US Elections 2020

[Stavros]

I like Kamala Harris, but she does have a flawed record, as this hatchet job shows. Sometimes voters like someone who has looked tough on crime.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/19/kamala-harris-2020-election-top-cop-prosecutor

I have not looked closely at the others, but thought Elizabeth Warren said a few years ago she would not run, and she should not. I see the point of Biden, but should the Democrats now turn to a youger person like Castro? Don't know enough about the others to comment.

[broncofan]

I also like Kamala Harris. I am basing that off of the times I've seen her grill evasive witnesses appearing before the senate. She comes across as highly prepared, quick on her feet, incisive, and also reasonable. I skimmed the article and while I agree with the author that some of the actions she took as a prosecutor and attorney general were inappropriate I don't think it should impact her candidacy too much.

A prosecutor has a different mandate than a policymaker. While prosecutors are allowed to exercise judgment to decide who to prosecute and how to spend their finite resources, they are in the business of enforcing the laws (they are technically in the executive branch like the President who heads it at the federal level, but their discretion and policymaking role is a lot narrower). This doesn't completely excuse her actions with respect to failing to prosecute cases she should have or even for setting up sting operations that really didn't advance the cause of justice broadly, but it does mitigate them a bit.

The people that I like tend not to be viewed as serious candidates. My judgements are based more on personal characteristics than policies at this point. I'm sure that would change when we actually arrive at the primaries. I like Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu, but it's because I find them to be very competent and thoughtful. I am not sure I would agree with their policies or even that they would poll well.

We have had debates here in the U.S. about how calling a woman "unlikeable" may be suggestive of misogyny. I think it can be, particularly given that women are allowed a far narrower range of permitted expressions. Still, I think Elizabeth Warren is intelligent, but without charisma, I question her judgement, and her appeal. I find her to be in some respects like John Kerry. A very capable person whom I respect, but someone who is tone deaf as to how her proclamations are received and who is not very comfortable dealing with people on a personal level.

I don't know enough about Castro, so I also encourage someone to respond with some information.

[Stavros]

Beto O'Rourke -who he? I vaguely recall last November when Larry Sabato dismissed his chances as the Democrats nominee for the Presidency. This article is not so flattering either, though it does have a cute line -
He has the high energy and wholesome enthusiasm of a golden retriever
.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/beto-orourke-political-saviour

I believe he was fined $50 for a traffic violation in New Hampshire -lucky guy. Had he been black with the same violation in Texas he would either have been sent to prison for five years, or dead while reaching for his licence. Or am I being cynical?

And who is Kirsten Gillibrand?

[Stavros]

Go, go, Groper Joe? Or bye-bye Biden?

I know its childish, so when I saw Peter Buttigieg from South Bend...then read he pronounes his name Boot-edge-edge which made me wonder -can Americans handle so many syllables in one name? One dreads to think the nickname BS-45 will have to devise to remember who he is.

[blackchubby38]

Go, go, Groper Joe? Or bye-bye Biden?

I know its childish, so when I saw Peter Buttigieg from South Bend...then read he pronounes his name Boot-edge-edge which made me wonder -can Americans handle so many syllables in one name? One dreads to think the nickname BS-45 will have to devise to remember who he is.

I have noticed a trend with both Biden and O' Rourke. As soon as they announced that they were running or in Biden's case was about to, all of the sudden things that they did in their past began to resurface. I don't know if its the Republicans doing it because they think both guys have a legitimate shot at beating Trump or its the "Anybody but a white guy" wing of the Democratic Party.

As long as neither guy committed an actual crime, I really don't give a shit what they did. Biden/O'Rourke 2020.

[Stavros]

Is it not the case that it has become standard practice in US politics, that when someone announces their intention to run for office, the opposition immediately looks for something with which to condemn them? Biden has been know for his 'affectionate' approach to people but obviously not everyone likes being hugged, but was it abusive? After all, a woman can feel uncomfortable just from the way a man is looking at her, he doesn't need to touch. But if the Democtats make groping an issue, and one of their own is alleged to have done it, maybe the worst aspect is the way it becomes legitimate.

As for the party, do the Democrats know what candidate they want, or the candidate with the best chance of defeating the President? The two may not be the same. I even read somewhere Hillary Clinton could return to the fight. It is hard being in the UK because all sorts of daily news doesn't make it here, and in the past candidates who were not considered strong in the early stages came through at the end. Spare a thought for the UK where instead of 12 people seeking the top job, nobody here wants it, or looks capable of doing it.

[blackchubby38]

Is it not the case that it has become standard practice in US politics, that when someone announces their intention to run for office, the opposition immediately looks for something with which to condemn them? Biden has been know for his 'affectionate' approach to people but obviously not everyone likes being hugged, but was it abusive? After all, a woman can feel uncomfortable just from the way a man is looking at her, he doesn't need to touch. But if the Democtats make groping an issue, and one of their own is alleged to have done it, maybe the worst aspect is the way it becomes legitimate.

As for the party, do the Democrats know what candidate they want, or the candidate with the best chance of defeating the President? The two may not be the same. I even read somewhere Hillary Clinton could return to the fight. It is hard being in the UK because all sorts of daily news doesn't make it here, and in the past candidates who were not considered strong in the early stages came through at the end. Spare a thought for the UK where instead of 12 people seeking the top job, nobody here wants it, or looks capable of doing it.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you that this was just standard practice. But in the case of Biden it just reeks of a hatchet job to force to guy into not running.

It also illustrates a problem that I have had with the "Me Too Movement" from the beginning. They want treat to every transgression the same and not take things into account such as degrees and context. Yes, people's private space should be respected. But what Biden did was not abusive and it shouldn't keep him from being able to run for President.

Finally, I think the practical Democrats know what candidate they want. They want one who has the best chance at beating Trump in 20/20. If that candidate happens to be a minority or a woman, so be it. But should it should because they have the best chance at winning and not just because of their race and gender.

[Stavros]

I agree with what you say about Biden, but think we have for some time been living in a world where the headline determines the conversation, not the truth. Rupert Murdoch, when, in the 1960s, he took over a UK newspaper on its deathbed, The Sun, saw a gap in the market for a paper that would combine what he thinks the 'average bloke' wants in terms of news and content: bite-sized politics, and lots of celebrity gossip, sex and sport. His personal agenda has always been libertarian, hostile to government, supportive of markets. This has enabled him to simultaneously back politicians who maintain a system he doesn't believe in, while hammering the policies he does -low taxes being the key. In terms of tone, crude works, so snappy headlines become the tool that is used to ridicule this politician, praise that one. Murdoch bases his strategy on the view that most people most of the time are not interested in politics, but can be swayed by perception and uses his papers and broadcasting networks to continuously pump out a biased argument that need have no connection to the truth if the truth does not contain his vision of a US without government.

So perception is everything, so that even people with no bias one way or the other will pause to reflect -maybe Biden has been a creep- all it needs is a small seed of doubt, which is why the standard operation now when someone, anyone puts themself forward for public office, is to find something negative -anything will do, like a $20 dollar parking fine- and use it to smear the person as unfit for that office. And to never stop until the person has been defeated -just as the same media machine will support those who do have dirt under their fingernails because, again, the truth is irrelevant. It was critical for the President to get in the first reaction to what we now know was a misleading declaration by William Barr on the Mueller Report, which is explict in not exonerating the President from charges that he obstructed justice- yet 'Exonerated' and 'Not Guilty' were screaming at people from the start, because perception is everything, and if the truth is that the President broke the law, so what? The Democrats were always going to claim that.

I don't know if this is a turning point in US politics, because we don't know if the Republican Party will allow anyone to challenge their leader for the 2020 nomination, and we don't know who the Democrats will choose. Even if he wins again in 2020 it might not be the end, but the point is that rather than take on the US government and downsize it, what the President and his supporters, led by Mudoch are doing, is constantly demeaning public office as a virtuous endeavour. Again and again, Congress and the Media are attacked as 'enemies of the people', they are held to be in contempt, to orchestrate a hoax, to be indifferent to security on the southern border. The Democrats are anti-Jewish, not by accident, but by design, and the President will even ridicule his own staff -fundamentally, it is absolutely essential that the broad mass of American people lose their faith in their elected representatives, that they come to understand that Government is the problem, not the solution.

It is essential that the President lie all the time, be exposed as a liar, and enjoy telling lies, because he wants to smash to pieces all and any respect for the Presidency as an Office, just as he is committed to denigrating Congress as a 'swamp', just as he loves giving high office to men who will use it to stuff their pockets with tax-payers cash via 'expenses' and give jobs to family members knowing how bad it looks, knowing it is unethical-it is all part of the plan, to smash American government to pieces, to re-orient politics to the personal, to argue that only markets work, and that this gives the people real power to make choices for themselves they do not need to give to politicians.

Yes, unlike Murdoch, the President doesn't believe in markets -his experience of them is one of failure, all his succeses have come from fixed trade and borrowing, lots of borrowing- but Murdoch and the Koch Brothers are using him to their own end -he is their useful idiot-, to bring an end to the 'Big Government' that they believe has been an obstacle to freedom and prosperity since either 1933 or 1865 depending on how far back you want to go.

It may be the US is now divided beyond repair, a lot depends on whether the US has flirted with 'populism' at the expense of democracy and doesn't like it, but does the Democrat party have a candidate who can offer people hope that things will get better -and can that candidate win? For what it's worth, I think the US has a better selection of politicians than the UK, but the fragmentation of information that characterizes the way information is distributed means I cannot decide if this is a benefit to democracy, or the agency of its demise.

[Stavros]

Would a Biden-Harris ticket be a worthwhile compromise to unite the 'safe as houses' Biden faction with Harris the acceptable candidate for the 'radicals'? And it would once again put a woman in the frame for the top job, in 2024.

[blackchubby38]

Would a Biden-Harris ticket be a worthwhile compromise to unite the 'safe as houses' Biden faction with Harris the acceptable candidate for the 'radicals'? And it would once again put a woman in the frame for the top job, in 2024.

I don't think so. It would be acceptable for the centrist wing of the party. But the far left wing of the party wouldn't go for it. They don't want Biden and apparently since Harris was a prosecutor who sent men of color to prison, they don't like her either.

[broncofan]

The two candidates people further left like are Bernie and Warren. Of the two, I prefer Warren to Bernie because I think she's more competent and she's a Democrat. I am not a big fan of cult of personality and I think that's what Bernie has developed. Would be perfectly happy to see some of the policies he's recommended put into action without the baggage of him or his need to be a one man movement.

I always liked Kamala, and still do. I admit I haven't watched the debates and have heard so-so reviews on her. I agree there are legitimate critiques both of the criminal justice system and her record as well though I don't think anything she's done should prevent her from redeeming herself or altering her perspective.

[Stavros]

This article in The Guardian suggests that even places like rural Iowa are potential vote winners for Democrats, indeed it would seem the election is theirs to lose.
Blackchubby goes to the core of the problem: play it safe, or play it radical? The mix is obvious but I don't see Warren as a popular figure, she has intelligence but lacks charisma, to me. But I don't know enough about the men such as Booker, O'Rourke and Buttigieg to judge them.
But, will the election be won by young and first time voters for whom a radical agenda is what they want? Labour succeeded in earning 40% of the vote in the UK election in 2017 that was supposed to destroy them, because the polls underestimated the youth vote that turned out -and turn out is always crucial for Democrats, not least because their loyal voters in the Confederacy are denied the right to vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2019/sep/16/trump-may-have-already-lost-iowa-to-the-2020-democratic-candidates-over-corn#comments

[blackchubby38]

The two candidates people further left like are Bernie and Warren. Of the two, I prefer Warren to Bernie because I think she's more competent and she's a Democrat. I am not a big fan of cult of personality and I think that's what Bernie has developed. Would be perfectly happy to see some of the policies he's recommended put into action without the baggage of him or his need to be a one man movement.

I always liked Kamala, and still do. I admit I haven't watched the debates and have heard so-so reviews on her. I agree there are legitimate critiques both of the criminal justice system and her record as well though I don't think anything she's done should prevent her from redeeming herself or altering her perspective.

For some on the far left, there is no such thing as redeeming yourself or altering perspective. Unless its done through a Twitter re-education camp.

I agree with you about Sanders. While I don't agree with most of her ideas, if given choice between her and him, I would go with Elizabeth Warren.

Despite all his gaffs at the last debate, I still think Biden gives the Democrats the best chance to beat Trump. At the end of day, that's what the 2020 election should be about. Not enacting some radical agenda that a majority of the country does not want.

[blackchubby38]

I'm just glad that Bill De Blasio did the right thing and dropped out of the race. Now he can get back to doing what he has done best. Turning NYC into a shithole.

[Stavros]

THe link below looks at Monroe Country in Michigan and suggests that the incumbent will probably hang on to a voting area that it thinks is representative of the US, much as those primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire are said to indicate who the next Democrat nominee for the Presidency will be.

But two questions arise, both based on the argument that the US changed in 2016 or it did not:
1) Suppose neither Monroe Country nor those Primaries retain their importance, because the rules have changed -Munroe might remain Republican and Michigan's college votes go to U-No-Who; but suppose he loses Florida and another State?

2) Suppose the grim truth emerges over the next 12 months: the evidence mounts up against the 45th President: a liar, a crook and a traitor- and the response of the Republicans in Congress, and in the country is this: 'We don't care' -what happens to the values and the laws on which the US has been based since 1776?

It will be as if a new Civil War had been fought, and the anti-American terrorists who once laid waste to Virginia will have their victory, through State's Rights, through procedural initiatives that enable them to select their judges and policemen, their Senators and Congressional Reps; and it won't even matter anymore if there is a Democrat in the White House -they will simply say NO to any new Federal law, tie the admin in legal knots from circuit courts to the Supreme Court.

So, is the American experiment in democracy at an end, or has the first four years of Anger been just a mistake than can be corrected?

Is there a Democrat who can unite the party and the country?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/07/will-swing-voters-who-went-from-obama-to-trump-stay-loyal-in-2020

[buttslinger]

The whistleblower who dropped the Hollywood insider tape told us all we need to know about Trump, and as Obama warned us the presidency just amplified who he is. His base will go down in history as well meaning but misguided fools, and the natural course of truth will leave us all as Robert Muellers, ...knowing but powerless to change it.

[broncofan]

His base will go down in history as well meaning but misguided fools,
Not to quibble, but why don't we quibble. I've spoken to members of his base and I don't think they mean well. We can pretend that he provided them hope or nostalgia, though we won't speculate what they're nostalgic for, but they've heard the same things come out of his mouth the rest of us have. Not an ounce of respect for process or rule of law or even what makes human beings capable of being civil to one another. If they go down in history as well meaning then history will have gotten it wrong.

[Jericho]

If they go down in history as well meaning then history will have gotten it wrong.

Depends who's writing it,don't it.
I was called a traitor today, for questioning Emperor Johnson!

[zerrrr]

The question of uniting the country is one that cannot be answered so long as money is involved in everything and social media continues to be an utter and complete mess.

At the end of the day, money will flow to both sides creating vitriol to anger the masses and divide the country.

To those involved in today’s Supreme Court’s work, you did a very good job. Thank you.

[buttslinger]

What exactly did you say about the Emperor? Some of these Conservatives aren't too keen on WIT!
I do believe the Trump faithful are well meaning, but how stupid do you have to be to trust a man who has lied 12,000 times?
I do have a serious question for you, Bronco:
If Mueller's team found proof or evidence of money laundering with Putin's Oligarchs...…
would that be sent to New York and put on the "further consideration" pile?
And, if so, could Barr make it all disappear?

[Jericho]

What exactly did you say about the Emperor? Some of these Conservatives aren't too keen on WIT!
I do believe the Trump faithful are well meaning, but how stupid do you have to be to trust a man who has lied 12,000 times?
I do have a serious question for you, Bronco:
If Mueller's team found proof or evidence of money laundering with Putin's Oligarchs...…
would that be sent to New York and put on the "further consideration" pile?
And, if so, could Barr make it all disappear?

To crossthread a bit, for questioning the great and unmatched wisdom of equating brexit with the the 2nd world war.

1191652

[filghy2]

I do believe the Trump faithful are well meaning, but how stupid do you have to be to trust a man who has lied 12,000 times?

Sorry, it's not well meaning to deliberately ignore evidence of evils just because you hope to benefit from the situation. There's a difference between being innocently ignorant and wilfully ignorant. I'm sure most of them know at some level that Trump is an unscrupulous liar, but they support him anyway because they think that will work to the benefit of their tribe and against others who they resent or fear.

[buttslinger]

If you declare the Republican voters unredeemable because of politics, you are as bad as they are. I want every American to see what Trump did. Hearts and Minds are the currency of politics. Any person who works for their family on Maggie's Farm should be a Democrat. If you can't convince them of that it's your failure.

And our failure as a Nation.

[filghy2]

If you declare the Republican voters unredeemable because of politics, you are as bad as they are.

Nice speech, but didn't you describe Trump's base as 'inbred' in another thread recently? To be clear, I'm not talking about everyone who voted for Trump last time. Obviously the Democrats need to win some of those back.

I'm talking about the majority of his supporters - the sort of people who cheer on everything he says at rallies. There's plenty of evidence that those people are motivated primarily by white identity politics. Trump must think so as well, given he keeps coming back to those issues.

[filghy2]

Getting back to the topic, it seems Elizabeth Warren has been the big mover in the polls for the Democratic nomination. She certainly seems to have been busy on policy development. Could being seen as a policy wonk without charisma play well for her after the 'too much excitement' of Trump?
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020

[broncofan]

If you declare the Republican voters unredeemable because of politics, you are as bad as they are. .
First, I don't think they're unredeemable but I do agree with filghy about their motivation. It is resentment. Some of it is race-based and some of it is pure partisan based, but the problem is they have decided the interests of their party trump the country's interest in having rules that apply to everyone.

They're motivated not by their vision of greatness for the country but by the pain segments of society feel watching their President engage in lawless, cruel, and dishonest behavior.

[broncofan]

Getting back to the topic, it seems Elizabeth Warren has been the big mover in the polls for the Democratic nomination. She certainly seems to have been busy on policy development. Could being seen as a policy wonk without charisma play well for her after the 'too much excitement' of Trump?
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020
That's probably true. I'm not impressed by Biden and she is a good candidate. Lack of charisma is not usually an asset but it's in short supply anyhow.

[buttslinger]

Nice speech,... .

