Politics and in-fighting. Which I guess is just politics. Or infighting

Topic

I’m not sure any of the democratic candidates really would want the job after the effects of the pandemic. The DNC can select anyone it likes, right? Maybe Elizabeth Warren will end up the surprise pick.

Replies

I do wonder what would happen if Joe were to withdraw.

I really do worry they’re handing Trump a win with Joe Biden. Not just because of his mental fitness, but more importantly because of Tara Reade and the many other stories of inappropriateness slowly coming to the light. There will be more of this, I have no doubt.

Trump can weather this kind of thing because his voters don’t give a shit. If it was proven that he’d raped multiple women Weinstein style, it still wouldn’t hurt him politically. But his people will use this with Biden to have the left tear itself apart. Again. It’s going to be terrible.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4ag95p/the-woman-accusing-biden-of-sexual-assault-filed-a-report-to-police-heres-what-you-need-to-know

I hope he picks Warren as VP. Then she can just take over when he falls apart and withdraws.

(Is that what Could happen, theoretically, I wonder?)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will_C

Biden will pick Hilary Clinton because it’s the ultimate in Democrat stupidity.

1 user thanked author for this post.

That’d be the perfect suicide ticket. I can almost see them doing it.

But if that happened, I am pretty sure the skies would open up and Obama would descend riding a winged horse, sword in hand, to save us all*.

—

*This vision is dedicated to 2010 Jim O’Hara.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

Riding a drone, surely?

5 users thanked author for this post.

Andy, Will_C, Todd, lorcan_nagle

The thing is, the Democrats don’t mind if they lose the election.  They get more money from donators, the vested interests they support are supported by the Republicans anyway, and they can make a whole load of talk about hashtag resist to further radicalise their supporters, and material conditions will continue to erode for marginalised people.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Will_C

That doesn’t make all that much sense.

Well, do you see any of these candidates really wanting to become president in the middle of an ongoing economic, medical, political and global catastrophe?

1 user thanked author for this post.

There’s of one democratic candidate.

Being kind to Lorcans politics l I just think that statement is a bunch of anarchic anti-establishment broadstrokes hyperbole with no basis j  fact whatsoever.

The narrative that the corporate world runs some kind of homogenized political game where every one is bought and paid for and passing policy based on their big donors who are a ultimately the same because capitalism is bad and profit triumphs over basic human rights is a little fantastical from where I am.

I’m not going to move to debunk this because it’s clearly a belief set, but I do think it’s absolute rubbish and completely ignores any and all detail.

Name one thing the Democrats have done to fix the systemic problems in the US then, Tim.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Will_C, Todd

I’m sorry to come across as unnecessarily harsh here but we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I respect you and the strength in which you hold your political opinion but I think it’s fundamentally misinformed and conveniently vague.

Probably the less I say here the better and in the spirit if maintaining an upbeat mood to the board, let’s just shake hands and walk away.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Name one thing the Democrats have done to fix the systemic problems in the US then, Tim.

Civil Rights

Health Care Reform

Todd wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Name one thing the Democrats have done to fix the systemic problems in the US then, Tim.

Civil Rights

Health Care Reform

To clarify, I meant recently, but Civil Rights is a good example of how they’ll do the right thing, but only when there’s overwhelming support, and then only reluctantly.  It took massive grassroots activism, and the threat of violence on the streets for King to be taken seriously.

And if by healthcare reform, the ACA is a joke.  Better than what came before it, but in the way that having your arms broken is better than having your arms and legs broken.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will_C

lorcan_nagle wrote:

it’s the ultimate in Democrat stupidity.

And hilarity.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And if by healthcare reform, the ACA is a joke. Better than what came before it, but in the way that having your arms broken is better than having your arms and legs broken.

What did you expect to happen with that? A perfect system right out of the gate? That’s naïve at best. It was always going to be a victim of compromise with the Republicans and special interests involved in order to get it passed. It was always meant to be a first step. And the Republicans were always going to work to gut it. Millions got insurance that would never have had it.

[lorcan_nagle]

Todd wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And if by healthcare reform, the ACA is a joke. Better than what came before it, but in the way that having your arms broken is better than having your arms and legs broken.

What did you expect to happen with that? A perfect system right out of the gate? That’s naïve at best. It was always going to be a victim of compromise with the Republicans and special interests involved in order to get it passed. It was always meant to be a first step. And the Republicans were always going to work to gut it. Millions got insurance that would never have had it.

I expected it to be an utter shitshow because I have no faith in the American political parties to actually do anything for the American people.

There was no need for compromise, the Democrats held both Congress and the Senate at the time.  But even leaving that aside getting more Americans health insurance doesn’t fix anything because the reliance on health insurance is the problem in the first place. They’re still gonna get hit with massive bills that lead to bankruptcy, they’re still having to depend on crowdfunding to pay for life-saving procedures. And this is all because no matter which party was in power, they were gonna make sure profits were impacted as little as possible.

Honestly, you all should be rioting in the streets over this.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by lorcan_nagle.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by lorcan_nagle.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Will_C

Anonymous wrote:

Well, do you see any of these candidates really wanting to become president in the middle of an ongoing economic, medical, political and global catastrophe?

Some are seeing it as an opportunity rather than a crisis.

Love to have my health tied to how profitable I can be for CEOs

5 users thanked author for this post.

Andy, Todd, garjones, lorcan_nagle

To clarify, I think that in these trying times, if you are going to riot, be responsible and riot at least six feet apart from your fellows.  This has the advantage of making the riot seem much, much bigger than it is.

