|
Biden's actually been an exceptionally good Vice President, insofar as the Vice President matters - he's a pretty good bonus Secretary of State, he's way better at navigating Congress than Obama (which is admittedly both faint praise and less important than it was before 2010), and he's a hilarious way to test-drive policy changes that are under consideration. For the campaign, though, it's a very mild perception adjustment at best.
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
Dolash posted:How much does the Vice President slot really matter? Its track record as a springboard for Presidential ambitions is spotty, its role in the election and in government only seems to matter if you gently caress up and pick someone crazy like Palin, otherwise if everything goes according to plan it's pretty forgettable. I find it hard to believe Hillary's pick will move many votes. Hillary is first enough on her own. Pick the boring white guy. Maybe even Biden again.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
How about a non-caucasian male VP for Hilldog? Any shot at that? Would love to see the conservative reaction. Cory Booker? One of the Castros? I'm not informed enough to think of anyone else right now.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Hillary is first enough on her own. Pick the boring white guy. Maybe even Biden again. I'll take boring white guy if we don't get interesting minority VP options. Biden's like the creeper uncle you have to keep an eye on when visiting your female college friends.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:How about a non-caucasian male VP for Hilldog? Any shot at that? Would love to see the conservative reaction. Cory Booker? One of the Castros? I'm not informed enough to think of anyone else right now. She's not going to pick someone who'd threaten to outshine her.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Here we go, this is a back and forth between rahm and the white house LGBT liason. There's more but unfortunately it was cut off, I need to read this book. When he says "you've already had too much" he's referring to DADT  .
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Here we go, this is a back and forth between rahm and the white house LGBT liason. There's more but unfortunately it was cut off, I need to read this book. When he says "you've already had too much" he's referring to DADT I need...way more context on all that.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
When you want an effective VP, the best pick is a good Senator who is at the end of his career. You need someone competent, of course, who can step into the President's job. But since it's essentially an understudy position, you don't want to tie up someone who is still doing something useful. While the VP is waiting for the President to die, the only worthwhile things they can do is lobby for the administration or public relations. These are core skill sets for Senators. Sanders and Warren are still doing very important work. Pulling them out of that to hang out at the Naval Observatory instead would be a complete waste.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I need...way more context on all that. Rahm Emanuel and other 90s neoliberal democrats are garbage human beings is your context.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I need...way more context on all that. Rahm called David Mixner asking for fundraising money for some gay rights related event. Mixner gets mad because Rahm has been purposely stonewalling him and keeping him in the dark on the DADT debate. Then Rahm goes into Rahm mode. Unfortunately I could only get that page of the book but here is the background info without any of the juicy details. http://www.bilerico.com/2010/07/david_mixner_an_oral_history_of_dadt.php
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Jeb referred to his brother as "an advisor"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Subtle and sly use of Stonewall, I'm impressed.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:Jeb referred to his brother as "an advisor" Did Obama surpass W. in signing statements written?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Hillary should pick Stephen Colbert if she can't get one of the Castros, Cory Booker or someone who can establish some genital dominance in Congress. Colbert is an articulate liberal who is well known, especially among younger voters, and is also a religiously devout Southerner. If Hillary dies he would probably be able to steer the ship of state for the remainder of the term. If she does not die, he can probably play the loons like a pipe organ.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The fact that she is not standing there saying "Yep, its totally true, they're right about me".  But the majority of American Democrats and Liberals view Socialism as a positive thing already.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Hillary should pick Stephen Colbert if she can't get one of the Castros, Cory Booker or someone who can establish some genital dominance in Congress. I'm going to pretend this a real suggestion for some reason. Colbert didn't have enough sway to get his sister elected to the House against Mark "touring the Appalachian Trail" Sanford. He won't help in the South. Also, even though I live in his district, I never noticed that the gerrymandering cut Charleston peninsula in half to put the black part into Clyburn's district e: not that it really has anything to do with this thread but because we are speaking of Colbert, he is the best and just donated $800k to help SC schools http://www.greenvilleonline.com/sto...-site/70938100/ lamentable dustman fucked around with this message at 22:35 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:So how is any of this relevant for an argument against supporting Sanders in the primaries? I see we have moved from debating whether he can win anything to arguing why he would be dangerous to nominate - if he has no chance of winning the nomination, then surely there is no danger in supporting him with the understanding that, given the options available to us, supporting Sanders is likely one of the most effective routes of moving Hillary left, right? Under the vegetable posted:
And that helps, because only Liberals are allowed to vote in the general. Oh no wait. Or is this about how its better if Bernie wins the primary and loses the general? Better to demand everything and lose hugely than ask for some of what you want and get it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Oh, thanks, I didn't realize all these Republicans and Conservatives might be potential voters for the Democratic candidate if only he weren't a darn socialist.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Some guy has decided for whoever's name is next to the big R. They don't follow any politics aside from Fox News. Whoa, they find out Bernie's a socialist!! That vote's definitely going to change!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:Oh, thanks, I didn't realize all these Republicans and Conservatives might be potential voters for the Democratic candidate if only he weren't a darn socialist. Trying to appeal to only a portion of your parties base (which isn't even your party) and actively pissing off moderates - thats the REAL path to success. Can you read the breakdown for All Americans - i.e the part that matters in the General? Hmm? What does it say?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You started this whole thing by saying that he can win the General and Hillary can't, by going on about how we were just days away, no really, totally for true this time, of Republicans uncovering the scandal that is actually real and Americans actually care about that causes her to be dissgraced and would lead to the Republicans gaining an easy win, therefore its better to support Sanders becayuse he would do better against the GOP candidate du jour. Do you really think he would lose "hugely" just because he calls himself a socialist? None of his political positions are significantly to the left of a typical progressive Democrat. You guys are acting like he's calling for the state to start seizing private businesses or something. What actual policies does he have that are so toxic?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Do you really think he would lose "hugely" just because he calls himself a socialist? None of his political positions are significantly to the left of a typical progressive Democrat. You guys are acting like he's calling for the state to start seizing private businesses or something. What actual policies does he have that are so toxic?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:Some guy has decided for whoever's name is next to the big R. They don't follow any politics aside from Fox News. Whoa, they find out Bernie's a socialist!! That vote's definitely going to change! Do undecided/moderate voters not exist in your world?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And as we all know, politics is now and has always been completely about substance. Which is why Purple Heart recipient John Kerry absolutely crushed cheerleader George W. Bush when the nation decided to choose the Warrior as their leader. You're the one that stated he is "actively pissing off moderates," how? You'd have a good point if Hillary was an Obama-like campaigner that oozed charisma but on the style side she has no advantage over Bernie. I'm just saying you need more to back up your assertions that Bernie is hated by moderates and would be crushed in the general than the word "socialist."
