Jump to content
Baseops Forums
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, brickhistory said:

I agree.

 

Once Biden committed himself to determining that skin color and genitalia were the paramount considerations for his pick, she is the most usable choice for him.

**cough - Willie Brown - **cough

 

 

 

edited to add:  The first joke making the rounds so far:

 

Kamala has less baggage than the other potential picks because she keeps leaving it at Willie Brown's...

 

 

G'night everybody!  I'll be here all week.  Tip your servers....

No worries, the Secret Services has obviously upped their cock-blocking game since the mid/late 90's:<)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nsplayr said:

That being said, I don’t think Harris was particularly bad as a DA or AG, just like Biden wasn’t particularly bad as a Senator on these issues. 

You are pretty strong supporter of Dems and their policies.  If the most you can say about Biden/Harris is "I don't think they were particularly bad" what do you think moderates are saying?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

You are pretty strong supporter of Dems and their policies.  If the most you can say about Biden/Harris is "I don't think they were particularly bad" what do you think moderates are saying?  

I think this is the wrong question.  It's what moderates are saying about them in comparison to Trump and Pence, and their current/past achievements and failures.

We're not electing in a vacuum, this is politics and Biden just picked a black woman as his VP.  "BuT tHaT's RaCiSt/SeXiSt!"  Whatever, it's political.  "Uncle Joe" is trying to shore up what he sees as some weaknesses in his elect-ability as well as a VP he can work with.  Same thing Trump did with Pence, and so on down the line.

For those screaming about it...did the VP pick really sway you one way or the other?  Did Palin when McCain picked her?  Did you cry the same thing then?
 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

You are pretty strong supporter of Dems and their policies.  If the most you can say about Biden/Harris is "I don't think they were particularly bad" what do you think moderates are saying?  

The critique on criminal justice is typically from the left. “They supported policies that locked up too many people for too long and didn’t vigorously investigate bad cops.” I don’t disagree with that critique but don’t find it disqualifying either especially given their current stances when compared with what they supported previously.

So if you are more conservative than the left wing of the Democratic Party, ie moderates compared to the nation as a whole, I think that the Biden/Harris history of being “tough on crime” might even be a strength rather than a liability.

IMHO it will be challenging for the GOP to at the same time critique Biden/Harris for being too harsh on crime while at the same time supporting policies that are even harsher. Caricatures work best when there is a kernel of truth, and there’s not really a kernel of truth in saying Biden/Harris are leaders of some liberal ANTIFA mob when they’re an old white guy who wrote the 90s crime bill and a former DA and AG.

My original point was that at no time were Biden or Harris really outside they mainstream of national views on criminal justice, even if their “tough on crime” stances from, say, the 90s, but them at odds with where the Democratic Party in particular is today. The Dem Party, Biden/Harris, and to a lesser extent America as a whole have evolved a bit toward wanting less-harsh criminal justice measures applied, especially to low-level non-violent drug offenders, eg the pair have moved their positions along with public opinion rather than remaining strict ideologues.

The most I can say about Biden/Harris is that I enthusiastically support their vision for the country going forward and I think they will do an excellent job governing.

Biden was not my first choice for the top of the ticket but he’s the right person for this moment. My critiques of him are mostly centered on his age and some really bad calls on foreign policy in the past. That being said he’s perfectly acceptable as the leader of the party and would is a credible and plausible President.

After Biden won the primary convincingly over several folks I liked better, Harris was my top VP choice to pair with him. I’m 100% happy with her being selected and think she’ll make a good VP and I’m assuming strong nominee for President in 2024.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

I think this is the wrong question.  It's what moderates are saying about them in comparison to Trump and Pence, and their current/past achievements and failures.

We're not electing in a vacuum, this is politics and Biden just picked a black woman as his VP.  "BuT tHaT's RaCiSt/SeXiSt!"  Whatever, it's political.  "Uncle Joe" is trying to shore up what he sees as some weaknesses in his elect-ability as well as a VP he can work with.  Same thing Trump did with Pence, and so on down the line.

For those screaming about it...did the VP pick really sway you one way or the other?  Did Palin when McCain picked her?  Did you cry the same thing then?
 

This. 

Mostly.

However, Biden's old, frail, and, IMO, not all there anymore.  For a fair number of people, his selection for his VP is also about completing the term in office, never mind a second term.

In the political realm, should Biden win, he's going into his Presidency as a self-proclaimed lame duck.  The levers of power will care about his VP, not so much him.

 

But for my purposes, I think this is a good choice.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

My original point was that at no time were Biden or Harris really outside they mainstream of national views on criminal justice, even if their “tough on crime” stances from, say, the 90s, but them at odds with where the Democratic Party in particular is today. The Dem Party, Biden/Harris, and to a lesser extent America as a whole have evolved a bit toward wanting less-harsh criminal justice measures applied, especially to low-level non-violent drug offenders, eg the pair have moved their positions along with public opinion rather than remaining strict ideologues.