5 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd, Will_C, Dave

Antisocial distancing?

7 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Todd, garjones, Christian, Will_C, lorcan_nagle

[lorcan_nagle]

lorcan_nagle wrote:

There was no need for compromise, the Democrats held both Congress and the Senate at the time.  But even leaving that aside getting more Americans health insurance doesn’t fix anything because the reliance on health insurance is the problem in the first place. They’re still gonna get hit with massive bills that lead to bankruptcy, they’re still having to depend on crowdfunding to pay for life-saving procedures. And this is all because no matter which party was in power, they were gonna make sure profits were impacted as little as possible.

Yeah, I know a few doctors who often express concern at the number of people who have no medical expertise but who they have to go through to treat their patients. Even calling it “insurance” is incorrect since most health care policies that people use are actually contracts to manage payments rather than provide any payment for health care. Most health insurance companies actually have no monetary risk involved when providing “coverage.”

If we had to go through our car insurance to fix a flat or home insurance to change a light switch or fix the HVAC the way we go through health plans for any medical procedure – even a physical, it would cost twice as much and take twice as long to get anything done.

Again, though, health insurance is not really insurance for the vast majority of work that’s done in the United States. Usually, your work is paying the money for your medical care (or the government if you’re a senior) and the insurance company is really just processing the payment and claiming they can get better deals. However, in nations where insurance and health plans are not normal and the hospitals process the payments themselves, the care is just as good and costs a tenth as much. Even in nations where there is no national medical plan.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by lorcan_nagle.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

That’s the other thing – US health insurance seems to be designed to obfuscate and deny support as often as possible, and to justify the exorbitant price of medication and procedures in hospital (like hundreds of dollars for an over-the-counter asprin).

By comparison I have private insurance via work, it covers Laura and I to a decent amount for an extra €30 or so per month, which I don’t get taxed on. We don’t use it very often, but Laura needed foot surgery a few years ago.  It would have been a couple of grand uninsured or waiting months for a slot with public healthcare as it wasn’t urgent care.  With insurance we wound up paying €100 or so for anaesthetic, and €200 up front, which we were able to claim back €100 of just by submitting the receipt to the insurance company. Similarly I had to pay €300 to see a specialist last year, got €200 back from insurance just by submitting the receipt.  No questions asked, no fighting back.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Miqque, Will_C

Yes the cost differential is astonishing. The system in Malaysia is they have General Hospital which is heavily subsidised (and I mean heavily, often treatments are like USD2-5, so almost free) but most middle class types will have an insurance policy from work and use private hospitals.

9 years ago Aris and I both had sons born a day or so apart. His cost for the birth was 11 times higher than mine and his wife was on a general ward while we splashed out for a private room that came with free candlelit dinner! (the food was awful but still).

It’s an argument of mine that often fell on deaf ears here when people like to argue between the NHS and private healthcare, I was making a comparison between private and private and while yes the cost of living is cheaper here it is nowhere near 11 times cheaper and yet that’s the cost with a better service.

The US system hoovers up incredible sums of money with no real justification so it’s no surprise the people that are beneficiaries of that have no interest in it changing.

 

6 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, DavidM, Dave, Will_C, lorcan_nagle

So, we’re at the point where view new post seems to break, gonna close this thread, and maybe see if I can move the last page or so’s worth of posts to a new one.

1 user thanked author for this post.

garjones

I don’t know if Miqque has heard this but FEMA confiscated(?) 6000 ventilators the Governor of Colorado, a Democrat, purchased with state funds. The next day, a Republican Senator, who is running for Governor, has a press conference where he donates 6000 ventilators to Colorado hospitals. My brother told me this story yesterday while we wishing each other Happy Easter. Yesterday morning, the Governor got on TV to tell everyone what had happened.

IMO, Dirty Politics has broken our government.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, lorcan_nagle, Todd

Something for Trump to be proud of though. March 2020 was the first March for 18 years there wasn’t a school shooting in the USA.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Daniel R, Todd, Dave, DavidM, lorcan_nagle

[lorcan_nagle]

To tie back in to what I was saying about the Democrats being fine with losing an election, this is the UK and Labour, but it’s the same principle.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html

<p style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 19px; line-height: 27px; font-family: ‘Independent Serif’, serif; vertical-align: baseline; color: #222222;”>Labour party officials opposed to Jeremy Corbyn worked to lose the 2017 general election in the hope that a bad result would trigger a leadership contest to oust him, a dossier drawn up by the party suggests.</p>
<p style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 19px; line-height: 27px; font-family: ‘Independent Serif’, serif; vertical-align: baseline; color: #222222;”>A huge cache of leaked WhatsApp messages and emails show senior officials from the party’s right wing, who worked at its HQ, became despondent as Labour climbed in the polls during the election campaign despite their efforts.</p>
<p style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 19px; line-height: 27px; font-family: ‘Independent Serif’, serif; vertical-align: baseline; color: #222222;”>The unreleased report, which The Independent has seen in full, was drawn up in the last days of Mr Corbyn’s leadership and concerns the conduct of certain officials, including some who were investigating cases of antisemitism in the party. Labour has confirmed the document is a genuine draft, though it is not clear who it was commissioned or written by.</p>

<p style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 19px; line-height: 27px; font-family: ‘Independent Serif’, serif; vertical-align: baseline; color: #222222;”>The 860-page document claims that “an abnormal intensity of factional opposition to the party leader” had “inhibited the proper functioning of the Labour Party bureaucracy” and contributed to “a litany of mistakes” in dealing with antisemitism, which it admits was a serious problem in the party.</p>
<p style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 19px; line-height: 27px; font-family: ‘Independent Serif’, serif; vertical-align: baseline; color: #222222;”>But the Campaign Against Antisemitism said the document was a “desperate last-ditch attempt to deflect and discredit allegations” and amounted to “an attempt to imagine a vast anti-Corbyn conspiracy”.</p>

 

The centrist/neoliberal wings of the Democrats and Labour would prefer to lose an election than to win with a social democrat like Sanders or Corbyn at the helm, who would try and push through meaningful change.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by lorcan_nagle.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will_C

garjones wrote:

Something for Trump to be proud of though. March 2020 was the first March for 18 years there wasn’t a school shooting in the USA.

