Biden-Harris / Dems

[Pale Rider]

FB friend:

Democrats: We shouldn't prosecute Jared Kushner for making hundreds of millions of dollars off the Trump presidency, because that would make us look partisan, and then the Republicans might retaliate by going after Hunter Biden!

Republicans: We're prosecuting Hunter Biden.
---
This is why Republicans keep winning. Democrats keep bending over backwards for them, and getting absolutely nothing in return. If this were a negotiation over a car sale, the Democrat would offer to cut the price and throw in a rebuilt engine, a set of patio furniture, and a blowjob from his wife.

 

[Anonymous X]

Well, he's not wrong except that now that the option has been publicly discussed you just KNOW the Republicans will use it even if the Democrats show restraint by NOT using said option. The minute Republicans gain control of congress and the presidency while the court leans left, seats will be added or removed to 'fix' it.....

I’ve said this before, but the temperament of the Democrats is not so much to take a knife to a gun fight, but to take a feather duster to a nuclear war.

 

[Rhinox]

This is what happens when one party has fully divorced themselves from principles. They will stop at nothing, commit any act no matter how treasonous or hypocritical, to retain their power.
Biden is absolutely right that by doing that with the court he opens that door. What he doesn't say is that McConnell already opened that door when he blocked nominees from even being heard so his side could stack the deck.

This is a difficult position to be in. When the other side refuses to act in good faith, there is no bottom to the abyss. Whatever weapons can be brought to bear can be used against you and they won't be afraid to hammer it far past where you'd feel okay about using it.

 

[Teufel]

Biden Admin to make $6 billion available to Iran in exchange for hostages in beginning of a process that will also include prisoner swaps.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/politics/americans-released-from-iranian-prison-house-arrest/index.html

Five Americans who had been imprisoned in Iran are now under house arrest – the first step in a deal between the United States and Iran that would include making $6 billion in Iranian funds more accessible to Tehran in exchange for their return to the US.

Four of the Americans – Siamak Namazi, Emad Shargi, Morad Tahbaz, and a fourth American who has not been identified publicly – were moved out of Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison on Thursday, the White House confirmed. The fifth American, who also has not been publicly identified, was already under house arrest, according to a source familiar with the negotiations.

The source described Thursday’s development as “an encouraging step,” noting that there’s “a roadmap that has basically been agreed.” However, they said that “there’s a number of things here that that still need to be worked out” in the prospective deal to bring the Americans home to the United States.

Among the roadmap are plans to make $6 billion in Iranian funds that have been in a restricted account in South Korea more readily available for “non-sanctionable trade” of goods like food and medicine by moving them to “a restricted account elsewhere.” The source said that this would not be giving new funds to Iran, noting that those funds are currently in South Korean accounts and able to be used for humanitarian purposes and non-sanctionable trade. There have been challenges in converting the Korean currency.

There is also expected to be a prisoner swap component to the deal, though the source said that “no prisoners held in the US will be released in exchange for these Americans moving to house arrest.”

The spin is this isn't us giving them $6 billion and it's only for humanitarian purchases, but $6 billion Iran can use for basic goods is $6 billion they can otherwise spend on terrorism. Also them being able to distribute these kind of goods is a PR bonanza and lifeline for the regime that's spent the last several months brutalizing and killing Iranian protestors. Taking Americans hostage should be come with rewards and subsidies.

 

[Pocket]

If these same five people had been kidnapped by a common criminal within the US borders, nobody would dream of spending six billion on their ransom. Probably not even six million. So why is that perfectly fine when an enemy state does it?

 

[MrBlud]

Yeah, I’m struggling to see the geopolitical upside here.

Granted, if *I* or a member of my family were held prisoner in Iran I’d doubtlessly be a lot more stoked.

 

[wonko the sane?]

Because now the US government has leverage over iran. Sure, you're giving them money they can spend, you know... however. They're also going to become dependent on that income, and frankly: it's NOT a small amount. Now they can use that income to, slowly, steer the iranian government away from certain acts, and aspects. After all, you wouldn't want to jeopardize that next deposit, do you? Plus, the potential of more, well, that's good insurance for the future idiots travelling to the region (cause let's face it, no amount of warnings will stop everyone.) against those future hostages not getting hurt.