The "how did we get here" question IRT our criminal justice system, policing and systemic racism is being asked and will continue to be asked throughout this election cycle.  Biden and Harris have a lot of explaining to do.  That was my point with the moderates.  I believe moderates will lean towards law and order and they will stay away from politicians who contributed to shaping our current criminal justice system.  Rioting and looting only cements peoples belief in law and order policies.  Folks on the right certainly will not be plucked away from voting Republican even if they aren't Trump fans.   So where does that leave the Dems?  As you said above, "even if their “tough on crime” stances from, say, the 90s, put them at odds with where the Democratic Party in particular is today".  Again, not a good look in my opinion.  

I think Americans are even more sick of career politicians today than they were in 2016.  Career politicians created all of these problems but now are running on fixing them.  Same old same old.  I don't think people are interested in hearing any more of that.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This pick politically makes no sense. Pence gave Trump Indiana, and a cool head that people could see as a counterweight if Trump made a hyper-irrational policy choice.

Biden himself was picked to stabilize Obama’s image in the Democratic Party, but primarily to lock up Pennsylvania.

She doesn’t give him more black credibility, as Politico’s polling showed him ahead of her among black voters in the primary. He’s already ahead among women, so she’s not giving him that either. Her state, CA, is already deep blue. What am I missing that makes her a logical choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

 Same old same old.  I don't think people are interested in hearing any more of that.  

*yawn* this whole discussion is a same ol same ol. Two neoliberal corporatist cartels squabbling over labels and cultural issues that don't put food on the table, yai. "Normie" Americans get what they vote for.

Now back to lurking this thread for another 4 years, y'all have fun with the kabuki show.

 

 

Edited by hindsight2020
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

*yawn* this whole discussion is a same ol same ol. Two neoliberal corporatist cartels squabbling over labels and cultural issues that don't put food on the table, yai. "Normie" Americans get what they vote for, when they fail to see the deficit as one of class. Typical achiles heel of a multi-cultural society. Divide and conquer 101. I digress.

This forum is mostly samurai/Centurion class beneficiaries anyways, so the clamor for neoliberal Empire stasis of any flavor is understandable. Of course saying so makes one the g-damned Khmer Rouge all of a sudden (in Europe you're just a centrist LOL), which is why I don't engage on here. At any rate, my point being most of the people swinging these elections are not members of the de facto Second Estate (e.g. professional managerial class et al), so it pays to look outside the PMC echo chamber. Now, I'm not a proponent of actively fostering accelerationist socioeconomic dynamics, but if they end up moving the brackets on the Overton Window, well... to quote ol Billy. "We didnt start the fire....".😄 

Now back to lurking this thread for another 4 years, y'all have fun with the kabuki show.

 

 

English, please. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

VPs rarely ever deliver states anymore, the effect is very small. Indiana was going for the Republican nominee in 2016 no matter what (although it was a surprise in the Obama 2008 coalition). Ironically California (Harris) balances Delaware (Biden) quite well in terms of geographic spread which is sometimes desirable. Harris is the first member of the most populous state in the nation on either party’s ticket since Reagan 40 years ago!

Harris balances Biden most importantly in age and identify, both of which are important in the Democratic Party. She’s also a credible President on day 1, as was Pence, which IMHO is the very most important criteria for a VP.

On age, Biden (and Trump! and Hillary!) are all IMHO too old to be a President who could win and govern through two terms with all their marbles intact. Not everyone believes that but I do at least. 45-65 is my strike zone for a President or other high level leader and ideally they’d all be done and retire by age 70, i.e. don’t run for a first term if you’re already over age 62. Biden is 77 and Harris is 55 and she’s already been in the Senate since 2017 after working her way though other high-level state offices - good balance.

In terms of identity, the Democratic Party still has a lot of white male leaders while white males are a minority of typical party voters, so it was important in a big-picture sense to have more leaders who are women, people of color, or both. It’s not about “racism” or “sexism,” but representation and making an effort to have our party leadership look like the party membership. Stating the obvious, she is a she, she’s black and Indian, and the daughter of two immigrants. He is a he, white, and of longer American-born lineage - good balance.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2020 at 4:31 PM, nsplayr said:

I know you meant this snidely, but Biden picked Harris. Good choice IMHO, she was my fav of the people Biden apparently had on his shortlist. Smart, tough debater, good campaigner, previously vetted, current holder of high office, the proper age to balance the ticket.

“Previously vetted.”  You sure about that? By whom? What’s to say the Trump campaign doesn’t have a surprise skeleton to reveal about her come October? Sure would be karma after the Kavanaugh debacle. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two good things for America, I believe.  One yesterday, one today.