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Trying to appeal to only a portion of your parties base (which isn't even your party) and actively pissing off moderates - thats the REAL path to success. If only 54% of All Americans even vote in the first place and 36% of All Americans think Socialism is cool I'm still pretty ok with the odds. Let's have fun with statistics!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Do undecided/moderate voters not exist in your world? I think moderates/undecided will probably care more about specific issues like gun control or taxes or something than they would a Scary Word. And here's something crazy, Bernie loves guns. He's reaching out, across the dividing line. It's a beautiful thing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:I think moderates/undecided will probably care more about specific issues like gun control or taxes or something than they would a Scary Word. And here's something crazy, Bernie loves guns. He's reaching out, across the dividing line. It's a beautiful thing. Voting for the AWB is not loving guns except in the pedantic sense that he likes a very tiny and specific subset of firearms to the exclusion of the hottest selling items nowadays. But I don't know why I bother replying.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
-Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. -Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. -Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. -Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. He's not AS PRO GUN as an NRA A-rated Republican candidate, but he's pro-gun for a Democratic candidate in a way that should be considered an appeal to moderate voters. Don't be silly.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:-Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. I was about to post this. I found it really interesting when I read about it, as it's not the standard line for a faceless liberal. He actually has his own issues, which is interesting. As heretical as it is to say in this thread, he has my vote.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Those last two votes are horribly lovely and the first thing that Bernie has legitimately disappointed me on.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:-Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. Yes, because the NRA has never tried to claim that a politician who hasn't voted to take away guns or given any indication he might try to take away guns, would try to take away guns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENBQWzpqTd4 But this time I'm sure that substance will prevail. This time!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
I would just like to say as the owner of a Ford 2600 workmaster, gently caress whoever did that to that beautiful tractor. Hail satan, 666, accelerationism forever 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Those last two votes are horribly lovely and the first thing that Bernie has legitimately disappointed me on. If I drive into a pedestrian with the intent to harm them, should they sue Dodge?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:I think moderates/undecided will probably care more about specific issues like gun control or taxes or something than they would a Scary Word. And here's something crazy, Bernie loves guns. He's reaching out, across the dividing line. It's a beautiful thing. On the other hand, on the issue of taxation he is in favor of soaking the rich. (If only! ) Raising taxes has never been a winner politically, even if they wouldn't apply to 95% of the electorate. Grover Norquist and his ilk have effectively poisoned that well forever.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yes, because the NRA has never tried to claim that a politician who hasn't voted to take away guns or given any indication he might try to take away guns, would try to take away guns. Uh he was right though, except there wasn't really a conspiracy. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:
How could you think this a point in Sanders favor lol.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Uh he was right though, except there wasn't really a conspiracy. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html So because Obama was actually motivated by a spree killer in an elementary school, that means the NRA was right to oppose him tooth and nail? WOuldn't that mean the NRA is gonna oppose Sanders just as hard?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
According to the Nerd, his wife had to sign off on him running for president, and so far she's hasn't told him go ahead. No Rick Snyder in 2016. http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/report-snyder-wont-run-for-president/32852018 quote:Politico reporter Alex Isenstadt is reporting that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has decided against running for president in 2016.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Those last two votes are horribly lovely and the first thing that Bernie has legitimately disappointed me on. As left as I am, I have to disagree. No other industry is held to a standard like that. No one sues kitchen knife manufacturers for murder. No one sues car manufacturers for (non-defect-related) car crashes. No one sues oil companies for arsonist fires. It's a third party selling a tool. Suing third parties for selling tools that are used in ways not intended by the manufacturer is unfair, unless the manufacturer is encouraging "off-label" use a la a pharmaceutical company advertising a product for a use not approved by the FDA.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
The way that they want to apply it in practice is really stupid too. They wanted to sue Bushmaster over Sandy Hook asserting "that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it is a military weapon unsuited for civilian use." Because banning someone's AR-15 and making them buy another .223 semi-automatic rifle is going to make any loving difference  .
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:20
|
|