US Politics: To Open or Not To Open, That's the Question

[DanteGabriel]

26 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I made some sweeping statements out of anger and grief that I shouldn't have. I was being baited, I knew I was being baited, and I let myself be baited. The BI piece in particular hit me pretty hard because of some specifics that won't make sense to anyone but me. I apologize for any sweeping statements I made, but I won't apologize for defending myself.

I'm sorry.

Thank you for that. I think I do understand your conflict. I've had my own dust-ups with some of the same people you're arguing with. I know feelings run hot in the US Politics threads, and it even took me a few minutes away from the screen just to get into a space to be civil with you after you apologized. That's why I was serious and not being dismissive when I suggested you take a break.

I didn't give you enough credit for the nuance you expressed in your other posts, so I apologize for my own role in reducing the complexity of your position. I more or less just forgot about that part when I got burned up about your sweeping and dismissive statements about "moderates" (which is a funny position to find myself in as an Elizabeth Warren supporter, and I think it would help you to consider how much the progressive wing has moved conversations to the left).

I don't have a problem with you defending yourself, I just ask that you remember that you're not the only one who hates this choice before us and feels damaged by having to make it, and that even "moderates" don't like Biden. Don't mistake our focus on beating Trump with comfort or enthusiasm for Biden.

[Fez]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Dude, if Biden was forced off of the ticket, and Sanders wasn't the selection, and there was some shadowy way of selecting the nominee, how do you think the Sanders bloc to behave? Or even the more moderate bloc if it was Sanders? 

It would be a complete shit show, and you all know it. This is all so self-destructive......

Michelle Obama by general acclimation at the virtual convention. She's the only one who could keep the party unified. But she'd never agree to it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Are you saying that the New York Times editorial staff and the DNC are literally one and the same?  Because that's certainly a Trump talking point, but I didn't think anyone would parrot it here. 

You're the evil parrot on @Jaime L's shoulder. Who knows which controls the other between you Racial Slurs fans. 

Probably @Ramsay B..

But especially @Fragile Bird!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Michelle Obama by general acclimation at the virtual convention. She's the only one who could keep the party unified. But she'd never agree to it.

And why doesn't Jesus Christ just walk on water as a parlor trick for all of us before flying off on a dragon while playing guitar to Purple Rain all while rolling the greatest blunt mankind has ever seen?

[Zorral]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Are you saying that the New York Times editorial staff and the DNC are literally one and the same?  Because that's certainly a Trump talking point, but I didn't think anyone would parrot it here. 

I am saying, as a very long time subscriber and reader of the NYT, that the DNC and NY Times interests and objectives are one and the same.  Recall this is the paper of record on WMD and Yellow Cake and the lying liars who 'reported' those stories.  Just for one instance.  I am also saying it is terribly irresponsible journalism at the very least in an age when journalism was still supposed to be a profession of neutrality, just reporting, to come out long before there were debates and electioneering insisting that Hillary was ALREADY THE ONE AND ONLY CANDIDATE.  And they wouldn't have done that unless the DNC was going along with it.

Plus YOU KNOW that is what I was saying, so why did you ask? Besides to express total pissyness for the sake of being pissy.

[DanteGabriel]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I am saying, as a very long time subscriber and reader of the NYT, that the DNC and NY Times interests and objectives are one and the same.  Recall this is the paper of record on WMD and Yellow Cake and the lying liars who 'reported' those stories.  Just for one instance.  I am also saying it is terribly irresponsible journalism at the very least in an age when journalism was still supposed to be a profession of neutrality, just reporting, to come out long before there were debates and electioneering insisting that Hillary was ALREADY THE ONE AND ONLY CANDIDATE.  And they wouldn't have done that unless the DNC was going along with it.

Plus YOU KNOW that is what I was saying, so why did you ask? Besides to express total pissyness for the sake of being pissy.

Wait, so the New York Times is devoted to doing the bidding of the DNC? Except for those exhaustively rehashed stories about Clinton's emails, I guess. And continuing to refuse to refer to Trump's lies as lies. And running endless stories about White Working Class Voters and their motivations.

[Bael's Bastard]

6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I am saying, as a very long time subscriber and reader of the NYT, that the DNC and NY Times interests and objectives are one and the same.  Recall this is the paper of record on WMD and Yellow Cake and the lying liars who 'reported' those stories.  Just for one instance.  I am also saying it is terribly irresponsible journalism at the very least in an age when journalism was still supposed to be a profession of neutrality, just reporting, to come out long before there were debates and electioneering insisting that Hillary was ALREADY THE ONE AND ONLY CANDIDATE.  And they wouldn't have done that unless the DNC was going along with it.

Plus YOU KNOW that is what I was saying, so why did you ask? Besides to express total pissyness for the sake of being pissy.