Thanks. Yes, I called ignorant people ignorant, I've probably called some niggers niggers, and I'm sure I've called a faggot a faggot. I may have even taken a shot at you. Lets not forget about the Damn Furiners. When it comes to POLITICS, you and I are both LOSERS. Now. It doesn't feel good, does it? It's not good for one's EGO. Republicans have egos too.
Back on topic, Joe, Bernie, and Pocahontas are all in their 70s. That's not good.
If you two can't see through yourselves enough to see ALL people as well meaning, you are part of the problem.
Donald J Trump is the front and center problem, I can't think of a single person who should be easier to take out. He obviously understands his voters better than I do. Odds are, even if impeached and disgraced, and thrown out of office, Pence will pardon him and he'll skate once again off to some real estate deals in Russia or Turkey. Everyone is guilty of convenient blindness.

[broncofan]

You're taking a kernel of an important idea and exaggerating it beyond reason. Yes, everyone should consider how they would react if people they support behave badly or if their circumstances were different. I don't think it's presumptuous to say I would not support Obama if he said and did the things Trump has done. Am I more vigilant about the wrongs of Republicans I disagree with than Democrats whose aspirations I share? Probably.

Might I have different views if I were raised in a red state? I don't doubt it. But I have trouble seeing a version of myself who doesn't see the danger in vilifying people because of their race or calling the media the enemies of the people.

Open-mindedness is good until you insist it should wipe out even the potential for accountability.

And Peejaye, there is something both voyeuristic and childish about refusing to engage in conversation and continuing to downrate innocuous posts long after you've had a chance to cool down.

[buttslinger]

[QUOTE=You're taking a kernel of an important idea and exaggerating it beyond reason. [/QUOTE]

I would have said distilling instead of exaggerating, but your point is correct, well-meaning is probably the wrong word. Human, maybe?

Can I say we should give the Devil his due? Majority Rules. White Republicans vote. The half of Americans who don't vote are overwhelmingly Democrat, if they bothered to vote. Democrats are white urban and suburbanites, Blacks, the rest are a grab bag of tribes. Trump's Whites came over on the Mayflower and unified under the flag of racism because McCain and Romney lost. Democrats brought a fig leaf to a knife fight, they need to bring a gun.
I asked you before, Broncomaniac, Attorney at Law, I guess it got lost in the shuffle-
If Mueller found solid evidence of Trump's involvement with money laundering and Russian Oligarchs, would that be sent to New York for possible prosecution after he's out of office?
And could Bill Barr snuff it?
I want Republicans to see Trump for who he really is. I want him in jail.

As a postscript, I think me and this forum committed the ultimate sin, we got old. I've liked every post broncofan and Jericho have made, ….Stavros.....(sigh) Brilliant, Educated, Loyal, Pompous...if I'm not here I'll be thinking of you December fifth when the last Richardson book on Picasso comes out. I miss Trish and Dino and Prospero, and all the good old times. Upstairs in the FLESH SECTION is boring as Hell now. Sad. Even the Devil gets boring.

[broncofan]

I asked you before, Broncomaniac, Attorney at Law, I guess it got lost in the shuffle-
If Mueller found solid evidence of Trump's involvement with money laundering and Russian Oligarchs, would that be sent to New York for possible prosecution after he's out of office?
And could Bill Barr snuff it?
I want Republicans to see Trump for who he really is. I want him in jail.

As a postscript, I think me and this forum committed the ultimate sin, we got old.
He can be prosecuted depending on the statute of limitations. I don't know whether the statute of limitations "tolls", meaning that it doesn't run during the period of his presidency. It would make sense to me that it would. Statutes of limitation are intended to preclude undue delay by the prosecution and also to allow a defendant the opportunity to put up a defense while the evidence is still fresh. The first purpose at least weighs in favor of tolling the statute since the prosecutors are not constitutionally permitted to prosecute while he's president.

Barr would not be AG once he's out of office. Could a Republican AG in another administration do something to bury it? Yes, but he or she would be risking his neck if he instructed U.S. Attorneys not to investigate or prosecute serious crimes.

It can also be prosecuted at the state level. The Attorney General could not do anything about that. Also, the next President's pardon would not reach state crimes since only federal crimes can be pardoned. I only skimmed this old politico piece but it said something about federal crimes and statutes of limitation so it's possibly useful!

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/06/how-trump-could-be-prosecuted-after-the-white-house-227050

[broncofan]

I follow Mariotti, the politico piece's author on twitter. He's a very good lawyer. He seems to think the only realistic way is if Trump loses in 2020. He doubts the statute of limitations would be tolled during the Trump Presidency and says that many of the federal crimes have a five year s.o.l. He also mentions the possibility of state level crimes, which he would have a harder time wriggling out of with a pardon.

As to the rest of your post. Yes, things are a bit slower on here but it picks up every once in a while!

[buttslinger]

Thanks, Councilor, good article.
I heard some gossip that Trump himself might implicate Pence in the Ukraine booboo, so Republican Senators won't put Nancy Pelosi in the White House. Stranger things have happened.
I don't want Trump to burn for obstruction, I personally thought Bill Clinton should have obstructed that partisan weasel dick Ken Starr. I want undeniable truth that Trump laundered millions of dollars with Putin's best buddies. I want to shove that right down the throat of every well-meaning but delusional person that stood beside him through thick and thin. I want undeniable truth that everything CNN and MSNBC and every legitimate news service said about him was true. Clear as a bell. I want the Murdoch Boys to drop their aiding and abetting prime time line-up like a hot potato. All this beyond fucked up shit started with Fox News.
In my Opinion.

[broncofan]

Thanks, Councilor, good article.

If these past couple years have shown me anything it's that while I would never insist someone call me Counsellor or Esquire or anything else, I'm pretty sure I don't want to be called Councilor, even if you mean Counsellor. My pedantry is not for nothing on this one.

[broncofan]

I don't want Trump to burn for obstruction, I personally thought Bill Clinton should have obstructed that partisan weasel dick Ken Starr.
More quibbling. I find much to agree with but I have to mention this. First, one should play ball even with a politically motivated special prosecutor. Second, Trump was not just protecting himself from embarrassment when he began a long sequence of acts intended to interfere with the Justice Department's ability to investigate Russian cybercrimes. At the time he obstructed justice the target of the investigation was Michael Flynn who had undeniably broken the law.

You want it to be something more than what Clinton did and it was, even before he solicited Ukraine he prevented law enforcement and prosecutors in the Justice Department from being able to investigate crimes that undermined our electoral process. He threatened reprisal against at least four individuals who were just doing their jobs.

Sorry to interfere with the thread. Go Warren or something...whoever's the nominee has my support.

[filghy2]

Back on topic, Joe, Bernie, and Pocahontas are all in their 70s. That's not good.

It may not be ideal, but Trump is also in his 70s, so it shouldn't be a disadvantage. Elizabeth Warren definitely looks the healthiest of those four. Women live about 5 years longer than men on average, so that's not surprising.

[filghy2]

I'm not impressed by Biden and she is a good candidate.

I'm not sure what Biden is running on, other than the fact that he was Obama's deputy. He strikes me as a bit of professional hedger who won't take a position until he sees which way the wind is blowing.

[broncofan]

He strikes me as a bit of professional hedger who won't take a position until he sees which way the wind is blowing.
I agree. He's running on the idea of electability, but as an end in itself it's uninspiring. A part of me likes the pragmatism because about half of what's wrong with Trump is character. But it also tells the right that if they elect an absolute nutjob we'll compromise many of our goals just to have someone sane in the whitehouse.

[broncofan]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/05/these-are-the-taxes-elizabeth-warren-has-proposed-for-2020.html

Here are some of Warren's taxing and spending plans. It's much more ambitious than anything I've found on Biden's website. Biden talks about protecting and expanding the Affordable Care Act, but I think we should move to Medicare for all. The affordable care act was an improvement at the time but I think people are ready for a system closer to what is found in other countries. I also like the idea of a wealth tax and a tax on lobbying.

I trust her a lot more on financial regulatory matters than Sanders too. I'm going to read more about it in the next week but I actually trust her to go after corrupt practices by private equity funds, hedge funds, and banks without destroying our financial system.

[buttslinger]

Sorry counsel-type guy, sorry everybody, I am going through a serious rough patch of late. I think my point about Trump is those well meaning people need to be shaken down to their well meaning roots, or else Trump and these last three years are going to go down in the books as 100% negative. Maybe 200% I'm not even sure if I want Trump impeached if the payoff is Pence. As for the age thing, I'm going to vote for whoever the Dems put up.
When my Mom worked in the Pentagon, word raced through the building that JFK was there. Of course everybody ran out into the halls. He had just got back from vacation and he was tanned and rested, and my Mom said just watching him walk down the hall with his entourage behind him, as all the employees stood in admiration was quite a sight. She also said he was a tall glass of water, or something like that.

[filghy2]

Here are some of Warren's taxing and spending plans.

Thanks. I think what the pragmatists are missing is that a big part of the reason we got Trump is that many voters were dissatisfied with the status quo, as represented by the centrist Democrat approach of the Clinton-Obama period. So going back to that previous status quo does not seem like a long-term solution, even if Biden was able to defeat Trump because voters are turned off by Trump's behaviour.

I also think it's a mistake to think of this about being about one bad guy who hijacked the Republican party, so if we get rid of him things will go back to normal. Trump was pushing on an open door in 2016 - he just capitalised on trends that were already well under way in the party and took them further. There will be others who saw what worked for Trump and appeal to the same themes. That's why I object to buttslinger's view, which seems to assume that Trump is an aberration and normal service can be resumed once Republicans wake up.

That's not to say there there would be no benefit in getting rid of Trump, because his malignant narcissism and erratic nature pose additional dangers.

[buttslinger]

It was the best of times,
It was the worst of times,
It was a time like any other time..
We know everything and we know nothing.
Filghy, I am always surprised when anybody takes my posts seriously, I just vent, get off on seeing my stuff in print, and irk Stavoses perfect universe.
What makes Trump different from Nixon is RUSSIA
I cannot believe the US Intelligence Community didn't come to a screeching halt in Helsinki or after Russians were laughing it up in the Oval Office one day after Comey was fired. Maybe it did. Maybe Trump's interpreter was thrown into the back of a black SUV and taken to a secure location where a guy in a dark suit found out everything that is going on and in the tradition of the CIA "knows all, tells nothing"
Ever since Hiroshima, the lights never go out in the Pentagon. We are the bad guys now, and that's the way we want to keep it. I want Fox News and Trump's base to wrap their legs around Trump's waist, and when he goes down, they go down. But I fear the powers that be see that as a weakening of the fragile yin yang balance that keeps millionaires around the World investing their cash right here in the USA. I think the wheels are finally coming off the Trump bus with Syria and Rudy and Impeachment, Trump's tweets say he is having sleepless nights. The Stooges he's surrounded himself with are figuring out they are stooges. Last week some Gypsies showed up at my front door, I swear. Things seem to be happening fast, any one with any sense saw this day coming three years ago, I only hope there are forces on high that can take this tragedy as a rare opportunity to get some shots in at the enemies of the United States who thought they were getting away with poking at the sleeping giant. Putin needs to get bitch slapped.

[Stavros]

Buttslinger, Deep Throat is your Virgil in this journey through the underworld.
'Follow the Money'. Give it some thought. In the moribund 1980s investors were beginning to take advantage of the liberalization of capital control to re-structure business so that production could be moved offshore where unit costs were cheaper and profit margins higher. Throughout the decade, but notably when Gorbachev became General Secretary of the USSR, the prospects of the USSR being opened to foreign investment sent shivers down the spine: immense resources of oil and gas, and other minerals; a large undeveloped consumer market; agricultural resources; a well-educated work-force: and combine that with technological backwardness and you have the dream becoming reality: they need us, we need them. We have the capital and the technology, they have the resources and the manpower.

Why else has the current crop of US politicians become so mired in Russia and the Ukraine -with Azerbaijan and Kazakjstan side shows (but soaked in corruption on all sides, though it will always be a sideshow to Russia and Ukraine)- why not Bolivia or South Africa, or Equatorial Guine or the Philippines? There may be a link between all those Cold War agents and analysts and the view that, outside China, the glittering prizes were in Russia and the Ukraine.

Follow the money, even if you end up elbow deep in Giuliani's ass. Go deep, then deeper. But remember, it is all about the money, or as the man said 'tell Michael it was only business, I always liked him'.

[buttslinger]

I wrote an epic post, Stavros, but I deleted it, I gave away too much. The truth makes me look bad. I get that Trump gets off on duping the suckers. So do half the Trannys on this site. I think the World is about to say ENOUGH with Trump. Too many witnesses. Follow the Insanity and you go Insane.

[broncofan]

I wrote an epic post, Stavros, but I deleted it, I gave away too much. The truth makes me look bad.
Please. I remember some of the shit you've written here. You're not gonna surprise us:grin:

[filghy2]

I think the World is about to say ENOUGH with Trump. Too many witnesses. Follow the Insanity and you go Insane.

How many times have you predicted Trump's imminent demise already?

[Stavros]

Am I right in thinking Elizabeth Warren is now edging in front of the other candidates? I can only really go by the UK media reports from the US.

[filghy2]

You're right, but two days behind https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020

[buttslinger]

They say confession is good for the soul, with Trump we'll never know because I've never heard him admit anything. If we want to subpoena Trump's soul, it's under audit by the Devil.
The Democratic polls mean nothing 13 months out.
Hey flighy, did I ever hurt your feelings or something? Are you going to whine everytime I open my mouth?

Politics and Religion
Two topics to avoid in light company, this board was especially created for you to "tote the party line" and voice your opinions, thoughts and beliefs on whatever tickles your fancy or currently gets your goat.

[Stavros]

I forgot to add in my post #43 above that what attracted the Americans to Russia and the Ukraine was not just the assets and the money to be made, but that corruption at every level of the State meant that it was relatively easy for someone with working capital to access the system. It seems to me that Giuliani has found himself in the cross-hairs of investigation precisely because some of the people he was working with were on the wrong side of the law, but at a time when the law may no have had defined 'sides'. The days when Russia was an open field have gone, Putin has seen to that, but it seems those who dipped their toes in those swimming pools full of dollars may have wet feet for some time to come.

Whether or not this affects the President is anyone's guess, as David Miliband has argued, we live in an 'age of impunity' and the bastards are getting away with it. Moreover, note that the announcement that was made after a phone call with Erdogan, enabled P45 to deliver a huge gift to Vladimir Putin, on his birthday, 7 October...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBYgprGjOzA

[buttslinger]

Hey, when Tillerson was with Exxon, he and Putin came up with a plan to have Exxon drill oil wells in the Arctic where the ice had melted from global warming. They stood to rake in billions but Magnitsky squelched that. And yes, Hillary fucked with Putin's sham election when she headed the State Department. Then there was that whole Reagan SDI thing that murdered Mother Russia. It's no wonder Vladimir stays up nights plotting against us. He stole my Mom's tax refund one year. As his role model Stalin once said, One lunatic in the white House is a statistic, 38% of the USA losing their minds is a tragedy.
I hate repeating myself, but this whole thing is the plot from the DIE HARD movie where terrorists have the NYC police department chasing their own tails hunting for a terrorist, while in fact the bad guys are thieves looting the gold from the vaults. The whistle blower is Samuel L Jackson. Who knows how this bad movie is going to end but I must repeat myself one more time and say I think the worm has turned, I think Trump's impeachment poles are going to go up and up and up until the Republicans in the Senate fear losing their phony baloney jobs, gentlemen.
When I came on here, I thought it was one more site where dudes rip off content from chicks trying to grab money from dudes compromised by a moment of sexual suspension of reality. I asked the forum about street trannies carrying knives and got laughed at by a dozen merrymakers. In D. C. the transsexual prostitutes hung in a real bad neighborhood focused around a particular bar where they pat you down when you enter. It's history now, I'm sure. Thanks, Obama.
In the Bible they had eight lean years, eight fat years, and four years of floods, locusts, etc.
We have Bush, Obama, Trump. There is nothing new under the Sun, all of this will pass, that's the only thing I'm sure of.

[buttslinger]

Let me try and clean up one last mess, I meant Impeachment polls, not Impeachment poles, although in Trump's case an Impeachment pole might be extremely satisfying. I never fact check anything, I saw that Anderson Cooper interview on TV, occasionally a group of people on MSNBC or CNN will sum up the day perfectly, but they state it, then it's gone. I repeat Geraldo Rivera, if Nixon had Fox News, he never would have left office. But buttslinger says if Hitler had CNN, we would never have had the Holocaust.

Thank you Rachel Maddow.
Thank you Southern District of New York.
https://i.ibb.co/dQ0Lpjg/o.jpg (https://ibb.co/19fdX76)

[blackchubby38]

Am I right in thinking Elizabeth Warren is now edging in front of the other candidates? I can only really go by the UK media reports from the US.

Its starting to look that way. Biden is taking a hit from both the far left and the right about his son earning $50,000 a month and Sanders' recent heart attack is a concern for those who worry about his age. Although my advice to his opponents would be not to make comments about his age and health in the next debate. It may turn off older voters who know what its like to be discriminated against because of their age.

[buttslinger]

How about this.
Would everyone agree that Pence is not as dumb as he looks and was well aware of everything that has gone on under his nose?

re-elect NANCY PELOSI - 2020. Let it ride!!!

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=buttslinger;1902979]
Hey, when Tillerson was with Exxon, he and Putin came up with a plan to have Exxon drill oil wells in the Arctic where the ice had melted from global warming. They stood to rake in billions but Magnitsky squelched that.
--Arctic oil and gas development has been taking place since the 1980s, the key to any future development is the increasing depletion of the sea ice that makes transport difficult to impossible, ditto seabed pipelines. And they are all at it -not just Exxon but Shell, BP, the Norwegians: whether or not the recoverable reserves are worth it is questionable, if the world begins to reduce its dependency on fossil fuels. Technical problems aside, the political question: who owns the stuff has yet to be resolved, not least because Russia has already claimed the North Pole is Russian territory.

Stalin once said, One lunatic in the white House is a statistic, 38% of the USA losing their minds is a tragedy.
-The death of an individual is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic, is what he allegedly said.

In the Bible they had eight lean years, eight fat years, and four years of floods, locusts, etc.
-Seven, not eight years.

We have Bush, Obama, Trump. There is nothing new under the Sun
-If you can't see the difference between Obama and the rest, you probably need spectacles. Almost three years of chaotic decision making based on the resentment of one man and his party, that a Black Man entered the White House as President, has brought your country little other than ridicule and fear. America, and the world, can do so much better.