Guns don’t cause school shootings, schools cause school shootings.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, DavidM, lorcan_nagle

Bernie has officially endorsed Biden.

No way, I can’t believe the dems are going to go with Biden. I think they might try to do some crazy thing at the last instance, like maybe tossing Oprah into the ring or Michelle. They know they will lose with crazy uncle Joe.

Yes, but they’re OK with that.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will_C

Yeah don’t vote for the Democrats t. Boo democrats they don’t want to win. They just want to make money somehow from not-winning. Only Sanders could have saved us! Grass Roots are two words that mean things apparently!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah don’t vote for the Democrats t. Boo democrats they don’t want to win. They just want to make money somehow from not-winning. Only Sanders could have saved us! Grass Roots are two words that mean things apparently!

The Democrats have to offer something other than “we’re not Trump” to win.  It wasn’t enough 4 years ago and it won’t be enough in November. It’s always easier to get someone to vote for something rather than against it.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Will_C

Setting aside the occasional disbelief I find myself in in this thread.  Has anyone given some thought to what positions might be offered to some of the former democratic candidates in the White House?

Perhaps their might be some relief found for a subset of voters if Elizabeth Warren was made Secretary of the Treasury, Bernie Sanders was made SecHUD, or SecHAHS, or Secretary of Commerce or Secretary of Labour… there would be a new person put in charge of the EPA of course.  It’s entirely possible the narrative could be to present an entire cabinet pick moving into November which could galvanise the voters, particularly because everyone has know endorsed Biden.  Of course, I don’t expect the Sanders subset to be happy with him in just a lowly old Cabinet Secretary position, but he could do significant good in virtually any role and more so than already as senator.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Christian

[Christian]

lorcan_nagle wrote:

The Democrats have to offer something other than “we’re not Trump” to win.  It wasn’t enough 4 years ago and it won’t be enough in November. It’s always easier to get someone to vote for something rather than against it.

I did argue the same logic when it was still an open race. But it’s not anymore. It’s Biden or Trump now.

So the American voters better get their shit together because Trump can cause a lot more damage in four years, and Biden is at the least going to be a competent fucking president.

Sanders knows that, which is why he has endorsed Biden. If voting against Trump really isn’t enough for the average American voter, well, they are going to suffer for it.

That said, I hope Biden is smart enough to pick Warren as VP. That’d make a hell of a difference, I think. But it’s probably going to be Klobuchar.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Christian.

[Christian]

Christian wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

The Democrats have to offer something other than “we’re not Trump” to win.  It wasn’t enough 4 years ago and it won’t be enough in November. It’s always easier to get someone to vote for something rather than against it.

I did argue the same logic when it was still an open race. But it’s not anymore. It’s Biden or Trump now.

So the American voters better get their shit together because Trump can cause a lot more damage in four years, and Biden is at the least going to be a competent fucking president.

Sanders knows that, which is why he has endorsed Biden. If voting against Trump really isn’t enough for the average American voter, well, they are going to suffer for it.

That said, I hope Biden is smart enough to pick Warren as VP. That’d make a hell of a difference, I think. But it’s probably going to be Klobuchar.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Christian.

If I was an American, I’d probably be voting for Biden from a principal of harm reduction, but really that’s all it is.  I mean, sure the Republicans might make an attempt to overturn Roe Vs Wade in the next 4 years – but Abortion is practically illegal everywhere that would outright ban it already, and the Democrats sure aren’t trying to fix that, so what’s the material difference? If Trump successfully guts the USPS in the next couple of months, is Biden gonna bring it back?

A significant number of Americans don’t see the point of voting – more than in most countries when you look at percentage turnout.  It’s a mix of indifference and alienation. You have to get them excited.  Telling them to cop on won’t work. Biden’s plan is apparently to appeal to Never Trump Republicans, on the principal that these people will vote for a competent “centrist” president (never mind that Trump has massive approval numbers with Republicans and every outspoken Never Trump type in the Republican party got in line as soon as he was the nominee), and the left will too just to get rid of Trump.  But to a huge chunk of the actual American left, Biden is just Trump, but slightly less destructive.

He’s got credible sexual assault allegations, just like Trump – and a load of Biden supporters who were all-in on MeToo and went heavily after Brett Kavanaugh for his sexual assault allegations are quietly scrubbing their social media or just downplaying Tara Reede with the exact same rhetoric Republicans used against Christine Blasey Ford, safe in the knowledge that they won’t get called on it by their fellows. So why should anyone who feels passionate about domestic violence reform and aiding sexual assault victims vote for Biden, or even trust the Democrats ever again?

He’s said that even if a Medicare for all bill was to pass Congress and the Senate, he’d veto it.  So why should anyone passionate about healthcare reform vote for him?

