I started to have a theory of work from the middle of last year. It was enacted immediately after the Democratic left-wing base stepped down and supported Joe Biden as their presidential candidate.
It goes like this: they cut the deal. The left is behind Biden-but after he enters the White House, he will push the agenda.
After all, this is the only way for the left to enter the White House. Biden is so unbelievably old that he is the only one who can return to the era when the party is not crazy. He can run as a calm, “moderate” candidate-the only remaining Democrat has a chance to achieve this goal.
Then, the left will use the “moderate” Biden as their ideological icebreaker. He will become a puppet of the SS Left and its extreme parties and extremely bad legislation and policies. “How could our agenda be radical? Good old Joe is proposing.”
In addition to… some Republicans were elected. In fact, many of them. But the Democrats don’t need stinking Republicans. The Democrats have very few seats in both houses—they decided to abuse their tiny advantages instead of cooperating with the other party even a little bit. This also provides a lie to the “moderate” Biden message.
When they completely squeeze Biden’s “moderate” theme-his poll numbers have completely dropped-the second phase of the transaction will begin.
Biden appointed Kamala Harris as his vice president. She would wait impatiently for the party to unplug Biden and install her. Remember Biden slipped and said he would “Resignation on sick leave“Because of the disagreement with Harris?
Well, so far, this transaction has encountered (at least) two huge problems.
one: Harris’ poll numbers are actually worse than Biden’sThe plan is to flip the switch-and pick up some polling stations. Now they will really lose it.
The second one: The party cannot line up all the donkeys. The two Democratic senators and a handful of Donkey House members are not immediate, unanimous agenda voters.
It is mid-November. The agenda calls on Democrats to have now passed five or six terrible legislation. But they only passed two-the third (or fourth) in February China virus consumption And this month Falsified Infrastructure Act.
For decades, Washington, DC has not enacted legislation in an election year. So there is always something to do this vacation year.We almost wasted defeating that dead horse Falsified “Rebuild Better” bill.
I have a feeling that if the Republican majority short-sightedly insisted on a partisan legislation, the entire planet would begin to blame them for wasting everyone’s time in the second week. Republicans are constantly being tricked into restarting research on bipartisan work that can actually be done.
As far as we are today, this is good advice. There is a very good and very useful bipartisan legislation-rotting on the vines, and all DCs have wasted months staring at its “Never Rebuild”.
Just give two examples:
Internet data privacy
Congress must act now to pass a bipartisan federal privacy law:
“The future of a comprehensive federal privacy bill is in jeopardy. In fact, although state laws are being pieced together, and two new bills have been passed at the state level so far this year, the progress of the comprehensive federal privacy bill has slowed.
“As the optimism that bipartisan presidents might contribute to compromise has faded, it has become increasingly clear that the lack of progress on federal bills is a problem for businesses and consumers alike.”
This was written in July. We still need to pass a privacy bill. In fact, we need to pass one, many, many years.
One of the reasons why big technology is so huge (annoying, murderous, and…) is that they can sell us and our data completely unhindered by any privacy legislation.
You read that right. We have entered the second decade of Big Tech’s overwhelming planetary dominance-and DC is still unable to act on legislation to protect us and our data from them.
(Oh, I want to know about Big Tech’s Smash the dominance of nepotism donations What does it have to do with their success in hindering the progress of the privacy law…? )
You don’t want a quilt made up of 50 different state laws to kill the Internet.About privacy, or Net neutrality, or…. This is a regulatory nightmare. This is a World Wide Web. We need a national Internet policy-better integration with other networks in the world.
In fact, there have been bipartisan DC privacy legislation for many years. This is an up-to-date example…
But DC did not give priority to any of them. It has won its cronies for large technology companies-instead, it has been constantly stuck in trouble and caught up in stupid, ultra-partisan nonsense like “Never Rebuild.”
They should put down the dumb and slowly back away. Instead, spend time on data privacy legislation that actually helps actual Americans.
Of course, Big Tech needs more legislation than just data privacy. Here DC has been working on the solution, but usually has not achieved the goal.
We don’t need any new antitrust legislation– Although the two parties may be. We can do a lot of things with existing laws-and don’t want to open the terrible can of worms further.
Have had some Bipartisan Discussion on Section 230 Reform. This is getting closer and closer to the solution. But what we really need is…
Article 230 repealed
How did big technology become so huge?Large-scale government nepotism-like Article 230:
“Speaking of unfairness…Look at Article 230. This saves large technology companies from defamation, defamation and intellectual property lawsuits caused by the actions of third parties…
“If I own a small community bar, I will have to purchase liability insurance to protect me in case a third-party customer beats another third-party customer on my behalf. Or I will have to go to the court to convince the judge or jury that it happened to me Place-but not because of my place.
“Why would the largest and richest company in the history of the earth get the full third-party action immunity imposed by the government?…
“A typical example of how unfair is Article 230? Nick Sandman suffered a fiasco.
“Sandman is a high school student in Kentucky. He wore Donald Trump’s hat when he visited Washington and was accused by radical left-wing activists.
“Almost all the major media lied about this incident and blamed Sandman for the conflict. They lied a lot on the big tech social media – none of which removed these obvious fake news.
“Sandman successfully sued all major media. But he couldn’t even sue large technology companies-because of Article 230. This is too unfair, and it opposes equality before the law.”
Oh: The Communications Regulation Act (CDA) of 1996 added Section 230, a large-scale and ever-expanding nepotism protection measure-as an offset to the CDA’s restrictions on “indecent” speech.
Except for the Supreme Court in 1997 (Correctly) Abandon the CDA’s “indecent” speech restriction. However, the large-scale and ever-expanding crony protection of Article 230 is retained.
As a result, large technology companies retain their unique, large-scale crony protectionist rewards—without the negative effects of rewards that should have been.
Section 230 must go.
But I have a preemptive backup position.
If you think that small technology companies need Section 230 protection, even if no other small company has something similar? Okay: We set the market value protected by Section 230 to $500 billion. If a company’s value is lower than it, it will get them. If the value of a company exceeds, it won’t.
This provides Section 230 protection for all companies except the largest large technology companies.
Which countries are big enough to buy small countries-so you can afford litigation insurance.
These are just two of the many great bipartisan opportunities that exist in a very divided DC.
DC will almost certainly not use them.
But we should at least let them know they can. And should.