It's international politics: the poker game where everyone is cheating.

Every dollar iran gets that's easier to spend than a russian ruble is an instance where they're rethinking their relationship to russia, as a nice little bonus.

 

[Spin-Out]

also remember the last time a sitting democratic president didn't deal with a hostage crisis quickly enough* lead to reagan getting elected and ruining america forever.

*friendly reminder that reagan had his allies screw with the negotiations to make carter look bad, bc he was a sociopath.

 

[DefaultOption]

Also, Reagan was following in the GOP footsteps of Nixon, who sent people to undermine Johnson's negotiations with North Vietnam because he didn't want Johnson, and by extension Humphrey, to have a win on the issue going in to the '68 election.

 

[Teufel]

Edited the thread title so it can also just be about Democrats in general.

Senator Feinstein passed away - RIP

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a trailblazer in U.S. politics and the longest-serving woman in the Senate, dies at 90

Feinstein, elected in 1992, was a vocal gun control advocate who often sought common ground with Republicans, sometimes frustrating her more liberal colleagues.

www.nbcnews.com

But she should've never came back, she was obviously in such a dire condition. It's not as if she came from a state where they had to worry about her being replaced with a Republican. Shame on her staff, she had a great legacy and they let her come back and regularly embarrass and demean herself.

If people can't gracefully age out of Congress we need age or term limits. I can think of several people Republican and Democrat who quite frankly thank you for your service, but it's time to go.

 

[Rhinox]

I've been a proponent of term limits for a long time. All this does is add another argument as to why they are so necessary.
We need to move away from being governed by geriatrics who, quite frankly, have no goddamn clue as to how the modern world works.

 

[Pocket]

How about just a maximum age? Then it won't matter how long or short of a time they've been in office, just whether they're currently over the hill or not.

 

[Rhinox]

No, that'd be quickly defeated under the heading of 'ageism'. Term limits are age neutral, but have the benefit of removing those stolid old farts who've made Washington their career.

Term limits also put limiters on the younger crazies. See Matt Gaetz, Lauren "Handy" Boebert, MTG, et al. Imagine being able to be done with them after only 3 two year terms.

 

[CoffeeHorse]

The trouble is, either option would need votes from members who would be ousted by it.

Chuck Grassley is older than FM radio.

 

[MrBlud]

All term limits do is *increase* the power of lobbyists and deny you effective representation (like Bernie for example)

Craft a mental competency test and force members (regardless of age) to take it so you can get rid of the ageism claim and people no longer mentally fit.

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

First repeal Citizens United. Bribery should not be considered free speech.

 

[Pocket]

Also, the real reason bad people keep getting reelected year after year—which ideally shouldn't be able to happen even once—is that once someone has been elected, they become the sole delegate of their party in their state/county/district until they die or step down. The only people who are allowed to run against them are members of the opposing party, and if an area is too staunchly red or blue, those people have no chance. The solution to career politicians who don't deserve to be (because if they're genuinely doing a good job, no sense replacing them with someone worse) is to institute ranked ballots and require that members of the same party can run in the same general election. And while we're at it, let's remove the party affiliations and incumbent status from the ballots so voters have to actually look up who these people are whose names they definitely are too out of the loop to recognize.

EDIT: Actually, I'm removing the rest of this post because it's getting off topic and people seem to gravitate towards derailment on this board.

 

[Ungnome]

Granted, I'm not so sure how effective removing party affiliation would be from the ballots given the current environment, but everything else I totally agree with. Also have friggin spending limits on campaigns. Don't let people with huge bankrolls buy up all the airtime.(that would require overturning Citizen's United and re-instating the fairness doctrine, amongst other reforms, but we NEED those changes)

 

[Anonymous X]

Removing party affiliations from ballots is a terrible idea in any country. There was a reason why they were added to the ballot in the first place.

 

[Teufel]

Thinking the removal of party affiliation and incumbent status would make voters put in the effort to actually look into the candidates seems awfully optimistic to me.