Jump to content

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


Tywin Manderly

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

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. 

Michele Obama is wildly popular and people don't have to spend a lot of time getting to know her. In a shortened campaign that would be crucial to winning. In addition she is one of the few people on the liberal side who has broad support across both groups. I didn't of course anticipate that she would also be disliked by the Sanders crowd like yourself, but it was worth a shot. 

25 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

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.

Clinton has supported universal healthcare for 30 years now. Biden has as well. Not supporting M4A does not mean not supporting some form of universal healthcare. Sanders fans appear to conflate these things to their detriment. 

25 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

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?

There are a whole lot of people who genuinely like Hillary Clinton. They probably already were voting for Biden, but this might make them more likely to go out and support those candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.  

I think we've both said all we can say about booting Biden from the ticket. Clearly you think it's a terrible idea and I don't. 

I'm wondering what you think the response to Reade's allegation should be? Is your stance truly that Democrats should all join together and just ignore it, uncritically accept Biden's denial? That's the obvious course and everyone suggesting otherwise is engaging in infighting and deserves Trump?

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

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. 

Well, I did say in my first post that I think it's very unlikely he would be pushed aside without more allegations. I think it's fair to say that with only one accuser it's more likely that Biden voters will be angry. I think your concerns are fair. But I'm not convinced the backlash will be so extreme, especially this far from the general election, that doing so amounts to obvious political suicide. I think it's important to weigh the risk entailed in running Biden given Reade's allegation. I also believe Reade and think Biden stepping aside would unquestionably be the right thing to do if politics were not a consideration. I think that's the best I can sum up my position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Clinton has supported universal healthcare for 30 years now. Biden has as well. Not supporting M4A does not mean not supporting some form of universal healthcare. Sanders fans appear to conflate these things to their detriment. 

There are a whole lot of people who genuinely like Hillary Clinton. They probably already were voting for Biden, but this might make them more likely to go out and support those candidates.

I don't like Hillary Clinton, but the way some people, ostensibly leftists, react to her, you'd think she was Margaret Thatcher reincarnated. She's Tracy Flick, not Cruella deVille.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[mod] Let's tone down the personal stuff, folks. The apologies are appreciated and we're all adults here but I'd really prefer if we didn't snarl the thread up with that in the first place. Thanks. [/mod]

On another note, it's all very well talking about Biden's baggage but unfortunately, I think that baggage is bought and paid for at this point, and ridding the ticket of Biden seems to me unlikely to mean the baggage goes too. Fox, Trump and the Republicans are not going to shut up about the Reade allegations just because Biden isn't the nominee any more, are they? In fact it'll arguably make them more, not less, likely to use it as a weapon, as they'll point to Biden's resignation as proof of guilt. Whoever is hypothetically on the ticket, they'll be asked over and over about Biden's guilt, asked about Reade's credibility, asked to condem Biden, asked what the party knew and when, battered and bashed with the issue until there's no oxygen left for them to talk about their policies. It won't matter if they can talk credibly about how to deal with such allegations. The Republicans will label Biden as guilty and smear the whole Dem party with that guilt.

I completely respect that many survivors will find it impossible to vote for Biden and why they want, even need, to see someone, anyone else on that ticket. But I think that boat has sailed in more than one respect. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

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

YOU KNOW people feel the same way about you and your kind. :rolleyes:

So now what you gonna do to convince us we're wrong and you are right? especially after 1) there is no election; or 2) if there is an election in which nobody comes out to vote for Biden in the snow, rain and cold.  Beat us vigorously to make me think your way?  

What you all should be doing is figuring out a way then to get your beloved candidate out there doing something to make voters believe he can or even wants to do anything about this long time militant fascist take-over. But instead you prefer to call people who see further than an irrelevant poll, 'stupid.'  Works to get voters out every time doesn't it.

He can't even get into a helicopter or plane and fly to individual states where he could at least IN THE STATE do an interactive, safe youtube or zoom town hall or something with voters in that state.  But no.  He hides in a hole like Bush during 9/11.  He is not demonstrating leadership so how in hell are we supposed to be enthusiastic about him?  An honest question. How?  You cant' even say, with stuff like this, 'he's not trump.'  In this sitch we need far more than he maybe never did assault anybody despite his decades' long rep for too much hands.  Honestly I don't care about that so much in a lot of ways, but that he won't even get the heck out of his basement . . . .

Besides, the way you all talk about Hillary -- you are reminding me of all the evil stuff she and her husband did do, and they did a lot: getting rid of the safety net, the telecommunications regulation, fucking over Haiti even for their personal profit, just for starters.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Well, I did say in my first post that I think it's very unlikely he would be pushed aside without more allegations. I think it's fair to say that with only one accuser it's more likely that Biden voters will be angry. I think your concerns are fair. But I'm not convinced the backlash will be so extreme, especially this far from the general election, that doing so amounts to obvious political suicide. I think it's important to weigh the risk entailed in running Biden given Reade's allegation. I also believe Reade and think Biden stepping aside would unquestionably be the right thing to do if politics were not a consideration. I think that's the best I can sum up my position. 