He may not have been as excessively anti-immigrant as Trump, but the one Obama program Trump hasn’t gone to town on is his expansion of ICE.  In fact, Trump is still lagging behind Obama in total deportations somehow.  And those camps on the Mexican border that various human rights organisations have literally called concentration camps?  Obama opened most of those, and ICE put kids in cages under his watch too.  Under Trump, ICE has become a heavily militarised force that goes into migrant communities at will, rounds people up and imprisons them.  Biden’s not going to put that genie back in the bottle, so why should people passionate about migrant’s rights vote for him? Hell, when asked that exact question by a migrant’s rights activist in a town hall meeting, Biden told him to vote for someone else.

Voting in the US is hard as hell for a lot of people, it’s common in districts with a lot of poor, young, migrant or minority inhabitants frequently having lines that take hours, with a strong possibility that you’ll discover you’ve been stricken off the registrar, were never registered in the first place, or otherwise be denied your right to vote.  If all you’re being offered is “Biden isn’t as bad as Trump”, why would you put yourself through that?  Because he’s not going to work to fix it.

4 years ago, a higher percentage of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton than Clinton supporters did for Obama in 2008, and the reward they got for it was the blame for Trump’s election, they were told they split the party, that they need to compromise and build a coalition. But there’s been no compromise from the centrist/neoliberal side of the party as well.  They act entitled to the votes of progressives and leftists because who else are they going to vote for?  And the answer is nobody. Or maybe the Green party in an attempt to get them to 5% of the national vote.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will_C

lorcan_nagle wrote:

If I was an American, I’d probably be voting for Biden from a principal of harm reduction, but really that’s all it is.

And that should be enough. There is a lot of harm another Trump/Republican admin can do, and not just in single cases but overall to the system.

But I do think there is also a hope that Biden is going to recognise that the left-leaning part of the Democrats has grown and that he has to incorporate that into his policies. Maybe.

Like I said, Warren for VP would be a great signal.

That’s absolute rubbish.  Biden’s policy platform is the most progressive platform of a democratic (presumed) nominee ever.  Moreso than Obama.  It’s not as progressive as Sanders or Warren’s platforms but it’s a fuckload better then what we’ve ever had previously.  That’s a fact.  Have a look at it.  It’s not trying to return the country to some status quo pre-Obama or even Obama-current, but I do understand the frustration that it “not being what Sanders wanted” but that doesn’t mean the entire platform is completely neglible, or some kind of neo-con platform.  It also doesn’t suggest that Democrats are priming themselves for (or desiring) a loss and I have no idea how one could reasonably come to that conclusion.

I like the idea of a Biden Team of Rivals and the narrative that a democratic cabinet is going to be awash with malaise while trying to return to some fictional status quo completely ignores the policy platform that Biden is running on.

And that should be enough. There is a lot of harm another Trump/Republican admin can do, and not just in single cases but overall to the system.

 

Take it up with human psychology?

 

That’s absolute rubbish. 

Does repeatedly insulting and belittling the people you disagree with usually get them to change their minds?

You’re never going to agree with me but I don’t believe your post is factual notwithstanding it has examples. I get no one wants to hear that their opinion isnt based on fact but this is where we are.

Surprisingly you might find you and I have similar political ideals but perhaps  just don’t think burning it all down and starting again is the right way to achieve them.

I don’t believe your post is factual notwithstanding it has examples.

I get no one wants to hear that their opinion isnt based on fact but this is where we are.

You literally wrote these sentences beside one another.

1 user thanked author for this post.

One of my refrains for a while is that we overestimate the single personality in these things. I think Bernie and the Bros have scored significant gains even if he won’t be President. The elected Democrat officials have moved to his side, I don’t believe they will allow or give the votes to Biden to be the man who once voted of being the most right wing Democrat in office.

Similarly in the UK there’s much teeth gnashing that the ‘Trotskyist’ Corbyn has been replaced by ‘Blairite’ Starmer. There’s not a massive amount of substance to that, a fair degree is about the way they present themselves. Corbyn’s policies were never that radical, they were pretty common sense social democracy and Starmer’s, from what we’ve seen so far, aren’t so far much removed. (And Starmer actually has the working class background).

Admittedly that’s not as Stark a difference as Bernie to Biden but a key element is that the direction of play is rarely down to a person and rarely down to an election, it’s a narrative that gets driven over time. It’s why Corbyn’s taxation policies were actually economically to the right of those in place under Margaret Thatcher. Sanders to Eisenhower the same.

We should be careful that cult of personality (and that counts equally on both sides even if the media like to only frame it for the left) doesn’t take precedence over a direction of travel.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, lorcan_nagle

garjones wrote:

One of my refrains for a while is that we overestimate the single personality in these things. I think Bernie and the Bros have scored significant gains even if he won’t be President. The elected Democrat officials have moved to his side, I don’t believe they will allow or give the votes to Biden to be the man who once voted of being the most right wing Democrat in office.

Similarly in the UK there’s much teeth gnashing that the ‘Trotskyist’ Corbyn has been replaced by ‘Blairite’ Starmer. There’s not a massive amount of substance to that, a fair degree is about the way they present themselves. Corbyn’s policies were never that radical, they were pretty common sense social democracy and Starmer’s, from what we’ve seen so far, aren’t so far much removed. (And Starmer actually has the working class background).