As for Biden, I don't know what to say- I thought he might get the sympathy vote when there is no truth in the allegations of corruption in the Ukraine, but unless people accept the premise that Americans went there in search of a fortune, and often got one, then the question Why Ukraine? doesn't get the attention it deserves- the same people did not rush into the eastern part of re-unified Germany, because they had the laws Russian and the Ukraine did not. The irony of course, is that some capital can be earned by pointing out Hunter Biden was 'thrown out' of the Naval Reserve for 'cocaine abuse' (I thought it was supposed to be fun)- but when the man making it is a draft-dodger one marvels at the cheek, just as there has yet to be the same level of scrutiny of Junior and Skittles, not to mention the Crooked Kushners.

If this becomes the dirtiest election of recent times, and Elizabeth Warren is the nominee -how does she shape the debate according to her messages on policy and in terms of overall tone? My view is that Americans may want to hear a more warming, and soothing message rather than the relentless insults and abuse we have had from the Republicans: indeed, the 'potty mouth' strategy might work against the Republicans and in favour of the Democrats, but that does also assume the Democrats can agree on what their main policies are, and maybe Warren is dull enough to look good set against an increasingly mad and stupid man -who might not even be President this time next year. Warren -vs- Pence, now that sounds Dull, but am I right?

[buttslinger]

The Republicans and Democrats are here to stay, the secret sauce is always in the middle, do we shift a little to the right, or a little to the left. I was a schoolboy in the sixties, when long hair was treason to many, and LBJ did the right thing with segregation and that dramatic move flipped to entire south from Democratic to Republican. I honestly think that even today if the Democrats run on racism, they'll lose. Biden has the black vote, that's why he's a contender. He's got Soul. Nothing more needs to be said.
We're 13 months from the election, I was only half joking when I said Nancy Pelosi might be President. I honestly think if just one member of Robert Mueller breaks his oath and discloses what the best and brightest of US Intelligence found out about Trump in his younger impetuous days, say a year from now, we will have to stop the presses on any History books being printed, Trump Nation will have a heart attack.
They say Americans who favor impeachment are the ones who are interested in it, the ones who have studied it. The ones who are not in favor of impeachment are the ones who don't follow politics, or get their facts solely from conservative media. Both parties "impeached" Nixon, but it started as a Democratic Idea.
Impeaching Clinton started and ended as a Republican idea, and Pelosi wants the facts on TV to turn this into a bi-partisan effort. I wish her all the luck. It seems like having the truth on your side means nothing. If every politician were forced into wearing a lie detector around their neck, the new trick would be how to beat the lie detector.
As far as Pocahontas versus Pence- ZZZZZZZZZZ nobody would watch. Schoolteacher Warren V. Schoolyard bully Trump, that might be a show.
Rick went to Casablanca to die slowly from a broken heart, the rule was either lay off politics or get out. In the end he and Inspector Renault walked off into the fog, the birth of a beautiful friendship. That was a movie. Sometimes fiction can make people understand the truth better than newsprint.
My question to you, Stavros, is: who killed the Politics and Religion Section? You or me?

https://i.ibb.co/7jqmsnh/0.jpg (https://ibb.co/bQk9cst)

[Stavros]

My question to you, Stavros, is: who killed the Politics and Religion Section? You or me?

If there is a lack of vibrant debate in this section, it may be due to the absence of people who disagree with us. In the past there were people who were keen to oppose Obama, notably the one who relentlessly pointed his contempt at the level of government borrowing that he, along with Paul Ryan (remember him? Didn't think so) considered to be the litmus test of responsible government. That Obama's successor has been borrowing a trillion $ a year, that he has had to compensate farm failures due to his own inept tariffs on China costing $14 billion a year suggests he is significantly more reckless with your dollars than Obama, and may thus explain why he is no longer posting anything. Even those members of Hungangels who claim to admire their President either lack the courage to defend him in these boards, or are too embarrassed to admit to liking him. There is a similar lack of debate from UK members who for all I know think it is a good idea that the UK leave the EU, but they won't admit it here. Just as my attempt to generate sensible debate on Immigration died a death, even though at least two regular posters in other sections once mentioned it there.

But if the word 'kill' is your choice, ask yourself why your so-called President seems so determined to kill the Constitution and the rule of law. Is he not deliberately breaking the law to expose it as an 'ass'? He has even appointed an Attorney General whom he knows will never prosecute him no matter what he does -if anyone is good at 'kissing ass' in the US Government, it must be the Attorney General. For once the US has a President for whom the convention that a sitting President not be indicted, should be overturned- at the very moment the man to do it is a shit-eating tRumpMonkey who can see no evil, hear no evil, or speak no evil, even when it is dripping from his lips.

It's more Fargo than Casablanca: the men sent to kidnap the US and its Constitution so the President can extort money from the people, have begun to murder it, and demolish it, piece by piece. Perhaps the grim truth is that the people who can't be bothered to post a comment in this section, because they don't care, don't care if their country ends up in the toilet wiping the ass of a man who to me is a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a liar, a crook and a traitor. as David Miliband put it, we live in an 'age of impunity', and no well-intentioned pregnant officer can save it -unless, at this late stage, the people rally to save their Republic. In which case, Fargo needs a sequel, but who will direct it?

[buttslinger]

I think Trish had it right, we are in the Twilight Zone, baby, Most of the Republicans in Congress outside a handful that show up on Fox News every night despise Trump as much as anybody, but they are held hostage by the same morons that elected Trump and un-elected the EU over there. You trash our morons more than your own, I think maybe. Unlike the sci-fi CGI stuff we see today, the Twilight Zone always ended badly, as bad as it seemed during the show, the truth, the ending, was even more horrifyingly sober. The great truth is never clearly seen until it's too late.
I do care about Trump, a friend of my Mom's who worked in Naval Intelligence and I had a long discussion about how Trump is up to his neck with Putin, how this was going to end up in bloodshed, etc etc etc, while my poor Mom lay between us in her hospital bed saying nothing, in pain that we haven't seen yet. That's our true future.
My brother and his wife won't discuss it. Before I can finish the sentence that she should tune into Sean Hannity's show some night and see 60 minutes of the worst horror movie that's ever been made, she is shaking her head. no no no. To her credit, she refuses to get sucked in.
I have a friend whose Dad was John McCain's C.O. at Annapolis. He's never voted, and his sisters, some of them are Trumpers. I swear they see themselves as the true Americans. Debating it just leaves us both shaking our heads and pissed off. I am a druggie and you are a fag to them. Clear as day.
I am seriously considering taking the advice of the clowns that happily jerk off up in the porn section and wisely don't bring up guns or abortions at cock-tail parties. There's not a goddamn thing I can do about Trump, We, the People, spoke in 2016, and I honestly believe we the people will change their minds in 2020, (Independents) but like Casablanca, you never really know if Rick is going to get on the plane til the end. The problems of two people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
It is quite possible people listen to you over there, and that's made you think that your opinion means something, I have no illusions that my little soapbox here is the only time my voice registers "in print"
To be or not to be, I gotta believe one of these Judges over here is going to give the House of Representatives Trump's tax records, and all that stuff Mueller found out about Putin's inner circle money laundering millions with Trump will finally have PROOF. Then you'll see all the dominoes fall. That's what I'm focused on. But yeah, as others have said right here, we'll still have millions of gullible souls looking for their sweet time on the sunny side of the street. Maybe Elizabeth Warren has the right plan. Educate every kid, one kid at a time, as best we can. Paying for a education of some Guatemalan's 5 kids in an American school costs taxpayers like 50 grand a year. At the end of this Twilight Zone episode we are still 22 trillion dollars in debt. When that bill comes due the Western World will be as fucked as the rest of the world. It's a bi-partisan can that we've been kicking down the road for way to long. If the Republican Party crashes and re-invents itself as the party that fixes the tax code, I might say fuck the rich and poor and save the middle class.
It is very possible that all my hatred for Trump is doing nothing but giving me an ulcer. Just like Putin planned it. Jesus.

[filghy2]

My question to you, Stavros, is: who killed the Politics and Religion Section? You or me?


Why aren't more people flocking here to read your half-page diatribes? Beats me :-)

I think there's a bit of a catch 22 issue. For people who basically agree with your position there's not much that can be said that hasn't already been said many times before. Also, there are many other places on the internet where we can read about these issues. People who don't agree with you, on the other hand, are generally not people who like to engage in civil discussion.

So I think it's going to be you and Stavros walking off into the fog together. He's Felix and you're Oscar, so it must be an attraction of opposites. I'm sure the diatribes are good therapy for you anyway.

[buttslinger]

I assure you my diatribe is against Donald Trump and Donald Trump only. Every home in the United States should have an outdoor recess bell ringing in their living room constantly ever since Trump practically got down on his knees and blew Putin on the world stage at Helsinki. How could anyone not see that footage and not lose their mind? I'm pretty sure if I stopped holding back and said what I really felt two guys in suits would be knocking on my door like I'M the bad guy!!
My position hasn't changed one inch since Trump was elected. Either I'm insane or the world is insane. Possibly both. I bleed red white and blue. Stavros doesn't even like Elvis. Not Treason, but close. Stavros isn't Felix, Stavros is Stavros. I'm not Oscar, but I'm not Buttslinger, either.
I'm on my knees praying that Trump didn't just do what we were all afraid he was going to do in Syria. Everybody's just standing around. I'm sick of it.

[Stavros]

I assure you my diatribe is against Donald Trump and Donald Trump only. Every home in the United States should have an outdoor recess bell ringing in their living room constantly ever since Trump practically got down on his knees and blew Putin on the world stage at Helsinki. How could anyone not see that footage and not lose their mind? I'm pretty sure if I stopped holding back and said what I really felt two guys in suits would be knocking on my door like I'M the bad guy!!
My position hasn't changed one inch since Trump was elected. Either I'm insane or the world is insane. Possibly both. I bleed red white and blue. Stavros doesn't even like Elvis. Not Treason, but close. Stavros isn't Felix, Stavros is Stavros. I'm not Oscar, but I'm not Buttslinger, either.
I'm on my knees praying that Trump didn't just do what we were all afraid he was going to do in Syria. Everybody's just standing around. I'm sick of it.

It is the lack of reason that worries me in your posts -all this emotional stuff doesn't deal with voter suppression, the purging of voter rolls, law enforcement murdering innocent people in their own homes, the illusion of economic health, the crisis in education, the foreign policy of the US now privatized to become a family business with its own email servers, its own personnel and its complete indifference to the Constitution and the law. All these things can be dealt with rationally, and politically, just as in the UK we have created a political impasse due to the fact that much of what people want from Brexit cannot be delivered, or delivered in the manner that can make it work. People want instant solutions, they don't exist.

It will be hard work getting rid of the worst President since Andrew Jackson, because he has not only no respect for the law, but deliberately breaks it knowing his guy in the Department of Justice will let him do what he wants. This is the opposite of the politics the Founding Fathers wanted when they created the United States, it is up to you do either protect your Constitution or throw it away and in effect, cancel Appomattox and hand victory to the Confederates, dividing the US for the next 50-100 years, just as the UK must 'go it alone' in the same period, but without the same degree of resources.

As for Elvis, it is simple: I was raised on JS Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, but in my teens via Eric Clapton and John Mayall developed a love of Robert Johnson and Blind Lemon Jefferson. The appropriation of Black American music by a slob who could not sing has been one of the crimes against culture White America has committed. It was not the first or the last, but every time that ridiculous cretin tries to sing we are violated, polluted, and it is all on record for posterity, we can't purge it from the history of music. Why would anyone want to listen to his squealing whine when you can spend a moment with Robert Johnson and the magic of individual creativity? There is so much that the US has produced that exists to be enjoyed and admired. It is when you set real jewels of America against its worst excesses that you wonder how this other man managed to pull of the heist of the century (so far) to rob Americans of the dollars in their pockets, and the dignity that the Presidency once had. He is turning the USA into a shithole, not the Twilight Zone.

[buttslinger]

There you go again,
You see, when you call the USA a shithole, I have to remind you the your wonderful country wouldn't exist if it weren't for us, Heil Hitler.
Maybe economically you'd be better off as part of the Third Reich, at least you wouldn't have a joke King and Queen.
And every once in a while you mention young boys. Yikes!! Please, Enlighten us all about that, Please.
As for Elvis, you don't seem to realize when your leg is being pulled. Until he died, I laughed at Elvis. But he was the Beatles before the Beatles.
I assure you John Lennon and Eric Clapton listened to Elvis and Scotty Moore as much as Robert Johnson.
God forbid I get personal, but have you ever had any friends?
Severe Clinical Depression is the SECOND worse thing about me, but I've been fortunate enough to have lots of good friends, I don't think one of them were raised on J S Bach. If I ever had a friend as pompous as you I'd cut him down to size faster than you can deep fry a Krispy Kreme Donut.
If you want to call me an asshole, bring it. But don't get any mud on your suit. You might tarnish your reputation as the most overqualified English Gentleman whoever daily looked down his nose at a bunch of jerkoffs at a goddam PORN SITE!!!
Lighten up, Francis.:dancing::dancing::dancing:

[Stavros]

Can you read? No mention of young boys, no knowledge of the history of the UK on your part -or the US- least of all in the Second World War, so no need for a silly reference to the Third Reich. I am a cultural snob, that should be obvious, but that is hardly an issue worth debating. As for the shithole, who was first to describe states in that way, as he presided over the wholesale dismissal in some states of the very basis on which the US was formed? Up to you if my comment was satire, or description.

It all depends on how much you want the US remade in the image of Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, how much you want the Presidency replaced by an ATM for the incumbent, unaccountable to anyone, including you. You have to decide if the 45th President is a blip on the screen or the warning of a radical change to your political arrangements, just as I and others in the UK have to decide if Brexit is going to damage the UK for the next 10-15 years, at least, or mark an opportunity for greater prosperity. We still don't know what Brexit will mean, least of the all any deal Boris Johnson offers Parliament to conclude this phase of the process, but Rafael Behr offers a sober analysis that points out what the future might look like. When you can offer an analysis of the US that has a similar depth of knowledge you might write a post worth reading.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/15/johnson-brexit-deal-confrontation-eu-britain

[buttslinger]

I heard there was news about Brexit today, but I heard it on Fox News, they seemed to think it was great news.
It seems to me that your overly dramatic portrayal of me deciding how I have to decide on the Future of the USA is as stupid as my nonsense. I didn't vote for the prick, unless I send all my money to the DNC, that's as far as the Constitution allows me to protest. What do you expect me to do, make a sign and go stand outside the White House? Should I scream at a history book? The answer is if you venture into the World expect to get punched in some dark alley. I guarantee you Trump is not the end of the World. If he launches ICBMs at Iran, then I'm wrong. Oh well,,,
As far as I can see the Democrats kowtow to whoever didn't watch "The Apprentice" and the Republicans bend over backward to please the morons who watched that TV SHOW! Our leaders follow us. And all of our faults. For votes. It used to be we were all Americans and leaned toward social conscience or fiscal responsibility. Now it's about a guy in Pakistan this morning, working in a 7-11 tonight.
All we know is the tip of the iceberg, the weight of the unseen gravity is speculation. Some know more than others. Our leaders hide how fucked up things are. On both sides of the aisle, here, there, Russia, China, We're ALL on the Titanic. There's a sucker born every minute and there's a guy who feels it's his duty to separate that sucker from his cash.
Debate She-bait, everybody does what they can, nobody knows what others are up against. The larger picture always exists, there's a day on the calendar when we're gonna die, and on that day it's going to be today, if you want to spend your life focused on politics, good, if you want to bash my country, TODAY, good. Fuck You. You're Greek anyway, right?
Not only is the earth falling under your feet, this forum has dissolved into what it was created to be. A place where guys go to hopefully drop a few bucks into Grooby's pocket. He seems like a good guy, I had lots of fun here. But this forum has seen better times. It's nobody's fault, that's just the way it is. Nothing good lasts forever. I'm pretty sure all Trump means is that the rose colored glasses have come off and 2020 vision is a bit ugly. A bit TOO real. Never in my life would I have believed the citizens of the United States would put a grifter like Trump and all the little Trumps in the White House. But the people spoke. I fight Authority, Authority always wins. Still, we fight.
I commend you for everything you've done for this forum, Stavros, I'm sure you're as right as you can be, but to be honest, I glide over or ignore some of your longer posts. I don't live here, I've never sucked a cock in my life. Everything Counts. Even illiterate hillbillies get to vote and deserve their day in the sun. Lots of those hicks died on Omaha Beach, no Kurds, No way.

[buttslinger]

Let me sum it up as clearly as I can. I've got one foot out the door. Even at my best, I was typing with one hand and jerking off with the other. I don't even recognize the names of 98% of the posters upstairs. You're giving thoughtful probing debate to a podium with nobody there. Who's the idiot?
Gotta Go. There's a real debate on TV. I wish everyone the best and hope Trump finds God in prison. If it's a fake god, c'est la vie.

[Stavros]

Set to one side the scary possibility Hillary might run again...and consider this curious story from 'way back when' regarding Joe Biden...time for a change, America. Make it happen.

https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/life/2019/08/20/martin-scorseses-the-irishman-could-feature-delaware-events/1953590001/

[Stavros]

A trenchant view of the perennial stumbling block of domestic policy in the US: health care, and why on this issue Warren could lead the party to failure if she becomes the nominee. Tough but maybe true?

The real issues, surely are the impending collapse of the banking system -again!- and the absolute corruption of American government where, for example, Mitchell McConnnell declares without any evidence being presented to the Senate that there will be no impeachment; and Lindsay Graham says he will not even read the transcripts of the evidence from House Committees proving there was a quid pro quo, with Rudolph Giuliani Jr appearing to be the self-appointed (?) Secretary of State in charge of gathering evidence to attack the USA and American citizens. If this cannot be stopped, then why bother having an election in 2020? Just anoint the man with holy water and dance naked around a bonfire.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-obamacare-mfa-healthcare-democrats-a9186496.html

[broncofan]

I understand the article but I wonder if we can afford to not be ambitious. Our healthcare system, even with some important and useful changes enacted under the Affordable Care Act, is still one of the least efficient in the developed world. Expenses per patient are extremely high and rates of medical bankruptcies are high as well. Our system is a hodgepodge of about a half dozen to a dozen relevant laws, adding up to not much. Without getting into detail they're hard to augment without doing something more radical.

In addition, I like the idea of a wealth tax that both Sanders and Warren are proposing but I am not sure about how it is administered.