Riiiiight, like when the NYT a.k.a. DNC took our choices away, or else dared us to defy their mighty outstretched right hand, when they endorsed Warren and Klobuchar a few months ago. You are posting incoherent bullshit

[OnionAhaiReborn]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

LOL
 

Because size matters.

Dude, if Biden was forced off of the ticket, and Sanders wasn't the selection, and there was some shadowy way of selecting the nominee, how do you think the Sanders bloc to behave? Or even the more moderate bloc if it was Sanders? 

It would be a complete shit show, and you all know it. This is all so self-destructive......

I don't believe you actually laughed out loud at all, let alone that you laughed loudly enough to justify a LOL of that size.

But seriously, I think moderates would have a legitimate grievance if Sanders were chosen. It's clear to me that Biden won on the basis of moderate voters coalescing around him to reject Sanders. But he would not be chosen. 

As for Sanders voters, I think people are too comfortable making sweeping statements about what Sanders voters will do based, I guess, on some online interactions they've had with some Sanders voters. There would definitely be some angry, vocal people. But I think the vast majority would recognize how unique the circumstances were and come around, provided at least a little care was given to choosing a decent unity candidate.

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Plus YOU KNOW that is what I was saying, so why did you ask? Besides to express total pissyness for the sake of being pissy.

Because your position is ridiculous and needed to be called out.

[DanteGabriel]

Jesus, I should have trained my fire on Zorral's stupid-ass posts.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I don't believe you actually laughed out loud at all, let alone that you laughed loudly enough to justify a LOL of that size.

But seriously, I think moderates would have a legitimate grievance if Sanders were chosen. It's clear to me that Biden won on the basis of moderate voters coalescing around him to reject Sanders. But he would not be chosen. 

As for Sanders voters, I think people are too comfortable making sweeping statements about what Sanders voters will do based, I guess, on some online interactions they've had with some Sanders voters. There would definitely be some angry, vocal people. But I think the vast majority would recognize how unique the circumstances were and come around, provided at least a little care was given to choosing a decent unity candidate.

Kind of did.

Sanders supporters behavior only matters at the margins. Like if 70,000 in three states don't vote.

If Biden had to withdraw, Sanders would be the only viable option. Maybe Warren could be a unity candidate, but outside of them, there would be no other choice. How would Sanders voters take, for example, my old boss Amy being placed as the nominee? Think they could handle that?

I'll spare you the time: no. 

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I don't believe you actually laughed out loud at all, let alone that you laughed loudly enough to justify a LOL of that size.

But seriously, I think moderates would have a legitimate grievance if Sanders were chosen. It's clear to me that Biden won on the basis of moderate voters coalescing around him to reject Sanders. But he would not be chosen. 

As for Sanders voters, I think people are too comfortable making sweeping statements about what Sanders voters will do based, I guess, on some online interactions they've had with some Sanders voters. There would definitely be some angry, vocal people. But I think the vast majority would recognize how unique the circumstances were and come around, provided at least a little care was given to choosing a decent unity candidate.

I think you are vastly understating how angry Biden supporters would be in this scenario.  Just because they aren't on this forum doesn't mean they don't exist.  Black voters are (justifiably!) pretty sensitive to having their votes ignored, and Biden was overwhelmingly their pick. 

I'll pose this question to everyone, not just you.  If the DNC were to have some smoky backroom meeting, and come out and say "This year, the ticket will be Cuomo/Abrams", would you really feel good about that?  Because that sounds pretty damn undemocratic to me, and I didn't even vote for Biden.  Trump's "deep state" attack ads would write themselves. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I think you are vastly understating how angry Biden supporters would be in this scenario.  Just because they aren't on this forum doesn't mean they don't exist.  Black voters are (justifiably!) pretty sensitive to having their votes ignored, and Biden was overwhelmingly their pick. 

I'll pose this question to everyone, not just you.  If the DNC were to have some smoky backroom meeting, and come out and say "This year, the ticket will be Cuomo/Abrams", would you really feel good about that?  Because that sounds pretty damn undemocratic to me, and I didn't even vote for Biden.  Trump's "deep state" attack ads would write themselves. 

How good are the cigars?

Can we have blunts?

This would influence my thinking,

Plus will there be good scotch?

And what about the bribes? 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kind of did.

Sanders supporters behavior only matters at the margins. Like if 70,000 in three states don't vote.

If Biden had to withdraw, Sanders would be the only viable option. Maybe Warren could be a unity candidate, but outside of them, there would be no other choice. How would Sanders voters take, for example, my old boss Amy being placed as the nominee? Think they could handle that?

I'll spare you the time: no. 

So this brings me back around to something I said in my first post: "In any case, I don't see how a Democrat without this baggage could be a worse bet than Biden with the baggage."