Admittedly that’s not as Stark a difference as Bernie to Biden but a key element is that the direction of play is rarely down to a person and rarely down to an election, it’s a narrative that gets driven over time. It’s why Corbyn’s taxation policies were actually economically to the right of those in place under Margaret Thatcher. Sanders to Eisenhower the same.

We should be careful that cult of personality (and that counts equally on both sides even if the media like to only frame it for the left) doesn’t take precedence over a direction of travel.

 

This is part of why Sanders is remaining on the ballot for the Primaries and asking his supporters to still go out and vote for him where it’s safe to do, even though he’s supporting Biden as the nominee.  He wants to have as many delegates as possible going into the DNC to try and influence the manifesto and improve the party’s internal policies.

Not sure how much good it’ll do, but it shows that he’s always going to do his best with what he has.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

I don’t believe your post is factual notwithstanding it has examples.

I get no one wants to hear that their opinion isnt based on fact but this is where we are.

You literally wrote these sentences beside one another.

Good one! Ten points.

Your examples omit key pieces of information which makes their inferences untrue and the ultimate conclusion therefore cannot be said to be factual.

Biden said he would veto Medicare for A if there wasn’t a way to justify the price tag and has long since championed further reforms to the ACA at  etc.

I dont care to do this, and I don’t particularly love him, but the narrative that Biden is some kind of neo-con recalcitrant just does not two with the policies he’s campaigning on so im well within my space to call out posts ro the contrary.

What Gar is saying now was raised by me earlier in relation  to McGovern so I make that comment to remind you that being oppositional isnt my default.  It just doesn’t appear to me that you’ve read Bidens platform at all and are just reading anti-Biden soundbite stuff which will naturally provide a fairly insular view.

I particularly take umbrage with the idea that the democrats *want* to lose for some profit related reason to do with their donors or something.  That just seems like a bridge to far for me and I’ll call that out just ad much as I would for our occasional right-wing conspiracy leaning posters.

I like and respect you, Lorcan, but I will still scrutinise your posts if this is the way you think.

<p style=”background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px; font-size: 14px; line-height: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif;”>Your examples omit key pieces of information which makes their inferences untrue and the ultimate conclusion therefore cannot be said to be factual.</p>

And you continue to fail to provide key pieces of information that refute any facts to begin with, preferring to dismiss or ignore examples and then claim I am not factual.

<p style=”background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px; font-size: 14px; line-height: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif;”>Biden said he would veto Medicare for A if there wasn’t a way to justify the price tag and has long since championed further reforms to the ACA at  etc.</p>

This is basically what you just accused me of, because it’s Biden offering bullshit to cover his opinion.  M4A as currently proposed has been shown to be cheaper than the current US government spend on healthcare.  Further reforms to the ACA is standard politician equivocating.  You can claim that yes, he said more than he would veto M4A and be literally correct, but the message is clear.

<p style=”background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px; font-size: 14px; line-height: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif;”>I particularly take umbrage with the idea that the democrats *want* to lose for some profit related reason to do with their donors or something.  That just seems like a bridge to far for me and I’ll call that out just ad much as I would for our occasional right-wing conspiracy leaning posters.</p>

Well first of all, if you’re getting offended on behalf of a politcal party, maybe you need to recheck your priorities.  Second of all, we’ve literally just seen an expose of factions inside a nominally left-wing party actively sabotaging attempts to get their candidate elected, and while that wasn’t the Democrats the idea that the same thing couldn’t possibly have happened is naive at best. Thirdly, I didn’t say it was a “profit related reason or something”, I said that one aspect of why the Democrats don’t mind losing elections is because they do get more donations when they’re out of power.

I like and respect you, Lorcan, but I will still scrutinise your posts if this is the way you think

If this is the attitude and level of condescension you use in the future you’ll find I rapidly stop caring what you think.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will_C

Donations have to be used for campaigns. They’re traceable and there are campaign finance laws (which admittedly Trump breaks).

I dont agree with you Lorcan. I’m not going to bother sniping particular points because going to politifact can do it for me and I care less about winning an argument than refuting half-truths.  I’m sure you’ll find this condescending, but if you want a political education there are books and websites out there that will do it better then any post I might make.

You dont have to care what I think but unless you ban me for this website you should be open to the idea that your political opinion may be challenged, even if its in this way.

Anonymous wrote:

Donations have to be used for campaigns. They’re traceable and there are campaign finance laws (which admittedly Trump breaks).

I dont agree with you Lorcan. I’m not going to bother sniping particular points because going to politifact can do it for me and I care less about winning an argument than refuting half-truths.  I’m sure you’ll find this condescending, but if you want a political education there are books and websites out there that will do it better then any post I might make.

You dont have to care what I think but unless you ban me for this website you should be open to the idea that your political opinion may be challenged, even if its in this way.

Just so you know Tim, this is the last time I’ll be replying to you about politics.  The idea that I don’t read books about politics when I’ve cited books we’ve both read to you in conversation here says it all about your attitude.  This isn’t challenging an opinion, it’s creating a false narrative about me in your head and arguing against that Lorcan instead of this one here.

And quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

Okay.  I like books too. I’m glad we agree on that.

For the record, I didn’t mean that you didn’t read books (I know you like Noam Chomsky too) just that there are good history books full of American politics and discussions on the mechanics of implementing progressive policies and plenty of websites and scholars scrutinizing the current candidates and past candidates. They do it better then I could and it doesn’t feel like you’ve read the same things that I have.