Are super wealthy people getting appraisals of their assets every year and having to raise tax revenue through sales? With our income tax, we've always operated based on the realization principle, which is that you only have a gain when you sell an asset and can therefore pay taxes. Does a wealth tax create liquidity issues for people who have a lot of assets but not much income in a year?

I've always thought the idea of breaking up big banks was not smart, but there's a lot I don't know about banking regulation. Yes a conglomerate can threaten the strength of the economy by taking on a lot of risk (insufficient reserves, poor investment quality and unsafe loans), but lots of small banks might not meet the credit needs of businesses and homeowners. I am not sure that the lesson of the 2008 crisis is that big banks should not exist but that they should be regulated better and there should be more accountability. I've said this elsewhere but still feel that way.

I do think healthcare has to be a priority and something radical should be done. That means we need a lot more tax revenue....

[broncofan]

One of the most significant policy shifts we've seen from candidates this term is the proposal of a wealth tax. Both Warren and Sander propose wealth taxes that hit people with very high net worth. For Warren it kicks in for people worth more than 50 million dollars. It would tax 2% for those worth between 50 million and 1 billion dollars and 3% above that.

The question I asked above was how people's assets are valued. Obviously it would be cumbersome to have annual appraisals and particular tough to come up with a good value for many privately held businesses. The article I linked recommends as a solution assuming growth rates for particular asset classes and then settling the difference upon sale. I still am not sure if that's what Warren proposes.

There is also the issue of whether it is Constitutional. I genuinely don't know the answer and will not even waste room speculating, but it is a significant enough concern that it will likely be challenged by Republicans. You can read about the clause under consideration in the business insider article.

I like the idea of a wealth tax for a couple of reasons. I think people with high net worth should pay more. I also think sophisticated planning means people find a way to hold assets until death and never realize a taxable gain. There is an estate tax, but unsold assets get something called a step up in basis. So, if your grandmother bought a house for 5 hundred thousand dollars and leaves it to you in her will when it's worth 5 million dollars, you don't pay taxes on that difference. You only pay taxes for the amount above 5 million when you sell it. A lot of wealth management takes this into account. For people with hundreds of millions of dollars who would be subject to the wealth tax holding assets to avoid realizing a gain helps them escape a lot of tax that they transmit to the next generation. A wealth tax extracts some of that value.

https://itep.org/a-wealth-tax-might-be-easier-to-implement-than-you-think/

https://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-tax-definition-explained-elizabeth-warren-2019-7

[Stavros]

Good arguments on tax from Robert Reich here-

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/10/billionaires-warren-sanders-wealth-tax-bezos-dimon-cohen

[broncofan]

Good arguments on tax from Robert Reich here-

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/10/billionaires-warren-sanders-wealth-tax-bezos-dimon-cohen
There are some good suggestions here for ways to bring in a lot of tax revenue without a wealth tax. He mentions the fact that in our current code capital gains are eliminated at death...I think every tax plan should at least be getting rid of this.

[blackchubby38]

Even though Pete Buttigieg is leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire, he is polling 0% with black voters in South Carolina. There seems to be this ongoing narrative that he is having a problem with making headway with them in general. Eventually the elephant in the room has to be addressed that maybe homophobia is playing a part in some black voters' feelings toward Buttigieg.

[Stavros]

I did not realize until reading this critique that Elizabeth Warren, like Hillary Clinton, started her political life as a Republican.
Time to re-think this candidate?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/24/elizabeth-warren-not-progressive

[broncofan]

I did not realize until reading this critique that Elizabeth Warren, like Hillary Clinton, started her political life as a Republican.
Time to re-think this candidate?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/24/elizabeth-warren-not-progressive
Would that mean Bernie Sanders is the only person committed to single payer healthcare? I haven't been following closely but I might end up supporting him. I hate to be a single issue voter but I don't understand how we can commit ourselves to a healthcare system that's so ineffective and causes suffering and bankruptcy. One enormous source of inequality in this country is that people are put into financial distress and die young because of our broken system.

I wouldn't mind if she started off as a Republican and has a change of heart to support left-wing policies. But the change of heart has to be real...

[Jericho]

I'll be honest, I'm fucking clueless, when it comes to American politics. Federal, state, party, president. If I was voting for an MP, I would hope that I was in Bernie Sanders constituency.
But, I'm hearing a lot about Andrew Yang, what's his deal?
There should be an Idiots Guide!

[Stavros]

Would that mean Bernie Sanders is the only person committed to single payer healthcare? I haven't been following closely but I might end up supporting him. I hate to be a single issue voter but I don't understand how we can commit ourselves to a healthcare system that's so ineffective and causes suffering and bankruptcy. One enormous source of inequality in this country is that people are put into financial distress and die young because of our broken system.

Bernie Sanders wants the Democrat nomination but sits as an Independent in Congress, one of those peculiarities of the US system that doesn't make sense.
I don't think you will have a single payer health care system for the foreseeable future. Health care in the US is a commercial enterprise, not a public service, and the companies making all the money are far more powerful than were the Medical Associations and the Charities that were responsible for health care in the UK before 1948. Crucially, the weak element in this is the extent to which States Rights will prevent the creation of a single payer Federal Health Care system, had Obama been able to do it, I think it would have emerged by now. The USA is not united anymore, the re-emergence of the Confederacy that in reality never went away, means that not only do Republicans gerrymander districts to prevent the election, even the voting of Democrats, they have sewn up most of the District Courts with Federalist Society acolytes who will reject single payer health care when it is challenged in the Courts.
Real change in the US these days means that Federal law can be re-interpreted locally and in effect be detached from daily life, as has happened with the re-definition of term limits for abortions, and the purge of voter rolls. Add in the simple fact that the Presidency ignores Congress, and even repudiates its right to be involved in decisions that Constitutionally are within its right to decide, and you have what in effect is a Monarchy, or at best a Duarchy if as may emerge, the Supreme Court has only one function, to endorse the decisions of the President. The manner in which the President has made decisions with regard to individual members of the armed forces that directly undermine the legally and morally established processes developed by the military for years is an example of the King's authority: the SEALS can shove their 'Code of Honour' where it hurts, the President/King will make the decisions from now on. He is not Commander-in-Chief for nothing, he is Master and Commander, and must be obeyed.

Either you are witnessing the break up of the Federal Union and the demolition of the three branches of government, or this is a temporary blip and 'normal service will be resumed' in 2020. Or will it?
It seems a lot of Americans rather like the idea of a King who poses in silk panties while wearing boxing gloves, who swears in public and abuses and insults as many Americans -oops, I'm sorry, Human Scum- as he can and as often as he can.

[broncofan]

I'll be honest, I'm fucking clueless, when it comes to American politics. Federal, state, party, president. If I was voting for an MP, I would hope that I was in Bernie Sanders constituency.
But, I'm hearing a lot about Andrew Yang, what's his deal?
There should be an Idiots Guide!
When I first started watching PM questions in 2014, it was like I was a child trying to listen to the cadence and tone to determine who was winning. Whoever's MPs laughed more at their jokes was the winner in my eyes. I read a few articles about the British Parliamentary system and am sure I understood it, but it was gone from my mind within two weeks. That's how it is unless you have people you're constantly talking about it with.

All of the elections that you would hear about in international media for us are federal. State and local governments have a lot of effect over our lives but there's not as much engagement with those elections. One thing I can say is that the results of our congressional elections (senate and house) don't determine who wins the Presidency. So someone can vote for a Republican for Congress and also cast a ballot for a Democrat for President.

I've heard good things about Andrew Yang and he seems like a genuinely nice guy. He's only polling at 3% which is why I don't know very much about him. Probably the best way to see who is offering what is their websites, though I'm too lazy to read them all. You could follow them on twitter, along with a few of each of their supporters and get some info (which is what I do for Kamala Harris and Warren).

Stavros, I tend to agree with you. I've agreed about Bernie, but I want to support a candidate who is going to try to deliver more comprehensive health care. At this point, I would say I'm not sure who I support among Democrats.

[Jericho]

Ok, so am I right in thinking you could have a democrat house and senate, but a republican President (in theory)?
And what about the law, which takes precedent, federal or state?
I'm thinking Federal, it being across all states, but, can state law overturn federal law (stavs post about abortion got me thinking about this)?

[broncofan]

Federal law takes precedence over state law where they both overlap. In order to pass laws, our legislature (the senate and the house of representatives-collectively called Congress) must act pursuant to a grant of power in our federal constitution. These grants of power are stated broadly and when controversial laws are passed they are often challenged as to whether they fit within that grant of power.

States pass laws on issues that relate to the health, welfare, and safety of those in each state. This includes employment regulations, ordinances, and many criminal laws. When a federal law is passed pursuant to a constitutional grant of power and it conflicts with the state law it is said to pre-empt the state law.

There are areas that states have exclusive authority to legislate in. Many crimes that take place entirely within a state and have nothing to do with commercial activity will be matters of state law. Statutes regulating abortion tend to be state law measures. These have generally not been trumped by federal law but ruled to violate a fundamental liberty interest of women and therefore violate our federal constitution (even state laws need to comply with it).

Often it's the case that our Congress and our Presidency is controlled by different parties. I'll give an example using our senate which has 100 senators. Let's say 55 were Republicans and 45 were Democrats, but the President is a Democrat. If the Republican senate passed a law giving tax breaks to the rich by a majority (55-45), it only becomes law if the President signs it into law. The President can veto it, in which case it can only become law if it gets 67 votes (or 2/3). This would require 12 Democrats to vote for it or they have to re-write the bill and try again. All legislation in our system needs to pass by majority vote in both houses of Congress and be signed into law by the President or override a Presidential veto by 2/3 vote.

[broncofan]

can state law overturn federal law (stavs post about abortion got me thinking about this)?
I also used the language in my previous post about states having exclusive jurisdiction to pass laws in certain areas. This doesn't mean that state law trumps federal law, just that Congress has not been given a grant of power to pass laws in that area. If they tried to pass a law in that area, it would be struck down, not because the state law trumps it but because they acted outside of their grant of power.

[Jericho]

I think I have a nose bleed!
The more I know the less I know! :hide-1:

[broncofan]

I told you a few years ago I read an entire wikipedia on British Parliament and devolved powers to Scottish Parliament etc. It's gone. Now I can impress other yanks because I know what MP stands for.

So take-aways: 1. President and Congress elected separately. 2. Congress= House of representatives and Senate. 3. Senate has 100 senators (2 for each state) and House 435 (proportioned to population of each state).

Actually one more function of our system that is quirky is that a lot of important social issues are decided by our Supreme Court. We have 9 Justices, they are appointed by the President when there is a vacancy and they serve for life. This ends up being kind of a morbid thing bc people know who Justices were appointed by and how old they are.

And that would exceed my knowledge of the mechanics of British Parliament. But I like watching PM questions so I can see who's more popular with his backbench:)

[broncofan]

Anecdotes can be helpful to illustrate an issue though I always assume when I hear something about our healthcare system it's a worst case scenario. Let me share a moderate case scenario that proves we're barely a civilized country.

I have health insurance through my employer. I chose a good health insurer when I picked my plan. Recently I was playing tennis and destroyed my calf. Everyone I was playing with said they knew the injury, that it was a tear of the main muscle in the calf and of the plantaris, that it doesn't need surgery but is very painful and keeps you off your feet for four weeks and eight weeks to fully heal.

I went to a doc, who expressed the same suspicion but said in such an injury it's helpful to get an mri to rule out an achilles tear, which he said is perhaps 1% possibility, probably less since I could kind of hobble.

I don't have an Achilles tear but today I got a bill in the mail that says my insurance covered 3,200 dollars of it and that I owe exactly 1,736.43 dollars.

If I knew I would get stuck with a bill for nearly two thousand dollars I would have said I'm fine, I'm almost positive it's not an Achilles tear. What's more, the doctor wanted to order a second MRI to prove it healed properly!

First of all, there are people in this country who are not insured. Small employers don't have to provide insurance, and people who are unemployed are supposed to pay a $500 dollar a month premiums for bad insurance.

Anyhow, the good news is I got to tell people about my stupid leg, my tennis game, and also complain about our healthcare system. Brits, Aussies, is this the sort of bill you guys get stuck with?

[broncofan]

Anyhow, this is part of the reason I think healthcare has to be a major priority.

[Stavros]

Brits, Aussies, is this the sort of bill you guys get stuck with?


There is no bill. You would probably go to hospital, have an x-ray and a diagnosis, maybe some pills but as you say it is not a major injury. As a mature adult you pay a National Insurance contribution with every pay check, ie once a month in normal circumstances. This entitles you to free medical treatment at the time of need. If you are prescribed pills then you will have to pay for the medicine, a base fee of £9 (about $11.83) so that would be the total cost of the treatment, though I doubt you need a pill for an Achilles tendon injury. Because of my age I get my medicines free of charge (and I am currently on three different types of pill per day)

[filghy2]

Brits, Aussies, is this the sort of bill you guys get stuck with?

It's a little complicated in Australia, but still way better in most respects than the USA. Treatment in a public hospital is free, but there are long waiting lists for surgery classified as non-critical. Private doctors' bills are reimbursed up to a scheduled fee that the government decides is reasonable, although many doctors charge more than than this. Medical drugs are also heavily subsidised. Some things are not generally covered by the government - eg dental and optical. Many people have private insurance to cover these extra costs, but even with this there can still be significant out-of-pocket costs.

Fortunately, I've been pretty healthy so the details of medical coverage have not been much of an issue for me. However, I am heading into that grey area where I'm old enough to start developing more medical problems but not old enough to qualify for the benefits available to seniors. Recently I was a diagnosed with condition that will require surgery to fix, but because it's non-critical the only way I could get it done anytime soon is in a private hospital. I don't have private insurance, so that would cost around AU$10,000 (US$7,000).

[Jericho]

normal circumstances. This entitles you to free medical treatment at the time of need. If you are prescribed pills then you will have to pay for the medicine, a base fee of £9 (about $11.83) so that would be the total cost of the treatment

Unless you live in Wales or Scotland, where prescriptions are 'free'.

[broncofan]

It's a little complicated in Australia, but still way better in most respects than the USA. Treatment in a public hospital is free, but there are long waiting lists for surgery classified as non-critical. Private doctors' bills are reimbursed up to a scheduled fee that the government decides is reasonable, although many doctors charge more than than this. Medical drugs are also heavily subsidised. Some things are not generally covered by the government - eg dental and optical. Many people have private insurance to cover these extra costs, but even with this there can still be significant out-of-pocket costs.

Fortunately, I've been pretty healthy so the details of medical coverage have not been much of an issue for me. However, I am heading into that grey area where I'm old enough to start developing more medical problems but not old enough to qualify for the benefits available to seniors. Recently I was a diagnosed with condition that will require surgery to fix, but because it's non-critical the only way I could get it done anytime soon is in a private hospital. I don't have private insurance, so that would cost around AU$10,000 (US$7,000).
Sorry to hear you're going to be out of pocket so much for this surgery. The health insurance I have would cost someone out of pocket 500 a month (or 6000 a year) if they were unemployed or worked for a small employer who wasn't required to provide health insurance. So, someone paying 6,000 a year for insurance might get the bill I got.

I have to say I pay only about 25 dollars out of pocket for two prescriptions per month which is not terrible. Even with insurance we're out of pocket for so many things and insurance companies try to find ways to weasel out of paying. I get a surprise bill like this once every three or four years.

I also have a close friend who was transported to the hospital with uncontrollable seizures (he had poorly controlled type I diabetes) and left with a bill so large he declared bankruptcy in his twenties.

[broncofan]

Unless you live in Wales or Scotland, where prescriptions are 'free'.
That's a pretty good deal. I'm sure a lot of people here get dinged for hundreds a month on prescriptions. Anything that still has a patent is very expensive and insurance companies will often either not cover it or bury you in paperwork proving the drug is a necessity and you've tried every alternative.

[filghy2]

Sorry to hear you're going to be out of pocket so much for this surgery. The health insurance I have would cost someone out of pocket 500 a month (or 6000 a year) if they were unemployed or worked for a small employer who wasn't required to provide health insurance. So, someone paying 6,000 a year for insurance might get the bill I got.

Private insurance would have cost me at least A$1500 per year and not covered all costs, so I figure I'm well ahead with all the money I've saved by not having it. It's a calculated gamble on staying healthy and being able to use the public system if something goes wrong. The most important thing is that I know I'm not going to be ruined financially if I'm struck by a severe medical condition.

[Jericho]

That's a pretty good deal. I'm sure a lot of people here get dinged for hundreds a month on prescriptions. Anything that still has a patent is very expensive and insurance companies will often either not cover it or bury you in paperwork proving the drug is a necessity and you've tried every alternative.


Being under Labour control (currently), free prescription is one of the few useful things the Senedd (welsh parliament) has done (though I still think it's a house of snakes built to divide and conquer)!

[Stavros]

Bye Bye, Bernie, bye bye. One can only hope so.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/16/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-donald-trump

[broncofan]

I think Bernie deserves credit for taking useful ideas that were once considered too radical for mainstream American politics and helping to popularize them. He has been at the forefront when it comes to discussing economic inequality, deficiencies in our health care system, and the need for more accessible higher education. These are things you see throughout many developed countries and the U.S. has lagged behind other countries when it comes to caring for our poor and sick, and enabling economic mobility with a progressive tax system and accessible education.

However, I think his movement has faltered because of his egotism. He seems to have disdain for many other Democrats, some who maybe deserve it, and others who would be amenable to his ideas. He is also, as the article Stavros linked, not great when it comes to social issues because they don't fit within his paradigm for understanding social problems. Bernie has made very obtuse statements about civil rights, and he seems to think class and economic status are primary causes of all social problems. We've had slavery within this country, and yes one can think of it in economic terms, but there is so much more there. There is so much more to bigotry, whether it's homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-black racism, xenophobia, transphobia and sexism than an economic relation.

My favorite candidate is still probably Elizabeth Warren. Notwithstanding her backsliding on some of her commitments she has proposed a lot of aggressive reforms to increase corporate accountability and to make our tax system more fair. I do think she is not especially charismatic and I don't think I'm saying that because I've pigeonholed women in some way. That's just always been my impression.

Anyhow, I think it's likely we end up with Joe Biden as our candidate. He would be a big improvement from Trump, but he doesn't offer anything exciting.

[blackchubby38]

Apparently Micheal Bloomberg is going to run an anti-gun commercial during the Super Bowl tomorrow night. Talk about not knowing your audience.

Between that, Elizabeth Warren talking about having a high school student interview candidates for the Secretary of Education, and the anti-MTA and police rallies here in NYC, its almost like some liberals want 4 more years of Trump.

