groups, are moderate to conservative on social issues: They are religious, favor well-funded police departments and support some restrictions on both abortion and immigration. On economic issues, by contrast, they tend to back Democratic positions, like a higher minimum wage and expanded government health care.

For Democrats to do better with the working class, they probably need to moderate their liberal image on social issues — and double down on economic populism.

[Trouble]

Okay the premise here is that you are advising Biden.

Premise #1: You want to address 3 major issues that affect the country
Premise #2: You want bipartisan support for your short list of policies that Biden should pursue out the gates

Okay, so you know that Biden's party faired relatively poorly in the election and that the midterms almost always go poorly for the party that won the election.
You want Biden's first term to be a revival of centrism, and you want ti to be successful so that your fee in the future will be sky high.



What three issues are you going to promote?
How are you going to achieve bipartisan support for each of the issues?

Centrism? You are aware of the plan to poison pill the affair had they lost? I was going to present this wonderful article on the more philosophical challenges facing the liberal order at this time, but since I read it they put it behind a paywall. An acceptable secondary article explains how liberal society is gradually attacking the middle ground. It was in my top 10 articles of the year. Your opinion may vary. Also remember the BLM movement has accelerated the process by equating silence to their demands as part of the problem which feeds back into the first article.

(1) Surviving the election audit.
Mr. President-Elect, you have taken power at a peculiar time. After two decades of promoting democracy abroad you are now going to have to acquiesce to an inquiry of your own party. After four years of non stop election interference allegations the party has opened itself up for a reciprocal backlash. Yesterday, roughly four states filed suit with the Supreme Court to overturn the election results. Today the number of states signing on rose to one third of the union. I don't like it, you don't like it but you are going to have to let this one play out. This entails an appraisal of the worthiness of the electronic voting devices, their storage or lack thereof, and their server locations.

What is powering the move is a second look at the constitutionality of setting mail in voting outside Federal direction, and a forensic look into fraud allegations where the constitution does and does not give authourity.

Now Mr. President-Elect, that there is a whole lot to chew on but you need to digest all the prior cases which affect mail in voting. I suggest doubling up on your medications and or Tums because you might lay a few eggs. This matters because if we come up on the pointy end of this discussion, our electors in these affected states will not be able to exercise their vote when the electoral college gets their boogie on. Got it? If there is any doubt about the conduct of the electors the twelfth amendment doesn't favour us. You see the President of the Senate has sole power to open the elector votes, if he deems some to be ineligible they have precedent here. So umm who is the President of the Senate you may ask? Mike Pence. At that point you'll need bipartisan support for a backstab. The media is already on board. We won't count or talk about the fraud because it will be Orange Jesus that stole the election. You gotta make it about him facts be damned. See poison pill option above.

(2) Surviving the first 100 days
Mr. President-Elect you're going to have a tough time in your first 100 days. I'm sorry to say it but I want you to know I have your back. Now I've noticed you don't seem to have the same Snooki and Jwow rapport OJ has with his second in command. Kamala just doesn't seem that into you. There I said it. She is teaming up with the ice cream lady to pull the 25th on you or introduce legislation of a runaround of the 25th by divorcing power out from the Congress into as yet unnamed committee made up by the Democratic Party. Dude, you so gotta watch those gaffes! Do you know how the Finnish define Kamala? Horrible, terrible. What do the Finns know what we do not? I would recommend calling both ladies into your office asking them point blank about their intentions to replace you. Then do that smell thing you do. You'll know right away who is telling the truth. The nose knows!

Now in case you are having a bad day and the nose alarm goes off you need to remember who the old white male is in your party. This is super important. Hint: it is not them. This means should you step out of line and go awol, you are likely to field attacks on a ) Your cognitive ability via the 25th, b ) Attacks on your credibility via that thing which doesn't exist that has been sitting in Christopher Wray's desk for the last 11 months documenting your son's love of snorticulture and assorted past times. I mean do you really want to dig up that Burisma thing again? And finally, c) the elephant in the room BLM itself. You see the elephant is Kamala's ticket. Endanger the elephant by upholding the law and you endanger Kamala old man.

Don't be going all John Wayne and upholding the law because that is what racists do. Don't be tracing the donors to BLM and endanger ActBlue, one of our main funding mechanisms. Don't be counting the fires or burned precincts(yes, plural), or the police exit interviews because then people will demand you do something about it. You know now that I think of it, don't follow any journalists that follow the movement either. We got this 'mostly peaceful protests' thing down pat and frankly don't need the hassle.

May I venture a guess? There was a reason why Mrs. Harris was dropped early in the elections. Her record as Attorney General comes across as a bit Cheneyesque but without his warmth and charm. She is going to alter the first and second amendments which may spook our bipartisan backstabbers friends. She doesn't care about speech any more than about gun control. It is all about the power. So, if we can agree our nonstop media drive has overly sensitized one or two deplorables about our planned constitutional alterations that would be a good first step. Tell Kamala it is hands off for at least six months until the deplorables get drunk and start falling out of trucks again - or so I've been told.