I’m a bit sad you won’t reply to my posts anymore but thats fine.  I’ll continue my lifelong mission to convince the internet that compromised political views is the only realistic way forward and to surrender all your ideals for the good of moderate inconsequential federal governance.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, lorcan_nagle

2 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Dave

But I was about to say something.

Was it about pandas, by chance?

Just from logistics and likely restrictions in place in November, assuming the election isn’t postponed entirely, I can’t believe that voter turnout will be very high. I have to think that will hurt democrats more than republicans, but Trump’s victory had an unusually high voter turnout in the swing states so maybe it won’t be such a big deal.

Is the left/right split as hugely influenced by age demographic as in the UK? I know it is to a degree but it massively stark in the UK.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

garjones wrote:

Is the left/right split as hugely influenced by age demographic as in the UK? I know it is to a degree but it massively stark in the UK.

 

It’s incredibly stark, even within the Democratic Primaries younger people voted overwhelmingly for Sanders.

It’ll be interesting how that plays out then if they insist on postal votes being suspect and no real prospect of the 70+ category being encouraged to go out until a vaccine exists.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Christian wrote:

That said, I hope Biden is smart enough to pick Warren as VP. That’d make a hell of a difference, I think. But it’s probably going to be Klobuchar.

Warren would be a HUGE mistake. It boils down to her being too old. Biden is already too old. It’s really bad optics to have two old people running for the “progressive” party. I’m not sure about Klobuchar but Biden definitely needs someone a lot younger than him he n the ticket.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Warren is like seven years younger than him! ;)

Seriously though, there isn’t any younger choice that makes sense and would draw the progressives in. Buttigieg, Castro and Yang are all middle-of-the-road – basically Young Biden – plus I think he already hinted he wants a woman? Of the women who ran, Warren is really the only one who could get the progressives to the voting booths. Well, maybe Tulsi Gabbard, but she’d be an outside choice, comparatively light-weight and you’ve got the whole Clinton shit to deal with.

Just like Bernie, Warren is actually supported by a lot of young people – more so than the younger people who were in the running. Joe definitely won’t want to deal with Bernie at his side (plus that’d really be too much like a retirement home version of the Odd Couple), but I think he could work with Warren.

I think Biden has confirmed he’s going to have a woman run on the ticket so Yang, Buttigieg etc are out of the running.

Yup just checking and I was right: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/us/politics/joe-biden-female-vice-president.html

 

He’s also said he was considering a Republican, so you know if he’s not stupid enough to pick Hilary Clinton he will be stupid enough to pick Sarah Palin.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Obama’s endorsement video though rather emphasises what I wrote earlier today. He said he wouldn’t have run the same campaign today as he did in 2008. We know he wanted single payer healthcare because he said so initially, he felt (rightly or wrongly) it wouldn’t pass so went for national Romneycare instead.

We suspect strongly (but don’t know) he never gave a toss about opposing gay marriage but felt he couldn’t get elected at the time backing it. Which in may ways is cowardice but it happened anyway regardless of what was said.

So this is why I don’t ever think these things are about battles, but the war. Bernie lost the battle, so far seems to be winning the war of his ideas, which is actually more important.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, lorcan_nagle, Todd

[rory]

Anonymous wrote:

Just from logistics and likely restrictions in place in November, assuming the election isn’t postponed entirely, I can’t believe that voter turnout will be very high. I have to think that will hurt democrats more than republicans, but Trump’s victory had an unusually high voter turnout in the swing states so maybe it won’t be such a big deal.

the election can’t be posted. It’s literally written into the constitution when it must be held. It was held during three major wars and was deemed unconstitutional when Lincoln tried to postpone it during the civil war. Trump can’t continue his presidency past 1/20/21 if he isn’t re-elected.

 

lorcan_nagle wrote:

He’s also said he was considering a Republican, so you know if he’s not stupid enough to pick Hilary Clinton he will be stupid enough to pick Sarah Palin.

That was him just trying to seem to be a peacemaker and really exemplifies how little some people know about the rules of American politics.

Biden can’t pick a Republican running mate. Period. It’s not allowed. Anyone who remembers the 2004 election knows this because Kerry floated picking McCain as his running mate was told definitively that cross party tickets weren’t allowed.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by rory.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

rory wrote:

the constitution

 

That’s just a meaningless piece of paper under Trump. It can totally be postponed.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

rory wrote:

the election can’t be posted. It’s literally written into the constitution when it must be held. It was held during three major wars and was deemed unconstitutional when Lincoln tried to postpone it during the civil war. Trump can’t continue his presidency past 1/20/21 if he isn’t re-elected.

True, the term runs out irrespective if there is an election. However, if there is not an election, then we lose the President, Vice President, the House and a third of the Senate. So the senior member of the Senate’s majority party becomes president. However, Governors can appoint Senators pending an election so the Democrats would end up with the majority and Patrick Leahy is the senior Dem senator.

 

<video style=”border-radius: 0px; border: 0px; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; font-family: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: block; position: relative; z-index: -1; width: 480px; height: 392px; left: 0px; top: 0px;” src=”https://media.giphy.com/media/Mmzh0luGq7vGM/giphy.mp4&#8243; poster=”https://media.giphy.com/media/Mmzh0luGq7vGM/giphy_s.gif&#8221; autoplay=”autoplay” loop=”loop”>

<br class=”Apple-interchange-newline” />

</video>

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Andy, Todd

Biden will pick Harris, Sanders will be secretary of Labor and Warren will get the treasury and we can put this whole thing behind us…

Obama said nice things about Warrens eeconomic recovery plan so you can be sure as shit her ideas are still in.the game.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anonymous wrote:

and we can put this whole thing behind us…

Yes, because Trump is going to win the election.