[filghy2]

Apparently Micheal Bloomberg is going to run an anti-gun commercial during the Super Bowl tomorrow night. Talk about not knowing your audience.

Between that, Elizabeth Warren talking about having a high school student interview candidates for the Secretary of Education, and the anti-MTA and police rallies here in NYC, its almost like some liberals want 4 more years of Trump.

I assume he's running those ads because it's the biggest audience, and they're not all gun nuts. Do you suggest he only run ads to people who already support gun controls? Incidentally, why do you insist on referring to pro-gun control policies as anti-gun - essentially echoing the gun lobby's rhetoric?

Are you even a Democrat supporter? You seem to be focused mainly on criticising them rather than the other side, often using the other side's talking points - eg "anti-gun", "far left". Your idea of a winning strategy seems to be that Democrats should be as inoffensive as possible and avoid taking a firm position on anything that would not go down well in Trumpland. What do you actually believe in?

[blackchubby38]

I assume he's running those ads because it's the biggest audience, and they're not all gun nuts. Do you suggest he only run ads to people who already support gun controls? Incidentally, why do you insist on referring to pro-gun control policies as anti-gun - essentially echoing the gun lobby's rhetoric?

Are you even a Democrat supporter? You seem to be focused mainly on criticising them rather than the other side, often using the other side's talking points - eg "anti-gun", "far left". Your idea of a winning strategy seems to be that Democrats should be as inoffensive as possible and avoid taking a firm position on anything that would not go down well in Trumpland. What do you actually believe in?

I have voted Democrat in every election since 1992. I'm moderate who leans left on certain issues. I have also made my feelings clear about being pro-gun control in the past. The reason why I'm criticizing them is because some of them don't seem to have learn anything from 2016.

I'm a realist who realizes that if that Democrats are going win in November, they're going to have win back some of the voters they lost in 2016. Its not about being inoffensive, its about knowing which issues you can win on with those voters and which ones that you're not. Gun control isn't one of them.

In other ones, yes only run ads to people who already support gun control. The Democrats have already won on that issue with their base and independents who support it.

[filghy2]

Okay, but if now is not the right time to mention gun control, when will be the right time? If it's too risky to raise now, won't it also be too risky at any point in the future, as there's always another election coming? Your argument sounds like a recipe for perpetual inaction. Supposing Democrats won the Presidency and both houses after running quiet on gun control. Wouldn't you then be telling us that they shouldn't try to legislate because there would be too much risk of a backlash?

[filghy2]

Also, what are you suggesting to win back the voters who switched to Trump? Presumably they voted for him because they weren't happy with the status quo; in particular, because they were being left behind economically. That suggests that the Democrats need to run on something more than just not being Trump, that they need policies to spread the gains more evenly.

[broncofan]

I have voted Democrat in every election since 1992. I'm moderate who leans left on certain issues. I have also made my feelings clear about being pro-gun control in the past. The reason why I'm criticizing them is because some of them don't seem to have learn anything from 2016.

I appreciate your posts but have sometimes had the same question. You often show you're a reasonable person, which is good and important, but then I wonder what in the Democratic program is indispensable to you. At what point would a concession by Democrats to win votes change the character of the party so much that we're giving up the things we're fighting for? I ask myself the same question because the Democratic party winning is so important to me but I want to know what we win.

I also think the issues Democrats run on need to be calibrated so that we're creating an impact but also pulling away the right slice of the voters to win elections. If you don't mind me asking, who do you like so far? If it's Biden I will agree that what he offers is significantly different from what Trump offers, even if it isn't bold or inspiring.

[broncofan]

Also, what are you suggesting to win back the voters who switched to Trump? Presumably they voted for him because they weren't happy with the status quo; in particular, because they were being left behind economically. That suggests that the Democrats need to run on something more than just not being Trump, that they need policies to spread the gains more evenly.
I agree with this mostly. The reason the center sometimes seems appealing is that I think to myself, aren't there a lot of people who would want assurance that we don't implement a racist immigration policy, that we don't have a dangerous and volatile foreign policy, and that we don't appoint Justices who roll back women's and lgbt rights, even without more? But voter turnout matters as well and there are people who will not vote for the Democratic party if they're not offered better social safety net or a more inspiring program that goes further than the Obama years and does more than undo damage inflicted by Trump.

I suppose the question is whether what Bernie offers is what the people need and want. He proposes far-reaching taxes on wealth, medicare for all, free college tuition, national rent control, breaking up big banks, and more. Yes, it's more inspiring than the status quo, but I wonder if there are some people concerned about whether he would in the long-run leave room for market forces (I believe in pervasive regulation but think it should leave room for businesses to operate; I'm not certain Bernie threatens that, but he doesn't exactly make clear what he thinks the role of the state is in regulating business). Does Bernie limit himself to what is politically attainable?

[Stavros]

Here is another Bye Bye Bernie article, one from Martin O'Malley who points to Sanders' record as a 'do nothing' Independent, plus-

“Here’s a guy who has been a kind of stalwart of the National Rifle Association (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/19/bernie-sanders-gun-control-hillary-clinton-democratic-debate), a man who said immigrants steal our jobs (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nidhiprakash/bernie-sanders-immigration-record) right up until he ran for president, a guy who said the sound of John Kennedy’s voice made him nauseous (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ilanbenmeir/bernie-sanders-despised-democrats-in-1980s-said-a-jfk-speech).”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/01/bernie-sanders-iowa-democrats-martin-omalley

The Democrats need a candidate with a positive vision for the US over the next 10 years, someone who can persuade people that there is a better way to treat citizens and the environment, above all someone who offers a different tone to the constant trashing and negative copy of the incumbent, who should be running on his record rather than other peope's. Here is the problem: the US is sliding into recession, so that by November, the braying about job creation and economic success might be replaced by the blame game, with, one assumes, Obama the fall guy for anything that goes wrong.
This article looks at the negative trends in the US economy-
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/us-recession-trump-economy-gdp-results-a9310056.html

[blackchubby38]

I appreciate your posts but have sometimes had the same question. You often show you're a reasonable person, which is good and important, but then I wonder what in the Democratic program is indispensable to you. At what point would a concession by Democrats to win votes change the character of the party so much that we're giving up the things we're fighting for? I ask myself the same question because the Democratic party winning is so important to me but I want to know what we win.

I also think the issues Democrats run on need to be calibrated so that we're creating an impact but also pulling away the right slice of the voters to win elections. If you don't mind me asking, who do you like so far? If it's Biden I will agree that what he offers is significantly different from what Trump offers, even if it isn't bold or inspiring.

Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.
A woman's right to choose.
Making sure that everyone receives equal protection under the law when it comes to employment, education, and housing.

But I think the most important issue in this election is the make up of the Supreme Court. If Trump wins re-election, he most likely gets to nominate another judge. If that happens, everything the Democrats have fought for the past 50 years can be in jeopardy.

As of right now, I leaning towards Biden, followed by Buttigieg, and Klobuchar.

[blackchubby38]

Okay, but if now is not the right time to mention gun control, when will be the right time? If it's too risky to raise now, won't it also be too risky at any point in the future, as there's always another election coming? Your argument sounds like a recipe for perpetual inaction. Supposing Democrats won the Presidency and both houses after running quiet on gun control. Wouldn't you then be telling us that they shouldn't try to legislate because there would be too much risk of a backlash?

Nope. Because as Obama once said and as we are unfortunately learning right now, "Elections having consequences". When they have control over those three houses, then Democrats should have opportunity to enact gun control legislation.

[filghy2]

Nope. Because as Obama once said and as we are unfortunately learning right now, "Elections having consequences". When they have control over those three houses, then Democrats should have opportunity to enact gun control legislation.

The problem is that you need to win more than one election to make changes stick. Look at what's happened with Obamacare - even if the other side is unable to repeal the legislation there are many ways to undermine it through legal challenges or administrative action/inaction.

I just don't see how being deceptive about your real intentions can be a viable political strategy in the long term. Voters tend to react badly if they feel they were deceived. I'm not even sure it works in the short term. Voters who care enough about guns to change their vote are unlikely to forget that Democrats favoured gun controls in the past - and the other side will certainly be reminding them. I also don't see how you can feed a different message to your own base without others knowing about it.

I could possibly understand your argument if Trump was just a one-off aberration and things will return to normal once he's gone. But I think he's really a product of deeper trends that have been building for some time. The Republican Party has been taken over completely by Trumpism and it's not going to go back to normal even if he loses this year.

[broncofan]

The problem is that you need to win more than one election to make changes stick. Look at what's happened with Obamacare - even if the other side is unable to repeal the legislation there are many ways to undermine it through legal challenges or administrative action/inaction.

The main things the President does that are permanent is appoint Justices and start wars. The types of things he's doing at our border also has permanent consequences. Other battles might take generations to win and might be forced through with a majority, but can be undone in the next legislative cycle. I agree with you about the guns though. Republican voters already know we want gun control and anything said directly to them is going to be better than having it filtered through the NRA as "THEY WANNA TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!!!!".

The problem with Biden is that we have reached a stage in this country where people are prepared for more than the health care and tax plan he provides.Not a good thread to be too specific maybe but he could be much more progressive on this issue even without a wealth tax. I understand your point that if you don't offer anything excited and run simply on not being Trump you can't excite the masses. Not sure what the answer is...


Stavros, I agree that's the type of person we need. But who among the current field is it? The Iowa Caucus is today and it will be won by either Bernie or Joe!!

[Stavros]

I was going to write something profound, but then I opened up the papers. I have no idea what happened in Iowa last night, I don't know who does, but it is one of those moments that makes me wonder what has happened to the US political system. Purges, Suppression, Gerrymandering....and at the dawn of the digital election, digitals that don't work? hmmmm….has this been a good night for Bloomberg?
Explanations, please, America.

[filghy2]

It's a bit murky, but it looks like the usual story about senior officials buying a technical solution they didn't understand, the technology not being tested sufficiently, and people not being adequately trained in how to use it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/04/iowa-app-caucuses-2020-election-110710

[broncofan]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/

The latest odds from 538 are in the upper right hand corner. I know they've been wrong a lot but so is everyone else and I think they try to do an honest, professional job so I look at their poll aggregation once in a while.

They have Bernie as the favorite. What's interesting is that the people (or personalities) seem to matter a lot because Bernie and Warren seem most similar policy wise but a lot of people in each camp don't seem to rate the other as second best from a poll I saw.

A few prominent Bernie Sanders supporters have said they will not vote for anyone but Bernie. One even said to paraphrase, if everyone knows that we will only vote for Bernie, and their primary motivation is to beat Trump, then the responsible move is for them to support Bernie in the primary. I'm not going to link the parties saying this on large platforms with lots of support but you get the idea. I'll support Bernie or whoever the Democratic nominee is.

There have also been a lot of conspiracy theories around the Iowa Caucus, but it looks exactly like what Filghy said. It is a state that is not demographically representative of the U.S. and the caucus format creates low turnout so it would be nice if it no longer goes first in primary season.

[Stavros]

From what I have read, what stands out is not the candidates, but the process -specifically the technology, and how it seems to have failed to be an efficient means of counting votes. It raises questions to ask those -Dominic Cummings is one of them- who think that the future, the near future will be digital, that smart phones comms will shape every decision we make, to the extent that Parliaments could be abolished and voters 'phone in' their desires, their support or opposition to this policy and that. I don't think we are near that yet, and just as important, as Republicans flooded the count with bogus messages, how does one have an electronic election if the process is inefficient and open to abuse?

The other question, given that Iowa is so small, is how will the candidates do on 'Super Tuesday'? Warren looks and sounds like she knows she is losing ground, but to me Bloomberg is the unknown quantity, and may be the only credible alternative to Biden. But I am far away and don't get a lot of the daily buzz that creates the nuances that shape voters decisions.

[filghy2]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/

The latest odds from 538 are in the upper right hand corner. I know they've been wrong a lot but so is everyone else and I think they try to do an honest, professional job so I look at their poll aggregation once in a while.

It seems strange that the odds for Sanders and Biden have changed massively, presumably as a result of the Iowa outcome, but the odds for Buttigieg have hardly changed.

Your comments about Sanders' supporters confirm my suspicion that it may be a bit of a personality cult, like Corbynism in the UK Labour Party.

I think the big concern for the Democrats from Iowa is not so much the technology failure, but the fact that turnout was low.

[dns4809]

Trump wears more make up than Dolly Parton.
He has large breasts and wide, child bearing hips.
He is obviously a post operative transsexual.

[dns4809]

what about this how about his sunday trip to the hospital....saying it was his yearly check up sure
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/what-drugs-is-he-on-trump-sparks-concern-by-slurring-and-sniffling-through-iran-remarks/

[broncofan]

I know you don't mean it maliciously and you are attacking Trump but I think we shouldn't use transsexual as an insult, even if you think the insult is to Trump's fragile masculinity.

I wanted to post a couple of clips of Joe Biden from youtube. It's for anyone who hasn't seen them because I hadn't seen all of them until last night. There is the clip of him calling someone fat, him calling a woman a dog-faced pony soldier, and the corn pop story short version (the long version is worse).

Now I've always like Joe's personality and thought he was quirky. His policies are not great but I have some faith in him to do his best and he would make this country far better than it is under Trump. And I know that in the dog-faced pony soldier clip he was trying to joke around, but he seems a bit off. Maybe he's lost his filter or maybe he's always just been prone to saying and doing some inappropriate things, but I didn't realize quite how bad it was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2RH7JhaMgY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbEJpr4A9mQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4NmtSrqtvI

[Stavros]

I watched all three, and other than the reference to the Republican questioner in the second video as 'fat' I did not think Biden said anything wrong or scadalous, assuming the first remark about a pony was light-hearted, as I didn't really understand the reference, and in the third I did not understand anything he was saying anyway.

Rudolph Giuliani Jr is now embarking on the revenge mission to investigate/prosecute Hinter Biden, and by association Joe Biden, there is an interview with Fox News in which he puts on his serious face and reveals he has evidence of wrong-doing -stuff that has not been exposed before. It appears to be a re-run of the use of foreign sources and individuals to smear a political rival of the President in an election year, which is precisely what the Impeachment was all about, yet it seems Giuliani and his boss don't seem to care about that, I guess because he can only be impeached once.
Problem for Giuliani is that The Daily Beast reported last week or so that Giuliani is susceptible to bogus information, and not least because it comes from supporters of corrupt, disgraced politicians like Yuri Lutsenko and Victor Shokin, and the man who has so far been absent from the news, Dmitry Firtash. These were the very same corrupt officials that the US -along with the IMF and the EU- opposed because they were salting away money from the Treasury, some of which had arrived in the Ukraine as foreign aid. Giuliani is this relying for his information on the very people his own government sought to remove, whose word cannot be trusted, but is doing so to maintain the narrative that the Biden family was deep in the dirt in Ukraine, and also, Giuliani claims, in China.
I don't know how Hunter Biden got involved in these countries or if Dad arranged it, but Giuliani sounded to me like he libelled Hunter Biden in the Fox News interview, I doubt Biden will sue.
Who is paying Giuliani? But it's an old trick. If you are accused, investigate the accuser, then prosecute them, even if there is no case, just to tie them up in the courts, or like Weinstein, get them to sign a NDA and lob 100k their way. Whatever it is, it stinks.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/u-justice-department-receiving-information-201520006.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-internal-document-bashes-john-solomon-joe-digenova-and-rudy-giuliani-for-spreading-disinformation?ref=wrap

[Stavros]

To add to my post above, I think the problem Biden now has is that the Republicans have succeeded in making his son and Ukraine an issue that will not go away and is designed above all to distract attention away form domestic policy issues in the election. The Democrats have to decide if Biden is going to spend most of this year responding to questions about himself and his son -regardless of the facts- instead of debating the issues in the election. In addition if his poll ratings do not grow, it surely means he will resign from the contest, along with Elizabeth Warren who has failed to gain any momentum of the kind Pete Buttigieg has. It seems to me it will come down to Sanders or Bloomberg, and I suspect the latter, for surely the Democrats would not be stupid enough to nominate Sanders?

[broncofan]

I agree with you Stavros about the absurd accusations and character assassination Republicans have engaged in with Biden. I only meant that in impromptu settings he can say puzzling things sometimes (I'm not sure anyone understood the reference because it was supposed to be a John Wayne quote but nobody could find it). Nothing there was disqualifying or scandalous or even close to the type of thing we see Trump do. It just seemed odd, including the story about him getting into a fight with a bad dude named "corn pop". Maybe I just fell for some of the noise that primary opposition can stir up during the season. It's difficult to avoid the narratives and characterizations of candidates that their primary opponents throw at them. I almost wish I hadn't read about any of them.

I hope Sanders is not the choice and that there's someone better than Bloomberg. Your logic makes sense about the race narrowing on these two, but that doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

[Stavros]

Bloomberg has issued a clever, and with regard to the filthy and degrading language the President is trying to normalize, a cogent ad: I even love it, because it expresses one of my key issues, the degradation of language unbecoming in the public speech of a President. But I admit I know next to nothing about Bloomberg other than that he is significantly richer than you-know-who, and that makes him sore -it seems he has just issued some incoherent tweet about Bloomberg's golf skills, a bit rich coming from a known cheat who gets his security staff to move his balls closer to the hole....on the green that is....

Enjoy-
https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1226580658807504897

[filghy2]

According to this article, Bloomberg spent more on advertising last month than Hilary Clinton spent in her entire 2016 campaign. If he can effectively buy the nomination that underscores how sick American democracy really is.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/09/michael-bloomberg-donald-trump-presidential-election

[broncofan]

According to this article, Bloomberg spent more on advertising last month than Hilary Clinton spent in her entire 2016 campaign. If he can effectively buy the nomination that underscores how sick American democracy really is.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/09/michael-bloomberg-donald-trump-presidential-election
It definitely highlights a problem in our political system and one that impairs us as a democracy. The idea of two billionaires competing for the presidency sounds nearly dystopian. Because I haven't liked the idea of Bloomberg as a candidate I haven't looked at his policies. He does have the baggage of the "stop and frisk" policy he instituted in New York as mayor that gave police permission to perform unconstitutional searches and had a racist impact on people of color. It's something he can overcome, but what does he bring to the table that people with a lifetime of public service like Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Joe Biden don't? He was/is a successful businessman mainly because he created the Bloomberg terminal that's used by all financial firms, but I don't see how that gives him special prowess when it comes to managing the U.S. economy.