Yesterday, the current Administration announced it had brokered a deal for diplomatic relations establishment between UAE and Israel.  That's a very significant development.

Today, the first guilty plea occured in the Obamagate investigation.  An FBI lawyer pled guilty to intentionally altering a document that was used to renew, again, one of the bogus FISA applications on the Trump campaign.

While I'm too cynical to believe that any of those "too big to fail" will ever perform a perp walk, that fact that a worker bee is being held accountable might, just maybe, be a hindarance for future wannabe hop on board the corruption train riders in our government.  I do hope there will be more such items to follow.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2020 at 2:02 PM, nsplayr said:In terms of identity, the Democratic Party still has a lot of white male leaders while white males are a minority of typical party voters, so it was important in a big-picture sense to have more leaders who are women, people of color, or both. It’s not about “racism” or “sexism,” but representation and making an effort to have our party leadership look like the party membership. Stating the obvious, she is a she, she’s black and Indian, and the daughter of two immigrants. He is a he, white, and of longer American-born lineage - good balance.

I disagree on any emphasis on race or gender or any discriminator.  It's divisive.  The individual is the ultimate minority.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billy pilgrim said:

I disagree on any emphasis on race or gender or any discriminator.  It's divisive.  The individual is the ultimate minority.

Cool story bro.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/14/2020 at 12:29 PM, brickhistory said:

Two good things for America, I believe.  One yesterday, one today.

Yesterday, the current Administration announced it had brokered a deal for diplomatic relations establishment between UAE and Israel.  That's a very significant development.

Today, the first guilty plea occured in the Obamagate investigation.  An FBI lawyer pled guilty to intentionally altering a document that was used to renew, again, one of the bogus FISA applications on the Trump campaign.

While I'm too cynical to believe that any of those "too big to fail" will ever perform a perp walk, that fact that a worker bee is being held accountable might, just maybe, be a hindarance for future wannabe hop on board the corruption train riders in our government.  I do hope there will be more such items to follow.

His problem was that he wasn’t friends with the President.


 

7B53EB23-9E9F-4EAE-B2DF-E47083F0C4A1.jpeg

Edited by Sua Sponte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

A. He's not "my boy."  I think Stone is a loathsome human being.  

B. You really aren't very good at this.

Roger Stone arrest raid conveniently covered by CNN. &nbsp;A full-up tactical team to take down a old man. &nbsp;Nice...

Of course he’s not your boy, now. Doesn’t fit your narrative. Go back to your echo chamber. Uh, the Feds don’t come to your door with one agent and ask you to come out nicely.

Edited by Sua Sponte
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2020 at 10:47 AM, hindsight2020 said:

*yawn* this whole discussion is a same ol same ol. Two neoliberal corporatist cartels squabbling over labels and cultural issues that don't put food on the table, yai. "Normie" Americans get what they vote for.

Personally I don't mind either corporatist cartel, as long as I keep getting paid and making money, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2020 at 11:29 PM, brickhistory said:

Two good things for America, I believe.  One yesterday, one today.

Yesterday, the current Administration announced it had brokered a deal for diplomatic relations establishment between UAE and Israel.  That's a very significant development.

Today, the first guilty plea occured in the Obamagate investigation.  An FBI lawyer pled guilty to intentionally altering a document that was used to renew, again, one of the bogus FISA applications on the Trump campaign.

While I'm too cynical to believe that any of those "too big to fail" will ever perform a perp walk, that fact that a worker bee is being held accountable might, just maybe, be a hindarance for future wannabe hop on board the corruption train riders in our government.  I do hope there will be more such items to follow.

A third good thing: Bannon's arrest for fraud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/512938-trump-asks-supreme-court-to-let-him-block-critics-on-twitter

 

This is super interesting to me. It has implications beyond just the office of president. For example, the Army just faced a ton of backlash for using the social media platform Twitch to target their recruitment efforts towards adolescents who are into video games. They began banning users who started trolling the stream with comments about war crimes committed by the US military. This was found to be unlawful by several watch dogs as a first amendment violation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in Obamagate news:

On Friday, former CIA Director Brennan was interviewed for eight (8) hours by the Durham investigation of how/why the whole thing went down.

There are several notes to ponder:

1. An attorney for Brennan not present at the interview and not using any direct quotes from Brennan states "he's not a target" and that Brennan questioned the intent of the investigation as a political witchhunt.

There was no such statement, or any for that matter, by the Durham investigators.  No leaks either.  I seem to remember one or two when it was Trump under the microscope...

2. The interview was conducted at CIA HQ in Langley vs main DOJ in downtown DC.  That makes the jurisdiction for any potential crimes resulting from this interview, i.e., lying to federal officials, a matter for the Eastern District Court of Virginia instead of the DC District Court.  One jurisdiction is historically much more lenient regarding senior federal officials being indicted and/or convicted than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...