I like that team. Sanders has been a tireless advocate for workers’ rights and disenfranchised, unheard voices for circa 40 odd years. If Biden doesn’t pick Kamala Harris, he’s a fool. Warren has a plan for everything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

and we can put this whole thing behind us…

Yes, because Trump is going to win the election.

No

Team of Rivals!

Team of Compassionate Experts!

Anonymous wrote:

No

Bet you twenty euros he will. I will deliver them personally if I lose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No

Bet you twenty euros he will. I will deliver them personally if I lose.

I had euros until that floppy-fuck ran us over with his Brexit bus.

I knew Trump had won when he stalked Mrs. But-Her-Emails round the stage.

He’s now trying to treat every press conference like a non-socially distance rally. He’s imploding.

We’re at a turning point.

Sanders tried to do too much at once, so did others like Warren in a more conciliatory way. The hardest thing any political campaign staffer has to learn is it should be all about the policies, but it isn’t.

If you can’t imagine a future where the likes of Capt. Trumps (I’m now thinking of King’s The Stand) loses then he wins. I check and triple-check facts because of my background and even I’m finding it hard to negotiate between all the deliberately created noise.

He’s done. He has to be. There is no plan B.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ben

Anonymous wrote:

We’re at a turning point.

Well yes, but from Democracy to Autocracy.

1 user thanked author for this post.

[Todd]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We’re at a turning point.

Well yes, but from Democracy to Autocracy.

I misread your post and thought you said “Democracy to Autobots”.

OPTIMUS PRIME FOR PRESIDENT!!!

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Todd.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Andy, Ben

Anonymous wrote:

Biden will pick Harris, Sanders will be secretary of Labor and Warren will get the treasury and we can put this whole thing behind us…

Obama said nice things about Warrens eeconomic recovery plan so you can be sure as shit her ideas are still in.the game.

as much as I like Harris I don’t think she’s the right pick for VP. Attorney general maybe but she brings nothing to the ticket as vp. Biden needs a VP that will either attract young voters or flip a purple state and Harris does neither of those.

1 user thanked author for this post.

I do agree with but the conventional wisdom says Biden will pick a black female running mate and she’s the best.  It’s only really Stacy Abrams or Val Demings and BlackPAC favours Harris.

If we’re just going by battleground states then people like Sherrod Brown or O Rourke would be in the draw but they’re obviously not.

All the signs here point towards Biden playing some identity politics as an attempt to galvanize the vote. He’s said he wants his cabinet to be representative of race, age and sexual orientation because it will “look like America” (his words).  For better or worse, this seems to be the play.

I dont know how he’ll fare in the battleground states if he picks Harris (or alternatively Demings or Abrams) but he does have a VP selection committee working through sll this so whoever he picks certainly won’t be an arbitrary choice.

the election can’t be posted. It’s literally written into the constitution when it must be held. It was held during three major wars and was deemed unconstitutional when Lincoln tried to postpone it during the civil war. Trump can’t continue his presidency past 1/20/21 if he isn’t re-elected.

 

Oh, I’ve got some bad news for you about the rule of law.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Anonymous wrote:

I do agree with but the conventional wisdom says Biden will pick a black female running mate and she’s the best.  It’s only reallys Stacy Abram or Val Demings and BlackPAC favours Harris.

 

Harris very aggressively attacked Biden as racist. I don’t know if it would be a good idea to go into an election with that on their backs. Also, it felt like Harris flunking out with nobody liking her very much, in the end. And it may be conventional wisdom, but I am not sure that Biden needs her; he did have the black vote in the caucuses. Pragmatically, he needs someone to bring in the progressives more than the black voters – who supported him over some of the the black candidates anyway.

Trump saying that he wants to cut US funding to the WHO is a pretty stark demonstration of how dangerous it can be to have someone like him as president.

All politicians are self-serving to some extent, but with him there’s a genuine sense that no price is too high for anything that offers him a perceived benefit.

Hopefully this latest attempt to shift the blame won’t stick and it’ll be quickly forgotten about.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben

• Christian wrote:

  Anonymous wrote:

  I do agree with but the conventional wisdom says Biden will pick a black female running mate and she’s the best.  It’s only reallys Stacy Abram or Val Demings and BlackPAC favours Harris.

   

  Harris very aggressively attacked Biden as racist. I don’t know if it would be a good idea to go into an election with that on their backs. Also, it felt like Harris flunking out with nobody liking her very much, in the end. And it may be conventional wisdom, but I am not sure that Biden needs her; he did have the black vote in the caucuses. Pragmatically, he needs someone to bring in the progressives more than the black voters – who supported him over some of the the black candidates anyway.

This is all absolutely true but the democrats take potshots at each other and historically it doesnt make them ineligible as a running mate. Kaine did it to Clinton etc etc.  Harris has endorsed Biden now so the idea is that it’s water and there is a bridge somewhere.

I’ve read commentary ti the affect of your post but she still appears to be BlackPACs choice.  Maybe JR or Al or someone can tell us whether or not that matters but my reading us that she might be seen to bring out black voters that may otherwise not vote (from, for example, Arizona).

It’s certainly true that she’s not from a battleground state and you don’t usually pick a VP unless they can demonstrably give you EC wins.  But I’m not sure there’s anyone that can do that and also fits the profile? You need a Texas senator, or Ohio, or someone from those states.