Edit: the article posted by filghy says Bloomberg opposed financial reforms in 2008. It's fairly obvious that deregulation and lax regulation leads to financial crises so that's a particularly bad sign.

[Stavros]

Money has been a determining factor in US politics for decades, it is not new, but in Obama's case (in 2008), a lot of the money came from small donors and mounted to large sums. I suspect that is the way of life in the US, but the cost of the elections in obscene, though I believe attempts in law to limit campaign contributions have all but failed.

Have I underestimated Amy Klobuchar? Truth is, I don't know who she is, can anyone enlighten me, as the more I read about Sanders the more astonished I am this nauseating fraud has been allowed to run as a Democrat. As for the bagagge, don't all the candidates have something in their closet that could be used against them?

[broncofan]

Have I underestimated Amy Klobuchar? Truth is, I don't know who she is, can anyone enlighten me,
I also did even though a few people have told me they like her. It's difficult to find a lot of articles spelling out her positions but I'll link a couple of profiles. Matthew Yglesias says she has a "dorky midwestern shtick" but I think she comes across as sincere and it's not "shtick" which implies contrivance. The vox article says she supports an expansion of our public health care option without it being medicare for all, and she supports measures to curb climate change without a ban on fracking. She has moved to the center to distinguish herself from Sanders and Warren and has said she wants to build a big tent for the party.

Yet she also has a lot of accomplishments as a legislator that you can see in the second link, a Wikipedia of her positions. She "passed more legislation than any other senator by the end of the 114th Congress in late 2016." So while she may be labelled more of a moderate, she gets things done.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21133949/amy-klobuchar-new-hampshire-electable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Amy_Klobuchar#Agriculture

[filghy2]

Edit: the article posted by filghy says Bloomberg opposed financial reforms in 2008. It's fairly obvious that deregulation and lax regulation leads to financial crises so that's a particularly bad sign.

It's a concern that some of his policy positions seem to be based on self-interest, though he's not as egregious as Trump. At least he's in favour of higher taxes on the rich.

That said, he might be the candidate best able to beat Trump. I certainly think he would be the opponent Trump most fears. I doubt the stop and frisk thing would hurt him in the swing states they need to win back.

It's interesting that we're all so focused on which candidate would be better able to beat Trump rather than who would make the best president. The man who thinks everything is about him has succeeded in making his opponents' selection process mainly about him. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/12/democratic-contest-donald-trump

[broncofan]

It's a concern that some of his policy positions seem to be based on self-interest, though he's not as egregious as Trump. At least he's in favour of higher taxes on the rich.

That said, he might be the candidate best able to beat Trump. I certainly think he would be the opponent Trump most fears. I doubt the stop and frisk thing would hurt him in the swing states they need to win back.

I actually think Bloomberg would do an okay job. I know money has been an important part of our politics for a while but I don't like the idea of a self-funded campaign by a billionaire. If not for what his campaign says about our process I'm guessing he would be socially liberal and not corrupt like the President, the financial regulation stuff aside, which he has a serious conflict of interest with.

You're right that Trump has us worried about who can beat him rather than what we want but it is an effective form of blackmail. He has destroyed the rule of law at the federal level, most recently with the Roger Stone interference, in a way Richard Nixon couldn't have dreamed of. Every appointment to the Supreme Court takes us to a critical threshold where we may be set back 100 years socially.

A point that I think you've made is that pragmatism doesn't work because nobody can mysterious divine who has the magical quality of "electability" and the exercise sort of dries up any enthusiasm people have for the issues and political movements. That's fair but I haven't been inspired by anyone and I've invested some time. Obama was politically more to the center but I remembered actually liking him very early on. I liked the way he carried himself, liked his story, and he had a presence.

[Stavros]

I also did even though a few people have told me they like her. It's difficult to find a lot of articles spelling out her positions but I'll link a couple of profiles. Matthew Yglesias says she has a "dorky midwestern shtick" but I think she comes across as sincere and it's not "shtick" which implies contrivance. The vox article says she supports an expansion of our public health care option without it being medicare for all, and she supports measures to curb climate change without a ban on fracking. She has moved to the center to distinguish herself from Sanders and Warren and has said she wants to build a big tent for the party.

Yet she also has a lot of accomplishments as a legislator that you can see in the second link, a Wikipedia of her positions. She "passed more legislation than any other senator by the end of the 114th Congress in late 2016." So while she may be labelled more of a moderate, she gets things done.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21133949/amy-klobuchar-new-hampshire-electable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Amy_Klobuchar#Agriculture

Thanks for your thoughts and the links, she looks to be a successful politician with standard Democrat positions on a lot of issues. The main weakness, if it is true, is her temper or claims of being abusive to her staff. I don't know how true it is or how it compares to the Mandarin who screams and shouts and swears and stamps his feet, when people seem most terrified of a negative tweet. Does she have the charisma that will win doubting voters? Can she deliver a rousing speech, like Obama? Curious, not long before reading your post, I clicked on a Yahoo news link to a Jmmy Kimmel excerpt on the President in which, among other things, he failed to pronounce her name properly, which means he will have to find a nickname to remember who she is. I don't know much about Kimmel but comes across as bland, whatever. Is Klobuchar bland, though? that may be the issue. But on policy she is safe, and maybe after the most reckless first term anyone can remember, safe sounds very very good.
I shall watch her with interest, as one watches that nauseating loud-mouth from Vermont with concern. I mean, you can see the ads already: Vote, Sanders, pay more taxes. Or, Feel the Bern: treble your bills.

[blackchubby38]

It's a concern that some of his policy positions seem to be based on self-interest, though he's not as egregious as Trump. At least he's in favour of higher taxes on the rich.

That said, he might be the candidate best able to beat Trump. I certainly think he would be the opponent Trump most fears. I doubt the stop and frisk thing would hurt him in the swing states they need to win back.

It's interesting that we're all so focused on which candidate would be better able to beat Trump rather than who would make the best president. The man who thinks everything is about him has succeeded in making his opponents' selection process mainly about him. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/12/democratic-contest-donald-trump

Considering the state of NYC since Bloomberg left office, I don't think the stop and frisk thing would hurt him in this city or many other Democratic cities either.

[AlexisDVyne]

My thoughts on the Dems candidates.. :)

Pete.. This is CIA Pete & he is the symbol of the fascist left.. :loser:

Amy.. WTF is she even doing there? :???:

Warren.. Trying too hard & looks fake & definitely can't beat the dotard.. :smh

Biden.. Wow this guy has issues & should retire yesterday.. :shock:

Bernie.. His ideas are not radical, they are mainstream in the rest of the civilized world.. :rock2

Everyone should help Bernie take America back from the oligarchs, multinationals & fascists.. :geek:

[filghy2]

You missed Bloomberg - though I guess you would probably call him a fascist as well

[AlexisDVyne]

You missed Bloomberg - though I guess you would probably call him a fascist as well

Boomerberg is a republican.. and he's more of an oligarch.. :geek:

1232563

[Stavros]

The problem is that is is the USA and its politicians seem always to have something there in the past, even Obama for those who are suspicious of the CIA, for whom he once worked.
Thus I don't know if the grubby things Bloomberg has said in the past will undo his ambition to get the nomination, but then when did Bernie Sanders ever run for the Senate as a Socialist? I don't think he ever did, and his past seems to include a lot of years when he was opposed to gun control laws, and if he is a Socialist, where other than on health, are his socialist policies -assuming his health care policy is socialist-?
I can't really see any inspiring politicians in the US, I think the best you might get is someone who is at least a good manager, though there must be room for the candidate who does not inspire but, when elected, grows into the job and becomes better at it as the first term evolves, rather than the present incumbent, who makes it worse by the minute. Apparently he now thinks is he the Chief Law Officer of the USA, which ironically, he probably is, given that William Barr seems to obey him at all times. And this from a man with 'deep religious beliefs' who has deep concerns about the decline of morals in the USA over the last 45 years!

[filghy2]

Apparently he now thinks is he the Chief Law Officer of the USA, which ironically, he probably is, given that William Barr seems to obey him at all times. And this from a man with 'deep religious beliefs' who has deep concerns about the decline of morals in the USA over the last 45 years!

His latest round of pardons is quite revealing. Basically, he's pardoning the sorts of corruption and fraud offences that he has been implicated in himself. Evidently, he doesn't think these should really be treated as serious crimes. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/19/21142836/trump-blagojevich-kerik-milken-negron-debartolo-pardons-corruption

It's quite a different story for the sorts of crimes committed by people who are not white, rich and well-connected. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/19/21144162/white-house-spin-trump-pardons-hogan-gidley

Not only is the President above the law, but it seems that his cronies will be as well.

[filghy2]

Boomerberg is a republican.. and he's more of an oligarch.. :geek:

He also doesn't seem to think much of transsexuals - one of many examples where past statements are coming back to haunt him. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/19/21143733/bloomberg-trans-comments

[broncofan]

After watching this clip I'm thinking having Bloomberg up there is good batting practice to prepare for Trump. I'm not saying they're the same, but many points of comparison.

https://twitter.com/laurenthehough/status/1230315218082959365 (https://twitter.com/laurenthehough/status/1230315218082959365)

[AlexisDVyne]

The debate was good.. :)

Bernie needs to be more assertive and say something about the media bias..

Warren totally roasted Boomerberg! She flamed him trice and then slowly dragged him over the coals..

It was definitely the best part.. :D

[Jericho]

I'm not saying who my candidate would be...given past form, I've got the fekkin anti-midas touch!

But, what's a super delegate, where do they come in to things?

[broncofan]

Bernie needs to be more assertive and say something about the media bias..

This is often a strategy for someone who thinks they cannot win. By the time the general election comes around we will be hearing from Trump about how the media is the enemy of the people and is rigged against him for reporting things he doesn't like. I don't think it's useful for candidates to focus on this instead of what they have to offer the country.

Even before the latest revelations about Bloomberg I never really understood the point of him as a candidate. I don't think businessmen are more qualified in any respect to hold office. Running Bloomberg as an alternative to Trump would be an extremely cynical move. He created something that made him billions and has spent his adult life mistreating people. His comments about transgender people are a window into who he is, as are his crude comments to his employees.

While listening to Bernie's angry man routine last night I was struck by how self-righteous he sounds. He seems to think he's the only one who cares about people. I have to say I liked Warren best and I think she does well when she really asserts herself like she did last night. Her policies really are pretty close to Bernie's and she has a more sound grasp of policy than he does.

Last thought is that I know there are probably some good reasons people are not high on Buttigieg but a lot of the comments I've heard about him are farcical, narrative driven attacks.

[filghy2]

Even before the latest revelations about Bloomberg I never really understood the point of him as a candidate. I don't think businessmen are more qualified in any respect to hold office. Running Bloomberg as an alternative to Trump would be an extremely cynical move. He created something that made him billions and has spent his adult life mistreating people. His comments about transgender people are a window into who he is, as are his crude comments to his employees.

I think his only argument is that he might have the best chance of beating Trump, and obviously Biden's poor performance has played right into that argument. I'm sure he genuinely believes that Trump is a danger, but in normal circumstances he would be running for the Republican nomination. I guess he figured there was no point the way the party is now, so his only option was to try to take over the Dems. The more I know about him, the more he starts to look like a saner and less extreme version of Trump.

[broncofan]

The more I know about him, the more he starts to look like a saner and less extreme version of Trump.
I agree though I think Bloomberg has probably spent his adult life observing at least some rules and social conventions that Trump ignores. The people Trump really wanted to impress in the New York business world know he is a buffoon and vulgarian. He got used to surrounding himself with flatterers and being petty and vindictive when it came to anyone critical of him. My guess is that Bloomberg would have respect for the rules and institutions even if he seems to have none for people he thinks are beneath him.

He does seem genuinely concerned about gun violence and has shown more willingness to accept a fairer system of taxes. I ask myself why Bloomberg wanted to run when he has money to use in furtherance of some socially useful objectives. He must love the flattery that he's the "real billionaire" in the race and he has the antidote to Trumpism. He also is pitching the idea that he will bring things back to normal which given how bad Trump is has its appeal, but I don't think electing him would be all that normal.

A lot of people I know, many of whom are very dedicated to left-wing causes, were way too excited for him to enter the race. It shows people are considering "electability", which I think is natural, but maybe the way to get there is to first understand what it is you want. You can't really get there in a top-down sort of way...

Regardless of appeal, I think Elizabeth Warren is a credible, serious, and dedicated public servant. I don't know how well she does, but I suppose you never do.

[blackchubby38]

I agree though I think Bloomberg has probably spent his adult life observing at least some rules and social conventions that Trump ignores. The people Trump really wanted to impress in the New York business world know he is a buffoon and vulgarian. He got used to surrounding himself with flatterers and being petty and vindictive when it came to anyone critical of him. My guess is that Bloomberg would have respect for the rules and institutions even if he seems to have none for people he thinks are beneath him.

He does seem genuinely concerned about gun violence and has shown more willingness to accept a fairer system of taxes. I ask myself why Bloomberg wanted to run when he has money to use in furtherance of some socially useful objectives. He must love the flattery that he's the "real billionaire" in the race and he has the antidote to Trumpism. He also is pitching the idea that he will bring things back to normal which given how bad Trump is has its appeal, but I don't think electing him would be all that normal.

A lot of people I know, many of whom are very dedicated to left-wing causes, were way too excited for him to enter the race. It shows people are considering "electability", which I think is natural, but maybe the way to get there is to first understand what it is you want. You can't really get there in a top-down sort of way...

Regardless of appeal, I think Elizabeth Warren is a credible, serious, and dedicated public servant. I don't know how well she does, but I suppose you never do.

I think before you can understand what it is you want, if you have to remember the history and identity of this country. The United States has always has been and most likely always will be a center/right country. Once you realize that, then you figure out as party what ideas will work at the national level and what your platform is going to be. Then find you find the candidate who you think can run on that platform and who has the best chance to get elected in a general election.

I think that's why many of your friends were excited when Bloomberg entered the race. He leans left on certain issues, but none of his ideas are that far out there as to turn off independent/moderate voters. Which gives him a solid chance to beat Trump in the general election. As I have stated before, that should be the number one goal of the Democratic Party. Because this is their last chance to get him out of office. Also if they lose in November, there could be a good chance its the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.

But having said all that, I think at this point I'm just ready for Bernie Sanders to be nominee and lets just see what happens in November. Maybe the 12 percent of his voters that voted for Trump in 2016 will come back into the fold and be the difference.

[filghy2]

I think before you can understand what it is you want, if you have to remember the history and identity of this country. The United States has always has been and most likely always will be a center/right country. Once you realize that, then you figure out as party what ideas will work at the national level and what your platform is going to be. Then find you find the candidate who you think can run on that platform and who has the best chance to get elected in a general election.

Isn't that what they did last time? Trump's election shows that a lot of people were unhappy enough with the existing state of affairs in the USA that they voted for someone who promised to disrupt it. I'm not entirely convinced that the right approach is to be cautious and essentially promise to do not much more than restore the pre-Trump status quo.

One thing we should have learnt is recent years is that conventional wisdoms are often wrong. I really have no idea how Bernie Sanders will go if he gets the nomination, but I'm pretty sure most of the people saying he is unelectable were also saying the same about Trump in 2016.

[tovosan]

Is a third party probable?

[blackchubby38]

Isn't that what they did last time? Trump's election shows that a lot of people were unhappy enough with the existing state of affairs in the USA that they voted for someone who promised to disrupt it. I'm not entirely convinced that the right approach is to be cautious and essentially promise to do not much more than restore the pre-Trump status quo.

One thing we should have learnt is recent years is that conventional wisdoms are often wrong. I really have no idea how Bernie Sanders will go if he gets the nomination, but I'm pretty sure most of the people saying he is unelectable were also saying the same about Trump in 2016.

While restoring the pre-Trump status quo may not be the right approach, the same can be said for going in the opposite direction.

When it comes to Sanders electability, there seems to be a few trains of thought on that:

1. Trump wants him to lose the Democratic nomination, so he can appeal to his voters by saying the contest was rigged and that Sanders was robbed. Apparently Sanders has some appeal with working class white voters. Given how upset some Sanders supporters were in the last election, I can see that happening. Especially since Sanders is the one candidate Trump hasn't said anything negative about yet.

2. Trump wants him to win the nomination because he knows he is so far to the left, that will turn off certain voters who will either vote for him or stay home on Election Day.

3. There are some Republicans who are actually worried about Sanders winning the nomination because they think he can become a force like Trump was in 2016 and win the whole thing.

4. There is a notion that the 2020 Presidential Election can be reminiscent of the recent UK one for Prime Minister and have the same result.

[filghy2]

Is a third party probable?

There's always third party candidates, bu they have no realistic chance. The only one who has ever got close was Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and he had been a popular President.

[filghy2]

4. There is a notion that the 2020 Presidential Election can be reminiscent of the recent UK one for Prime Minister and have the same result.

There are definitely some similarities with Jeremy Corbyn, though there is US no equivalent to the Brexit issue that dominated UK politics. It's a worry that Sanders seems to have the same tendency to stubbornness and poor judgement on some things - eg not being willing to back away from past praise of left-wing dictatorships.

The Democratic Party will face a very difficult situation if Sanders wins a plurality of delegates but the majority are split between various moderate candidates. They would have to either give it to someone who was not supported by a majority of his party, or give it to someone else and face a civil war.

[broncofan]

There are definitely some similarities with Jeremy Corbyn, though there is US no equivalent to the Brexit issue that dominated UK politics. It's a worry that Sanders seems to have the same tendency to stubbornness and poor judgement on some things - eg not being willing to back away from past praise of left-wing dictatorships.


The things he's said haven't been terrible but it plays into the wrong narrative. He can be very reasonable on foreign policy issues but he also has to worry about people to the left who might see criticism of left-wing dictatorships as a betrayal. In the long-run he probably should worry more about scaring people by not condemning the excesses of left-wing regimes clearly enough, particularly given the threats some of his supporters have made online.

Take for example this criticism of Xi of China by Bernie Sanders.


https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1232474541596626944


The response that sticks out to me is "authoritarianism is when you do things American doesn't like" with nearly a thousand likes. There's tons of room to point out the U.S.' hypocrisy on all foreign policy issues. But is there room to question whether China has an authoritarian government? I actually think if Bernie can avoid saying anything that runs in a loop on fox news, there is nothing objectively scary about his foreign policy views.