You say Sanders' supporters behavior matters at the margins, ok. You think the baggage of a sexual assault allegation might matter at the margins? I certainly think so. I think that could easily cost 70,000 in three states. I think it could cost far more. So I still don't see the risk of replacing Biden as so greatly and obviously exceeding the risk of running him under the circumstances. 

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think you are vastly understating how angry Biden supporters would be in this scenario.  Just because they aren't on this forum doesn't mean they don't exist.  Black voters are (justifiably!) pretty sensitive to having their votes ignored, and Biden was overwhelmingly their pick. 

I'll pose this question to everyone, not just you.  If the DNC were to have some smoky backroom meeting, and come out and say "This year, the ticket will be Cuomo/Abrams", would you really feel good about that?  Because that sounds pretty damn undemocratic to me, and I didn't even vote for Biden.  Trump's "deep state" attack ads would write themselves. 

To some of this I just reiterate my point above: running Biden under the circumstances poses risk in itself and I'm not convinced the risk in replacing him exceeds that.

As for understating how angry Biden supporters would be, maybe, I suppose. But voters were pretty late in coalescing behind him in the first place (so I assume they are not by-and-large extremely enthusiastic), and I also assume they would in vast majority be mature enough to recognize the very unique change in circumstances leading to his removal. 

[GrimTuesday]

I don't get why people are clamoring (clamoring may be a bit strong) for Michelle Obama to run. I mean, I get that she is a popular figure and that she has the Obama connection, but I don't feel like she is anything special in terms of what she would be proposing as a candidate. My biggest fear about this election besides Trump winning, is that Americans decide that they can just go back to brunch, which I worry is the outcome of going back to what the middle class saw as the comfy Obama years. If that happens, be ready for the high likelihood of Tom Cotton or another Republican who is just as bad as Trump, just not as outwardly vile, winning in 2024.

Anyone else watching Hilary on Biden's webcast? God I despise her on a personal level. She said some shit about "those of us who support universal healthcare "including herself and Biden who objectively don't and just got done trashing Bernie for calling for just that. I get she is the most recent nominee, and I'm sure that they are personally friends, but who does this appeal to who weren't already voting for Biden vs pissing off those of us who are one the fence?

[Fury Resurrected]

Mike Pence is at the Mayo Clinic today touring the hospital without a mask despite the hospital informing him the require masks

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

So this brings me back around to something I said in my first post: "In any case, I don't see how a Democrat without this baggage could be a worse bet than Biden with the baggage."

You say Sanders' supporters behavior matters at the margins, ok. You think the baggage of a sexual assault allegation might matter at the margins? I certainly think so. I think that could easily cost 70,000 in three states. I think it could cost far more. So I still don't see the risk of replacing Biden as so greatly and obviously exceeding the risk of running him under the circumstances.  

The first comment was an obvious shot at all the Sanders voters who decided to stay home in 2016, and how the world would be a better place if they just voted for Hillary.

And it certainly didn't cost Trump. If Democrats lose this slam dunk election do to infighting, and not just taking the most obvious of courses, we deserve our government and ya'll deserve Donald Trump as president for life.  

[Fez]

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And why doesn't Jesus Christ just walk on water as a parlor trick for all of us before flying off on a dragon while playing guitar to Purple Rain all while rolling the greatest blunt mankind has ever seen?

I believe King Herod once asked a similar question (at least if Andrew Lloyd Weber is to be believed, my knowledge of the New Testament is pretty shaky).

And the reason is sometimes you just gotta have faith. Or at least a kickass backing track.

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

To some of this I just reiterate my point above: running Biden under the circumstances poses risk in itself and I'm not convinced the risk in replacing him exceeds that.

As for understating how angry Biden supporters would be, maybe, I suppose. But voters were pretty late in coalescing behind him in the first place (so I assume they are not by-and-large extremely enthusiastic), and I also assume they would in vast majority be mature enough to recognize the very unique change in circumstances leading to his removal. 

Are you talking about a scenario where multiple other women come forward with credible allegations in the next couple of weeks?  Because to overturn the will of the millions of voters who cast ballots for Biden based on one allegation from the 90s makes me very uncomfortable, and I doubt very much that Biden voters will see this as an overwhelming tide of evidence. 

I mean, I think Reade is probably telling the truth, but we don't know.  It's still quite possible that Biden did not do this at all.  And I think that many Biden voters are going to be a lot more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt than I am.  Is this really where we are as a party?  One plausible, but by no means ironclad, allegation means that the Democratic party must jettison their nominee for another?  That seems...both unjust and undemocratic. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

I believe King Herod once asked a similar question (at least if Andrew Lloyd Weber is to be believed, my knowledge of the New Testament is pretty shaky).

And the reason is sometimes you just gotta have faith. Or at least a kickass backing track.

I'd expect as much from a lizard/bird hybrid.