Just from an outside observer, if more allegations do come to light, setting aside Biden would be one thing but also asking Sanders to step aside (which seem to be what many are suggesting) is going to lead to all sorts of problems imo. How would the DNC justify asking someone who is solidly in second place and who has no sexual assault allegations against him that he should step aside as well? Especially in light of the perception from Sanders and a good number of his supporters that the DNC has had their hand on the scales going back to 2016. Seems to me that the bad blood and division would only worsen in that scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Michele Obama is wildly popular and people don't have to spend a lot of time getting to know her. In a shortened campaign that would be crucial to winning. In addition she is one of the few people on the liberal side who has broad support across both groups. I didn't of course anticipate that she would also be disliked by the Sanders crowd like yourself, but it was worth a shot. 

Clinton has supported universal healthcare for 30 years now. Biden has as well. Not supporting M4A does not mean not supporting some form of universal healthcare. Sanders fans appear to conflate these things to their detriment. 

There are a whole lot of people who genuinely like Hillary Clinton. They probably already were voting for Biden, but this might make them more likely to go out and support those candidates.

I'm not saying I dislike Michelle, I am more talking about what she represents, which is pretty much the same fear I have with Biden. At this point, saying she should run is like saying that Oprah should run, they are celebrities.

No, they support giving everyone "access" which leads to thing like Obamacare, which while its heart was in the right place, still was thoroughly inadequate because ultimately in order to offer plans that have affordable monthly premiums still have deductibles so high that they are functionally paying for healthcare that if they actually have to use will still be unaffordable. The people the actual healthcare exchanges really helped was the Healthcare Insurance companies.

There may be those who like Clinton, but I honestly don't think that they are in anyway a majority of the party. Clinton is absolutely toxic. For one thing she has a whole cottage industry of hating her within the Republican party, so anyway they can frame Biden as being like Clinton is going to be bad, yeah they are going to do it anyway, but don't make it so fucking easy. For another thing she and her people spent the last 4 months pissing off roughly a third of the party by being petty as fuck going after Sanders not to mention the last 3 years publicly blaming him for her electoral loss. Remember when her old staffers held a Bernie fucked off party when he dropped out? Remember when she and her husband were best pals with the guy running a international pedophile ring. There are so many reasons to dislike her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that Trump is going to sign an executive order making meat processing plants an essential service and forbidding them from closing down.

Is he going to send in troop to run the slaughter houses when the workers all drop from Covid-19?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I saw that Trump is going to sign an executive order making meat processing plants an essential service and forbidding them from closing down.

Is he going to send in troop to run the slaughter houses when the workers all drop from Covid-19?

He should send his useless Large Adult Sons to work the meat processing plants. Since they're such mighty hunters and all, they must have experience dressing carcasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

He should send his useless Large Adult Sons to work the meat processing plants. Since they're such mighty hunters and all, they must have experience dressing carcasses.

That very thought crossed my mind as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

He should send his useless Large Adult Sons to work the meat processing plants. Since they're such mighty hunters and all, they must have experience dressing carcasses.

how dare you? They are not good enough to be Large Adult Sons, that is reserved for good little barrel children like Daniel Vogelbach of the Seattle Mariners, those two are failsons like Wyatt Koch who I only bring up to post this mind boggling video just in case you didn't see this back in 2017, and if you did, enjoy it again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Week said:

Nice, relitigate 2016, "(K)illary is toxic", pedophile apologia, and the ACA sucks. I got bingo!

I dislike her as a person because I don't like how she and her people treated Bernie after he busted his ass to get her elected, I was neutral to vaguely supportive of her up until how she handled things post 2016. As for the other stuff, I'm pointing out that she has so many knocks against her that she shouldn't be in any way featured in this campaign because I fail to see how bringing in Clinton benefits Biden in any way. Biden has enough issues on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I saw that Trump is going to sign an executive order making meat processing plants an essential service and forbidding them from closing down.

Is he going to send in troop to run the slaughter houses when the workers all drop from Covid-19?

Hey, Frags, who said over a month ago that we need to keep our eyes on the supply lines?

Mumbles, groans, *why am I not your king.....*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

how dare you? They are not good enough to be Large Adult Sons, that is reserved for good little barrel children like Daniel Vogelbach of the Seattle Mariners

Instead of continuing snark*, let us celebrate what bring us together and makes us great.

LARGE ADULT SONS HITTING DINGERS!

 

 

*Quite well deserved for the out-of-leftfield bullshit

eta -- this is the good one -- alas, it will not embed https://imgur.com/diYeC7d 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Imagine if Biden made Clinton his VP.

Well, Chelsea would bring a background in public health. Her thesis was "The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria: A Response to Global Threats, a Part of a Global Future". I don't think that she'd appreciate a return to the public eye after being going through the ringer since she was a teenager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...