He's also done a lot of good when it comes to the Israel-Palestine issue. He is boycotting the AIPAC conference, which many of the other candidates have decided to follow suit with. AIPAC frequently has Islamophobic speakers and promotes the sorts of policies that thwart a peaceful resolution on the Israel-Palestine issue. Pretty soon they will not be able to tout themselves as a "bipartisan" organization. He has also said he will cut aid to Israel or use that threat to deter human rights abuses. This is a reasonable and productive policy that could lead to results, but is it vitriolic enough for people with a hammer and sickle in their twitter profile?

The similarity between Corbyn and Sanders has less to do with their particular positions and more to do with how the people who like them view them. They are indispensable. There is no close substitute. They are pure beyond question and have lived lives of selfless sacrifice. People who criticize them must be motivated by pure self-interest or be corrupt. People who criticize them deserve to demonized and humiliated without restraint.

[filghy2]

The response that sticks out to me is "authoritarianism is when you do things American doesn't like" with nearly a thousand likes. There's tons of room to point out the U.S.' hypocrisy on all foreign policy issues. But is there room to question whether China has an authoritarian government? I actually think if Bernie can avoid saying anything that runs in a loop on fox news, there is nothing objectively scary about his foreign policy views.

I agree that his overall positions are more reasonable than is often presented, but (like Corbyn) he seems to find it hard to avoid saying things that give the wrong impression in isolation. Trying to be authentic and avoid playing the media's and your opponents' game is understandable, but there is a point where this becomes naive and foolish.

For all his success in the primaries so far, it's worth bearing in mind that the polls still show that 70% of Democrats prefer another candidate. If the moderates had been been able to unite around one candidate he would probably be in a similar position to last time.

[Stavros]

And so they came, and went. I guess the question is, if it is to be Biden or Sanders, will their voters endorse the other candidate? I am assuming Bloomberg is too out of touch with the grass roots, and Warren is best of the rest but not the best-?

[AlexisDVyne]

And so they came, and went. I guess the question is, if it is to be Biden or Sanders, will their voters endorse the other candidate? I am assuming Bloomberg is too out of touch with the grass roots, and Warren is best of the rest but not the best-?

The establishment is doing everything it can & buying everything possible to convince voters to be happy about Biden. He was the DNC's original choice & already has ALL of the super delegate votes..

The thing is, if they cheat Bernie again the dotard is GUARANTEED to win and the Democratic party will implode..

If Bernie voters (youth, millennial, genX & genZ) get cheated they'll stay home or revolt..

Tomorrow is a BIG DAY! :D

[Stavros]

The establishment is doing everything it can & buying everything possible to convince voters to be happy about Biden. He was the DNC's original choice & already has ALL of the super delegate votes..
The thing is, if they cheat Bernie again the dotard is GUARANTEED to win and the Democratic party will implode..
If Bernie voters (youth, millennial, genX & genZ) get cheated they'll stay home or revolt..
Tomorrow is a BIG DAY! :D

Yes, But. As in: Bernie Sanders has never run for election as a Democrat or a Socialist, yet seeks the Democrat nomination when he should be running as an independent, like Ross Perot did. To say the DNC is more than annoyed with Sanders is an under-statement but it is understandable in the circumstances, and if his supporters don't turn out for Biden, it will be as if he was indeed a third party candidate splitting the Democrat/anti-Trump vote, handing victory to the worst President in American history, impeached for violating his Oath of Office and Obstructing Justice. This is isn't even about who the best candidate is, but the daft system you Americans have for choosing leaders. In the UK parties have memberships with annual fees, registation cards, and you can't become a local councillor let alone an MP unless you are a member of the party. The Democrats -and the Republcans- can thus be hi-jacked by people with no proven loyalty to the party whose leadership they seek. This to me is plain stupid.
I guess it was part of the American Dream: anyone can be President, because it is an open system and does not filter out the nutcases through a strict selection procedure. Then a true nutcase came along and the American Dream has become a managerial nightmare.
So Warren drops out, and its Bernie -vs- Joe. At what point does either have to make the choice to concede, or are they going to take this to the Convention? I don't see Biden dropping out. Is it now all about Bernie?

[blackchubby38]

And so they came, and went. I guess the question is, if it is to be Biden or Sanders, will their voters endorse the other candidate? I am assuming Bloomberg is too out of touch with the grass roots, and Warren is best of the rest but not the best-?

I could see some Biden voters endorsing Sanders, but I can't see it happening the other way around. Especially when Bernie Sanders is going around saying that the "Democratic establishment" is fixing things for the Biden to win the nomination. I can also tell that people like Bill de Blasio and "the Squad" are going to be a problem if Sanders doesn't win the nomination.

Maybe Bernie should stop putting the blame on the "Democratic establishment" and starting placing it on his supposed base of young voters who didn't come and out vote for him on Tuesday.

[Stavros]

I could see some Biden voters endorsing Sanders, but I can't see it happening the other way around. Especially when Bernie Sanders is going around saying that the "Democratic establishment" is fixing things for the Biden to win the nomination. I can also tell that people like Bill de Blasio and "the Squad" are going to be a problem if Sanders doesn't win the nomination.
Maybe Bernie should stop putting the blame on the "Democratic establishment" and starting placing it on his supposed base of young voters who didn't come and out vote for him on Tuesday.
The point of interest being now perhaps the supporters as much as the candidates.
Two views of Biden: Ben Judah sees the weakness in a lack of policy, a lack of appetite for change in a political system that needs the Democrat version of it; and Jonathan Freedand, for whom Biden becomes the man you can trust in a crisis.

Ben Judah here-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/06/biden-soviet-russia-status-quo-democratic-ussr

Jonathan Freedand here-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/06/coronavirus-joe-biden-epidemic-washington-obama

[AlexisDVyne]

https://media.giphy.com/media/efIIIPCabG9bNxcu6M/giphy.gif

[Paladin]

Well, crazy bernie is down for the count, the rest are KO's and warren won't endorse bernie because she hates him.

And now the chi-com (possible biowarfare project) corinavirus is out, thanks china.

4 more years!

[Stavros]

Four more years of what? Incompetence? Many countries have had their governance exposed by Covid 19, unprepared for a major epidemic. Few from the start denied it, as did the Presidemt of the USA, who unlike most others of his rank also bragged about his abilities even when they were so obviously non- existent.

The existence of national health services in Europe makes co-ordination of the health response easier, notwithstanding funding issues, whereas the absence of such a service in the US means co-ordination is harder, though Pence has claimed there will be a nationwide organisation, the first of its kind and perhaps the foundation of a national health service.

For most of the early stages of the crisis the President was playing golf and blaming Obama, the President who authorised the creation of a unit designed to tackle, and prepare the US for precilsely this kind of epidemic/pandemic, that John Bolton shut down to meet his buddy's commandment 'Everything Obama must go!' Then your President tried to buy exclusive access to a vaccine being developed by a German company, when any vaccine should be, and will be universally available, something the President seems to object to.

But with interest rates close to zero and markets being bailed out to the tune of $500 billion, the useless, incompetent moron you call President is racking up even more debt that must one day be repaid, or trash the banking system, though it will not affect the money he stores offshore.

Blame is easy to make, a vaccine harder. We are all suffering from managerial indifference to the very kind of global pandemic scientists have been warning us about for decades. The last thing we need is a grubby show pony trying to profit from other people's misery, when inside the US there are capable, indeed, inspiring people who will, over time, help us get through this crisis and survive, though the damage caused may be with us for some time.

[filghy2]

And now the chi-com (possible biowarfare project) corinavirus is out, thanks china.

4 more years!

But I thought it was a hoax spread by the fake media to detract from the glorious achievements of the god-emperor. Didn't that very stable genus say it was no big deal and he had it all under control? Perhaps you should stay in your right-wing bubble, where I'm sure nothing bad can ever penetrate.

[fred41]

Bernie’s toast. This is as it should be. Thank you voters.

[filghy2]

Why do so many Sanders supporters claim that he's been cheated, rather than the more obvious explanation that he failed both times to persuade enough people that he would be the best candidate? The polls, which presumably could not be rigged by the DNC, show Biden having a 20% margin over Sanders. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

And if he couldn't get a majority of Democrat primary voters - presumably more left-leaning than the general electorate - how could he possibly have better chance than Biden to win in November?

I'm not necessarily a huge Biden fan, and I've argued before that we need to aim for more than just restoring the pre-Trump situation, but I don't think these points can be disputed seriously.

[blackchubby38]

Why do so many Sanders supporters claim that he's been cheated, rather than the more obvious explanation that he failed both times to persuade enough people that he would be the best candidate? The polls, which presumably could not be rigged by the DNC, show Biden having a 20% margin over Sanders. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

And if he couldn't get a majority of Democrat primary voters - presumably more left-leaning than the general electorate - how could he possibly have better chance than Biden to win in November?

I'm not necessarily a huge Biden fan, and I've argued before that we need to aim for more than just restoring the pre-Trump situation, but I don't think these points can be disputed seriously.

Because I think a majority of Sanders supporters have this sense of entitlement. It seems to fall in line with a lot of the issues they believe in. Free college education, Medicare for All*, prisoners being able to vote, etc.

It also doesn't help when Sanders said as of a couple of weeks ago that the Democratic establishment was fixing things for Biden to win the Nomination.

*- Let me clear about something. I believe that healthcare is an universal right. How we go about paying for it, is where I differ from Sanders supporters.

[filghy2]

Because I think a majority of Sanders supporters have this sense of entitlement. It seems to fall in line with a lot of the issues they believe in. Free college education, Medicare for All*, prisoners being able to vote, etc.

I think it might be more to do with many Sanders supporters having a cult-like mentality, just like Trump's supporters. If you believe your candidate is the chosen one, then if he doesn't win it must be due to a nefarious plot. Elizabeth Warren had similar policy positions but her supporters don't seem to have the same mentality.

The worry is that many of them will not turn out to vote, either out of spite or because they think 4 more years of chaos under Trump will better serve their cause in future.

[blackchubby38]

I think it might be more to do with many Sanders supporters having a cult-like mentality, just like Trump's supporters. If you believe your candidate is the chosen one, then if he doesn't win it must be due to a nefarious plot. Elizabeth Warren had similar policy positions but her supporters don't seem to have the same mentality.

The worry is that many of them will not turn out to vote, either out of spite or because they think 4 more years of chaos under Trump will better serve their cause in future.

You might right be about the cult-like mentality. If you're on Twitter, check out #DearBernie.

[Stavros]

Can the Party Conventions, and indeed, the General Election be postponed, and should they be?

[filghy2]

Can the Party Conventions, and indeed, the General Election be postponed, and should they be?

It should be easy to find another way to do the party conventions. I'm not sure about the legalities on the election, but If the US hasn't yet found a way to do it without having voters stand in lines for hours it seems unlikely it will be able to do so in less than 8 months. There's obviously a concern that Trump will abuse the situation if it looks like he would lose. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/18/could-trump-try-to-cancel-the-2020-election-134349

[blackchubby38]

Can the Party Conventions, and indeed, the General Election be postponed, and should they be?

I don't think either the Ohio or Connecticut primaries should have been postponed and the same goes for the remaining ones. If things have gotten back to normal by the summer, I say go ahead with the Party Conventions.

But under no circumstances should the General Election be postponed. With all this uncertainty and people being on edge, we need to have some stability and to remind people that life will go on once we get to handle on this thing. We didn't postpone elections during WWII or after 9/11. Democratic societies find a way to soldier on during times of crisis and make sure one of the principles of said society, free and fair elections, take place.

[Stavros]

I think I read that the Democrats may pospone their Convention by a month, to August, but I assume that too can change.

Meanwhile I seek clarification of 'mail ballots' which I assume are what we call postal votes in the UK?

“Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country,” the president said. The ballots are “forgeries in many cases - it’s a horrible thing,” he added, citing no evidence to back the claim.
Trump himself voted (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-donald-trump-palm-beach-county-voter-20200401-zpl3jignmzflvfguteeahbjtbm-story.html) by mail — in March. "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/apr/07/coronavirus-us-live-donald-trump-pandemic-likely-january-latest-news-updates?page=with:block-5e8cfe648f08008f0919edcf#liveblog-navigation
-posted at 23.29pm

[Stavros]

I don't think either the Ohio or Connecticut primaries should have been postponed and the same goes for the remaining ones. If things have gotten back to normal by the summer, I say go ahead with the Party Conventions.

But under no circumstances should the General Election be postponed. With all this uncertainty and people being on edge, we need to have some stability and to remind people that life will go on once we get to handle on this thing. We didn't postpone elections during WWII or after 9/11. Democratic societies find a way to soldier on during times of crisis and make sure one of the principles of said society, free and fair elections, take place.

The BBC looks at this:
Coronavirus: Could Donald Trump delay the presidential election?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52326166

[KnightHawk 2.0]

I think I read that the Democrats may pospone their Convention by a month, to August, but I assume that too can change.

Meanwhile I seek clarification of 'mail ballots' which I assume are what we call postal votes in the UK?

“Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country,” the president said. The ballots are “forgeries in many cases - it’s a horrible thing,” he added, citing no evidence to back the claim.
Trump himself voted (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-donald-trump-palm-beach-county-voter-20200401-zpl3jignmzflvfguteeahbjtbm-story.html) by mail — in March. "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/apr/07/coronavirus-us-live-donald-trump-pandemic-likely-january-latest-news-updates?page=with:block-5e8cfe648f08008f0919edcf#liveblog-navigation
-posted at 23.29pmNot surprised that Donald Trump thinks Mail Ballots are a very dangerous thing for the country,because him and his cronies are trying to surpress the votes,even though he voted by mail last month.

[Stavros]

Joe Biden has said that he intends to nominate a woman to run as his Vice-President. The article linked below argues that choosing a woman from the Senate might weaken the Democrat presence there, if its Elizabeth Warren, but probaby not if it were Kamala Harris, the difference being that a Republican might win in Massachusetts, but not in California.
It seems the choices are: a) a Senator; b) a Congressional Rep; c) a State Governor; d) a Mayor; or e) someone else.

Thus:
Elizabeth Warren
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Gretchen Whitmer
Meghan Rapinoe
Michelle Obama
Mrs Robinson
Angelina Jolie
Any thoughts?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/biden-chooses-someone-warren-vp-154412390.html

[blackchubby38]

Joe Biden has said that he intends to nominate a woman to run as his Vice-President. The article linked below argues that choosing a woman from the Senate might weaken the Democrat presence there, if its Elizabeth Warren, but probaby not if it were Kamala Harris, the difference being that a Republican might win in Massachusetts, but not in California.
It seems the choices are: a) a Senator; b) a Congressional Rep; c) a State Governor; d) a Mayor; or e) someone else.

Thus:
Elizabeth Warren
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Gretchen Whitmer
Meghan Rapinoe
Michelle Obama
Mrs Robinson
Angelina Jolie
Any thoughts?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/biden-chooses-someone-warren-vp-154412390.html

My pick would be Amy Klobuchar. I think you need someone from the mid-west to help balance the ticket and I found her impressive during the Democratic primary.

To soothe any hurt feelings, I would sell Elizabeth Warren on the idea of being the Secretary of Treasury and Kamala Harris on a nomination for the Supreme Court.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Joe Biden has said that he intends to nominate a woman to run as his Vice-President. The article linked below argues that choosing a woman from the Senate might weaken the Democrat presence there, if its Elizabeth Warren, but probaby not if it were Kamala Harris, the difference being that a Republican might win in Massachusetts, but not in California.
It seems the choices are: a) a Senator; b) a Congressional Rep; c) a State Governor; d) a Mayor; or e) someone else.

Thus:
Elizabeth Warren
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Gretchen Whitmer
Meghan Rapinoe
Michelle Obama
Mrs Robinson
Angelina Jolie
Any thoughts?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/biden-chooses-someone-warren-vp-154412390.htmlI think that Kamala Harris would be an excellent candidate for Attorney General,because she has the experience and was a prosecutor and District Attorney of California,and Amy Klobuchar as Joe Biden's running mate for Vice President.

[trish]

Agree that Klobuchar would make a good running mate. I prefer to keep Warren, Harris and Sanders on the Senate; we need people there.

[broncofan]

I've seen two interviews with Stacey Abrams, who ran against the shmuck in Georgia who is trying to open all of the nail salons, and I liked her. About a month ago I saw a bunch of articles about how she would be a good vp candidate and I agree. I haven't heard anything since. I don't know whether she would be better than anyone who's previously been mentioned, but she's not in Congress and she is smart, which tends to help.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

I've seen two interviews with Stacey Abrams, who ran against the shmuck in Georgia who is trying to open all of the nail salons, and I liked her. About a month ago I saw a bunch of articles about how she would be a good vp candidate and I agree. I haven't heard anything since. I don't know whether she would be better than anyone who's previously been mentioned, but she's not in Congress and she is smart, which tends to help.Completely agree that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp is a schmuck for wanting to reopen barber shops,hair.&.nail salons,massage parlors,bars and gyms by Friday . This idiotic decision of his is a very bad idea and shows that he cares more about the economy than the health and safety of the people of the state he is in charge of running.

[fred41]

I prefer a fairly safe play for President - usually an establishment sort that can work with all parties to get things accomplished. It certainly helps to have reviewable record in the Senate or sometimes as a state Governor. Having said that, it should be no surprise that my favorite choice before the debates began, was Joe Biden. That changed as the debates wore on. It seems Joe’s age, as it does with many of us eventually, has clearly taken a toll. Watching him do interviews on CNN haven’t helped the way they should - easier to script and usually gentle - but still the long incoherent sentences continued. I’ve watched almost EVERY one of the party debates (I think I missed two)...and he had those babbling moments in almost all of those. I don’t think it would be that great a factor in running the country because I’m sure he’ll have a terrific staff, but it does make you put more thought into a Vice Presidential choice.

Getting back to the debates - there were too many and the choices should have been narrowed down sooner, to get more info out of nominees left on stage (Tom Steyer, who was there until almost the bitter end, served zero purpose up on that stage, except to take up valuable time and oxygen). Biden got worse, but for me, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar got better (Elizabeth Warren, after starting off strong, sputtered down the line, probably taking on too much and waffling about it later on). I feel Mayor Pete didn’t have enough high end, governmental experience for the job, but it’s hard to ignore someone with those quick oratorical skills. Amy Klobuchar clearly has the experience, but it took her a while to find her comfort zone in the spotlight. When she finally found it...and she definitely did, it was a bit too late. Bernie I wouldn’t have voted for, so I’m glad he’s out of it. In all fairness, I believe he probably should’ve be an Independant Candidate (as probably Michael Bloomberg should have been, had he entered earlier).