Now for the hard part. Foreign Policy for the forgetful.

(3) You need to survive the fallout of resurrecting the JCPOA

You're going to be under a lot of pressure by some of our "ahem" allies to add conditions to the existing agreement. When we pulled out of the agreement we sorta lost the credibility to use the enforcement snap back part as well. Since we are entering into a detente that is largely without precedent and outside any nuclear protocols those policy preconditions are going to be challenging. You might want to borrow some of your Son's 'medication' before you ask for the Plus + Plus deal.

If you fail to notify our friends in a timely manner of the deal you could be legislatively impeached. If one of our partners decides to unilaterally attack those pesky Persians, we are legally obligated to be backup. If the deal doesn't pan out and you get the phone call asking what in the something-something are you doing, do that thing you did during the debates with your phone. That Sir, was golden!

However do not fear Mr. President-Elect, you have something no one else has. You have the power of recall. Just like that old Schwarzenegger movie when he went to Mars, you have a secret weapon. Who is the one person who has a genuine interest in resuscitating the agreement? You know who. Barack Obama. Who else had to endure two terms of angst? With any luck he can make a few phone calls to Mr. Dagan who last time was able to muster up political resistance to a direct attack on Iran. True, he is out of power but....guys like that know guys if you know what I mean. Now if this Hail Mary does not work you going to have to get the Joint Chiefs to formulate a plan of engagement. If you have a hold up, ask about how the targeting capabilities on Persian missile guidance has changed in the last decade or so. If the Joint Chiefs do this keep your Tums on standby. So if you call up your new Secretary of Defense, you know the one with arts degree you'll get the Rumsfeldian green light on launching the bombers which is fine. Just remember to look to the side and see if the rest of your 4 star generals are biting their lower lip and fidgeting like they have to do the peepee dance and ask, 'so what is the problem?'. If they are they might hand you something kinda close to this assessment. Now if the Joint Chiefs are still in the room you might end up with this on your hands. At this point remember the noble path does not involve claiming any more lives. Let the impeachment commence. You're old. You're tired. You just want to get back to watching Seinfeld. Let Kamala disintegrate the party. The Bernie boys have just about had enough already. America is ready for a third party and you quite frankly are the pin that is holding this party from grenading. There is a nobility of knowing when to fall on your sword. Be that guy Mr. President-Elect.

This post has been edited by Trouble: Dec 10 2020, 07:03 AM

[Eeyore]

For point number one of Trouble's post, today is the day the electoral college meets. We will know more about its results soon.

After that the count goes to a joint session of Congress on January 6 to certify the results of the electoral college.

[Eeyore]

(1) Surviving the election audit.
Mr. President-Elect, you have taken power at a peculiar time. After two decades of promoting democracy abroad you are now going to have to acquiesce to an inquiry of your own party. After four years of non stop election interference allegations the party has opened itself up for a reciprocal backlash. Yesterday, roughly four states filed suit with the Supreme Court to overturn the election results. Today the number of states signing on rose to one third of the union. I don't like it, you don't like it but you are going to have to let this one play out. This entails an appraisal of the worthiness of the electronic voting devices, their storage or lack thereof, and their server locations. second look at the constitutionality of setting mail in voting outside Federal direction, and a forensic look into fraud allegations where the constitution does and does not give authourity.

Well, if the Biden administration is going to have to fend off election disinformation as its first major policy, and it likely will be doing so, it has already lost. Perhaps that epic challenge to electoral democracy that was signed off on by 17 State Secretaries of State and over 100 members of Congress will be the overreach that begins a reaction and a mass run to defense of the core principles of democracy.

I fear instead that the big lie of electoral fraud made by President Trump without yet being corroborated by acting officials, (Judges and Republican electoral officials in disputed states) this will be the corroboration of the issue. Evidence has clearly not help up in the court room because it does not exist. Yet, sidelined (not in the role of having to make an official decision in regards to the election that would genuinely overturn the results of the 2020 election) Republicans feel comfortable playing political theater with the truth instead of standing up for democracy.

The weapons of this matter are all listed above and they will likely be effective. 1. False equivalency with the claims of Russian electoral interference in the 2016 campaign (Here there is evidence that would hold up in court, though not something that would overturn electoral results. And there were definitely ethically and likely legally questionable contacts made between the Trump campaign and Russian bad actors.) with the claims of a rigged election in 2020.

Post election review of processes that were vetted and used for the 2020 election. Including electronic voting machines and mail-in ballots. This are processes that should be reviewed every election and revetted. But they are not new.

But going back to undo the system that was in place and vetted and challenged and ruled upon before election day, is like retroactively applying a rule change in a Super Bowl that has already been played. I think this could continue as its own thread Trouble I enjoyed the style of your post and the information you posted. I would enjoy a thread on the election audit idea itself.