Demings is from Florida but I don’t think there’s any chance Florida will flip. Abrams is from Georgia but she seems to have less support recently for some reason.

In any case, whoever the VP pick is will be very telling in relation to what the Democrats see as their path to victory.

Of course there’s Warren, but I think there’s a fear that they’ll look too sensible Mum and funny old Dad when the ticket needs a bit of exuberance behins it.

 

[Todd]

Todd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We’re at a turning point.

Well yes, but from Democracy to Autocracy.

I misread your post and thought you said “Democracy to Autobots”.

OPTIMUS PRIME FOR PRESIDENT!!!

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Todd.

Right now, you need to apply Megatron – aka Benn – principles to Trump: Who gave him power? How do you get rid of him?

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

Yeah, I’m totally down with Megatron for president. He’d give some pretty intense speeches, for sure.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, lorcan_nagle

4 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Todd, Dave

Anonymous wrote:

He’s done. He has to be. There is no plan B.

B stands for Biden. Biden has had it pretty easy so far, and Pelosi was able to give him some space inadvertently by forcing Sanders and Warren to sit through the impeachment fiasco during some crucial points in the primary race. Then everyone suddenly capitulates. Sanders also refused to really fight Biden for the nomination or go after the Democratic leadership for their middle of the road bias. The race is going to get very ugly and I don’t think Biden is ready for it. Maybe if he refuses to debate Trump, he’ll have a better chance.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Will_C, lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

He’s done. He has to be. There is no plan B.

B stands for Biden. Biden has had it pretty easy so far, and Pelosi was able to give him some space inadvertently by forcing Sanders and Warren to sit through the impeachment fiasco during some crucial points in the primary race. Then everyone suddenly capitulates. Sanders also refused to really fight Biden for the nomination or go after the Democratic leadership for their middle of the road bias. The race is going to get very ugly and I don’t think Biden is ready for it. Maybe if he refuses to debate Trump, he’ll have a better chance.

However, the idea that Trump is his own worst enemy or that people will vote for anyone who’s not Trump is wishful thinking. More people will just not vote unless they are energized to and Biden is somewhat the most generic candidate the DNC could choose.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Hey man,

Whatchu…. dontchuthunk…. hey man Biden could take Trump on in a thousand – ten thousand – debate debates.

Why don’t we take it outside, Mac?

You’re wrong!

5 users thanked author for this post.

Andy, Will_C, Todd, lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

Biden is somewhat the most generic candidate the DNC could choose

SOMEWHAT? They had the most diverse line-up in the history of american politics, and they stilll went with a 77 year old male white millionaire.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Andy, Will_C, lorcan_nagle

WRONG!

CRAZY Uncle Joe is too CHICKEN to debate our GREAT President.

EVEN THE DUMB-O-CRATS DONT WANT HIM! SAD!

 

Warren’s now endorsed him.  Said some nice things too.

That two-faced harpy.

Anonymous wrote:

That two-faced harpy.

Don’t you mean dog-faced pony soldier? Or whatever senile attempts at insulting is topical.

 

About that bet: It stands as the equivalent of 200 SEK (20€, $20, 15£) and I’m saying Trump will win. Any takers?

1 user thanked author for this post.

I’m not sure that right now is the best time for Biden teams to get these endorsements, though. Covid is still the top news and it’s kinda a confused strategy going on. If they want Trump to look bad, then keep the attention on him and his messy reaction to the emergency. Then, when you lead up to the nomination in August start spacing out the nominations to build enthusiasm and energy.

 

Anonymous wrote:

If they want Trump to look bad, then keep the attention on him and his messy reaction to the emergency.

That kind of stuff has never damaged Trump. He thrives on attention, no matter what kind.

I say the opposite. I say the Democrats need to try and get people excited about their campaign as early as possible.

Excited… about creepy uncle Joe.

Oh dear.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Will_C, lorcan_nagle

Apparently whoever the President is has “Total” Authority”. I must have missed that during government studies.

Why does he insist on going on TV every day to make an ass of himself? Thank god pot is legal here!

3 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, Will_C, lorcan_nagle

Christian wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If they want Trump to look bad, then keep the attention on him and his messy reaction to the emergency.

That kind of stuff has never damaged Trump. He thrives on attention, no matter what kind.

I say the opposite. I say the Democrats need to try and get people excited about their campaign as early as possible.

Excited… about creepy uncle Joe.

Oh dear.

That’s what I’ve been saying!

 

Andy wrote:

Apparently whoever the President is has “Total” Authority”. I must have missed that during government studies.

Why does he insist on going on TV every day to make an ass of himself? Thank god pot is legal here!

The vast majority of Republican voters approve of his behaviour.  And the ones that don’t will still vote for him.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Andy, Todd

lorcan_nagle wrote:

That’s what I’ve been saying!

I know! A lot of us were saying that before the dems settled on Biden. But it’s done now!

WE HAVE TO GET FUCKING EXCITED NOW, MAN!!!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Christian wrote:

WE HAVE TO GET FUCKING EXCITED NOW, MAN!!!

QUICK! Grab a random female’s hair and smell it! There’s no time to lose!

2 users thanked author for this post.

Christian

Christian wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

That’s what I’ve been saying!

I know! A lot of us were saying that before the dems settled on Biden. But it’s done now!

WE HAVE TO GET FUCKING EXCITED NOW, MAN!!!

This is turning into a mandatory corporate fun event so fast.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, Andy, Todd

2 users thanked author for this post.

Andy, lorcan_nagle