So anyhow, since ultimately I actually prefer Amy Klobuchar to Joe Biden, it seems almost natural to make her the choice for Vice President, although with all sincerity, that ticket would be better flipped.

[broncofan]

I liked Mayor Pete plenty. To some people he was invisible and to others he was cast as a villain which was bizarre to me. In the end he just didn't have enough appeal to progress very far. I wasn't concerned about his lack of high level experience because he seemed bright, capable, and intense enough to learn quickly.

I watched Joe debate Bernie and even though I trust Joe more to handle any tough situation I couldn't help but notice Bernie's answers were crisper, clearer, and more incisive. I have just never been a Bernie fan, even moreso when I heard he had wanted to primary Obama in 2012. I always thought he was a guy who liked to rant about what he wanted to see but never really had any coherent vision about how to get there. His fans, extremely online people, are among the least like-able, most unreasonable people I've ever come across. They don't want to improve lives as much as they like to vent and vilify and mostly call attention to themselves.

Joe has broad appeal, he is personable, his oration has gotten worse but I trust him to surround himself with professionals. Honestly, I liked Amy Klobuchar better personally than I did as a candidate. I only watched one debate but thought she stumbled a bit in some of her answers. I'm sure she would do well as VP and it would be interesting to see her debate Pence.

One thing we're seeing is that it matters who you staff our executive agencies with. It matters who is on the Court. I could go for lots of compromise right now either way. Give me someone competent and honest and my ideals can wait.

[Stavros]

It has been interesting to read the recent comments above, and it confirms my view that if the priority is to make the present incumbent a one-term President, it proves that 'Conservatives' have been setting the agenda now for the last 20 years- perhaps more. I say this because the Obama Presidency also proceeded with caution as far as policy goes, and that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the most radical of his policies, was opposed by the Republicans then and since, but exhibits the extent to which 'radical' policies seem to be feared, and the obstacles they encounter in a divided Congress. Whether or not one does regard the PPACA as radical is thus beside the point, that its intention was to force real change on health care and that it has either failed, or been allowed to fail raises the deeper question: can the US reform itself where reform is ugenty needed?

I would thus pose the question: can the US continue to maintain a health care business that denies health care to millions of Americans, or should it consider the creation of a public health service that guarantees access to health care when needed, for every American citizen, from the day that they are born, to the day that they die?
I do understand the way in which the US works, and that Federal programmes are resisted or re-interpreted by States, but as a basic moral question, do the weaknesses and failings in the US system -and the need for the Federal Govt to step in to the process with billions of dollars in aid -make this now an urgent question?

But, and this is the key question: what would be the reaction to such a proposal? Would it be seen as 'too radical' for the US to even consider? But is there not a bitter irony here, that the US can find trillions of dollars in emergency relief, but cannot spend one trillion dollars on the structural change that would unify health care and guarantee it to every American based on need not the ability to pay?

It is this need for structural change that I think rings alarm bells, but who is doing the ringing? If it is the case that since the end of the Reagan Era, the Democrats have had to shape their agenda to match what they inherited, it means the 'centre ground' of American politics was moved to 'the Right' by Reagan, but never moved back when Clinton was elected, indeed for all his successful policies, just to get elected he needed to persuade 'Reagan Democrats' he could be trusted, and he did just that. But as the agenda of politics was set by Reagan, when things went wrong, instead of the movement being toward the left, it appears that the existing Conservative bias enabled discontented Conservatives to make alliances with previously marginal figures on the 'Christian' or 'Moral Majorty' resulting in the election of a man who is not in the strict sense of the word a 'Conservative' but a maverick with a libertarian streak.

Thus the Obama Presidency, like Clinton's was terrified of upsetting those 'Reagan Democrats' with more radical policies, hence the continuing mess that is US Foreign Policy in the Middle East, but the sense among some that US policy since Reagan had not matured but reached a sell-by date with politicians reluctant to throw it away and do something new. There is another bitter irony here, because while 2008 rather than 9/11 may be seen as the watershed moment in American politics, it was the Obama Presidency that rescued the banking and financial system, that inherited job losses running at 800,000 a month, that produced annual declines in unemployment and annual rates of growth in the economy, but is now denounced as a failure.

It means that the radical policies are not emerging from the Democrats or even the so-called 'left' but from Billionaires, Religious Freaks and Libertarian Fantasists, that States Rights now trump Federal Law and the Constitution, that the US can step by step withdraw from the UN and its agencies disrupting, perhaps even demolishing the international order it helped to establish after the Second World War; that its President who once wondered why the US doesn't use the nuclear weapons it has, may decide the time has come to use them. It means the Environental Protection Agency should be re-named the Environmental Destruction Agency as it makes it easier for energy companies to pollute rivers, streams indeed, the water table, while restrictions on the emissions of motor vehcles are lifted to the detriment of clean air and public health.

The language has so changed that the Democrats that used to be dismissed as 'Liberals' are now 'radical left' and 'extremists' -but who are the extremists?

So I understand your caution when the question is 'do the Democrats want to win this election'? But at some point, the question must also be, in policy terms, 'what are we voting for'?

And at some point when the clearest statement is 'we can't go on like this', the policies must be at the core: education, health, transport, the environment, foreign policy -but who is setting the agenda, and if the US is technically bankupted by Covid 19, where will the money come from to change America, and do the Democrats have a leadership that wants real change, and can both propose it, and deliver it?

And, ultimately, the question is, can the Democrats re-unite the USA, or is the country now so polarized, so divided, and so bitterly divided that healing will not work, that as a union, the USA is in fact doomed to fail?

[trish]

I’m with Fred on the point that a lot of candidates should’ve been weeded out early on. Among those who were ‘really’ candidates Bernie was my last choice; Biden my second last choice.
I worry about Biden’s son and how the opposition can exploit him. I also know that Biden was always a gaff machine even before he got old. Besides that he’s always been way too touchy feelie, which especially doesn’t play well in this MeToo era. But those objections are all, cosmetic.
When Joe had the Senate Judiciary Chair during of the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings I thought he was either ineffective or an utter patriarchal asshole - can’t decide which. Either way, Thomas got on the highest bench in the land largely thanks to Joe's handling of those hearing (in my opinion).
Nevertheless, Joe’s our candidate. We either turn out in droves and vote for Joe, or we put up with another four years of the self-serving, orange idiot who is now in office. I think I’m going to go inject myself with clorox now.

[broncofan]

So I understand your caution when the question is 'do the Democrats want to win this election'? But at some point, the question must also be, in policy terms, 'what are we voting for'?


There are a lot of ideas in your post but this is central in my view. The Republicans push very far right, on social issues, on financial issues, on social welfare issues, on foreign policy and then Democrats reclaim the center because we're so sensitive to the damage they've done. The various strategies to deal with this dynamic are finite, though in the details there can be a lot of variation.

As a party do we claim the center hoping to maximize our voter base and accept we won't get everything we want? If we move to the center, should the far left use leverage and threaten protest votes to provide an incentive not to compromise away values? Do we move further left to deter extremism from Republicans by showing that failure to compromise will lead to polarization? What percentage of votes in the center does this lose?

Every electorate is different but if you go back to Filghy's good synopsis of our political weaknesses, one that sticks out is that culturally, we do not believe we should sacrifice individual rights for a better collective outcome. We've enumerated rights to protect ourselves and in some cases we even make up phantom encroachments to avoid having to care for one another. Ultimately, we need our politicians to respond to the voters or we get nothing but setbacks. The far left is looked at with suspicion in this country, and we are aligned differently than Europe on this axis.

That said, I do think we should push forward and try to develop a Universal health care system. PPACA was a necessary stop along the way, creating employer coverage, minimum standards of coverage, and better subsidization of high risk people by low risk people using mandates. The federalism issues are resolvable in my view, and there is the possibility, with enough political will that we create an imperfect, mostly uniform system of care for everyone.

A last pedantic point: undoing harm imposed by Republicans is voting for something. If they erode gay rights for instance, and we protect them, it's not exciting but it's a tangible difference worth fighting for, even if it's an old battle.

[Stavros]

I hope my reply to the above is not going to be too theoretical; if it is that is because I 'don't get' a lot of American politics because I don't live there, thus respond with sadness to the gentle despair of Trish's post above. A cliche I know but can't you do better than what you have?

It seems to me that a fundamental problem the US shares with Europe, that is, in Liberal Democracies, is that our systems have evolved through the agency of political parties in broadly speaking a 'Parliamentary' system of representative democracy. And it appears to me that over the years, the relatively clear ideas that divided parties used to have, so that voters had a choice between them has become blurred to the extent that some voters dismiss, in a two-party system both parties for being 'the same'.

Without going back through the fault-lines of American politics represented by the New Deal Admistrations on the one hand, and 'Reaganomics' on the other, what we have seen is a process of 'accommodation' whereby parties have become so fixated on a 'risk free' centre ground, you can now in the UK refer to Labour and the Conservatives as 'Red Tories' and 'Blue Labour', just as in Germany Angela Merkel, after all a protégé of Helmut Kohl, could these days just as easily be the leader of the Social Democrats.

If we take 2008 as the most recent fault-line, we can see how extremist parties that once populated the fringe have appealed to a wider part of the population that feels let-down or even betrayed by their former representatives, and that what we have is a fragmentation at the level of ideas, but also in terms of polical geography: Scotand is now more 'independent' or 'autonomous' in the UK than was thought possible -or even necessary- when I was born; the core group of States that are 'opting out' of Federal Law just so happen to be those who formed the Confederacy once upon a time.

What puzzles me is why 'the left', by which I mean mostly the socialist/social democrat parties in Europe, but only in a limited sense of the word to the US Democrats, have not been able to defeat (indeed, have been defeated by) those parties and politicians emerging from a fringe which at least has some connection to the Libertarians opposed to Government and taxation -and wonder, is it because the one thing that the Democrats were and have been terrified of -RISK- has become attractive?
Look again a Trish's post -what she seems to want, and I hope I am not putting words into her mouth, is 'Safety' -Joe Biden the man might not be the best candidate, Uncle Joe is a safe pair of hands, he will be like Obama, a good manager in a crisis. Great, job done.

The problem is that the fragmentation of ideas that has led parties to steal each other's policies or to scramble to occupy the 'centre ground' has left that ground looking irrelevant to those who have rejected politics as it used to be, and in a sense, both parties have become casualties of the reality they shaped over many decades.
It is complicated by the oddest thing that has happened, not the Democrats embracing the legacy of Ronald Reagan, but the Republicans ceasing to be a Conservative party, because this divided party has in effect traded in its Conservative credentials to adopt Libertarian policies, and I don't see how the party can re-discover its own past without one side confronting the other and causing a split that would mean, in effect, the end of the party as a party of Federal Government, though it would probably continue to win in individual states. And yetk if the Republican Party in terms of its history and the ideas it was committed to is in a crisis why does the Democrat party not attack it where it is at its weakest, and focus on one man where the real business is taking place in the Judiciary, for example?

If you have the patience to listen to Alan Wolfe's lecture in the link below you will note that he says those States that contain politicians most committed to a Libertarian agenda correspond almost exactly to the Confederacy that broke away from (and then attacked) the US in 1861. Wolfe spends most his lecture dismissing the links between Liberal and Libertarian ideas (Ryan argues there are connections), and argues that it cannot be a Liberal or Conservative based ideology because it is inherently authoritarian, which underlines my point that those Republicans that are Libertarian have rejected a fundamental aspect of the American Conservative: conserving an estabished political system, and one that was in its origns, an expression of Liberal ideas, because the contemporary distinction between Liberal and Conservative did not exist before the Depression and only evolved to where they are today because of it.
In addition, and Wolfe also makes this point, Liberarians can never govern, because they don't believe in government, and can never realize a 'market led economy and society' because it is not something the people want -but they can create enough dysfunctional behaviour to make efficient government difficult -and it seems to me that what is happening with State's Rights is that anti-Federal States have found a way to effectively withdraw from the US without doing so in a formal way, and that as long as they can act to make a Federal Union impractical -because so many States opt out of Federal law with the blessing of the Supreme Court- then there is nothing short of war 'the Feds' can do about it.

It means that in the divided USA with a fragmented political system, the Democrats a) can only win an election in 'swing states', and b) can only win by offering a risk-free agenda, thus offering no hope of real change; and giving all the excitement to their opponents.

It means also that Democrats are relying on ideas about Rights which have been challenged by the 'alt-right' and which raise the prospect that the Democrats are going to rely on risk-free polcies derived from ideas about Rights that have been rejected by Libertarians of the kind that we assume have voted for the 45th President whether ror not he has any intellectual understanding of ideas that originate with Stephen Miller and people like him.

It comes down to a sense in which Rights are perceived as property rights, and only property rights, something that Alan Ryan talks about (around 37.29) in the same colloquium that Wolfe spoke at -but then Ryan drops the bombshell in answer to a question (56.57 "the crucial issue in American politics is race".
What then follows is the argumen that Libertarians and some Conservatives make whether it is explictly racial or not: that My Rights exist in what I own and have worked hard for- which the State takes/Steals from me in Taxes-and then gives to unemployed/lazy/Black people -and this is equivalent to slavery.
Even if you delete the remark on slavery, the concept of taxation as theft, governments spending 'other people's money' on projects they can do themselves, worse of all, through welfare taking money from people who work to give it to people who have no inention of doing so is, well, Krazy.

But what is the Democrats response? Do they extol the virtues of Taxation as they may have to/should do, or with Immigration when it becomes a Toxic issue in the forthcoming election? Somewhere in the last 12 years in particular, it seems to me that Democrats have failed in the US to command the agenda of what is important, and have become terrified of offering change that is positive but contains risks; whereas the Right is offering the opposite of 'conservatism=stability' and going for broke -change + risk, just as in the UK we have opted for Maximum Risk and Change with Brexit when the UK and the EU is in economic chaos.

Thus, the Democrats can win the Presidential election, even win a majority in both House and Senate but can they win America, so divided and so bitterly divided? The fragmentation of ideas and party loyalty means there is no centre ground, that extremes are to some -not a majority but enough- appealing and appealing because they disrupt and are dysfunctional, and because at the root in the US the argument that Rights are identified as Property means that Rights as Power can be set aside because it is too dangerous, yet if Rights are not Power, what are they? And because in some parts of the USA, Rights as Power=Equal Power, and the Black Man will never be an equal to a White man. Just ask the 45th President to make that call.

The National Crisis of 2021 has seen the Commander-in-Chief exposed as a coward, running away from his responsibilities. Is the Democrat Party about to reveal that it is the coward's party, too scared to tell the US it must pay higher taxes, share more of what it earns with each other, and make the Constitutional right to equality a reality for all Americans?

Alan Ryan's lecture is here-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C__7LPu48-I

Alan Wolfe's lecture is here-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxHnLnlB4vs

[filghy2]

What puzzles me is why 'the left', by which I mean mostly the socialist/social democrat parties in Europe, but only in a limited sense of the word to the US Democrats, have not been able to defeat (indeed, have been defeated by) those parties and politicians emerging from a fringe which at least has some connection to the Libertarians opposed to Government and taxation -and wonder, is it because the one thing that the Democrats were and have been terrified of -RISK- has become attractive?

I think the simple answer is that the populist nationalists on the right are providing an answer that less-educated people find easier to grasp, especially as it appeals to underlying tendencies in human nature: the cause of your problems is some 'other' - elites, immigration, unfair foreign competition, unaccountable international bodies, etc. Also, the costs of pursuing this approach are not evident to unsophisticated people, who perceive incorrectly that all the costs are born by the 'other' rather than them.

The answer of the left is that we need more government to rein in the excesses of capitalism and distribute the benefits more fairly. That has an obvious cost in terms of higher taxation, and even if most of the burden is placed on the rich people still focus on their own taxes. Opponents on the right can also argue that people's freedoms will be restricted and their jobs will be threatened if more restrictions or burdens are imposed on their employers. There also seems to be antipathy toward welfare benefits that are perceived as going to undeserving 'others'. So there are many ways for the right to persuade the white working class to vote against redistributive policies that would appear to be in their interests.

Another key point in relation to the US is that the Republicans have actually been the minority party for a long time; eg they've won the popular vote in only one presidential election in the past 30 years. They have only gained a disproportionate share of power through the vagaries of an electoral system devised in very different circumstances, outright manipulation through voter suppression and gerrymandering and control of the courts. This is a self-perpetuating process where achieving power allows you to manipulate the system to entrench yourself in power.

[Stavros]

Although I agree with much of what you say, I think my main interest is in the way that in the US Conservatives have failed to prevent their most basic ideas being corrupted by political practice and expediency, that they have attempted to re-define it but ended up in effect turning it into a meaningless concept, and that the Democrats have failed to exploit this confusion by failing to re-define what it is that they believe in. It may indeed be simple in a country like the US to blame someone else for things that go wrong, but since 2008 it is the established parties that have been blamed, and surely the whole point of the Maverick candidate winning the Presidency is that it was on that level, a rejection of traditional politics, with the benefit for the Republicans that they won seats owing to a man who has no loyalty to them, but that as long as that accommodation delivered, then they just held their noses and looked the other way. Whether or not they can now maintain their electoral success with someone who has so manifestly failed in the Covid 19 crisis remains to be seen, but just as you are right to highlight the ways in which Republicans assert themselves through jerrymandering, rigged electoral practices and the Electoral College, so one wonders why the Democrats are not proposing a Federal plan to overhaul the way elections are managed all the way down to the smallest units. That the Supreme Court seems to duck out of this and leave it to the States may no longer be acceptable, but just as the Democrats are struggling to define who they are and what they want, can Americans be confident postive change is on the Democrts agenda?

There is a similar problem in the UK but for different reasons, where Brexit has given the one party that for more than 200 years refused to adopt an ideology precisely that. To the extent that when Boris Johnson became leader, MPs who did not proclaim their faith in Brexit were expelled from the party, as if on this one issue alone rested their commitment to a Conservative Britain, as if the Conservatve Party must now be defined by Brexit, rather than some wishy-washy appeal to pragmatism. It was followed by a budget which committed the Conservative Government to levels of spending that were not so different from what Labour had proposed, which were variously derided as bonkers, crazy, mad- until Boris Johnson proposed them. Add in the staggering sums we expect the Pandemic to cost, and one can see that the fundamentals of Conservatism that Thatcher did claim to represent: thift, sound money and balanced budgets, have been discarded as if it were she who as the fantasist.

The reason why this so-called, and incoherent populism has become so attractive, is due to the practical failures of left and right to manage capitalsm, and the loss of any clarity about the purpose of the parties concerned. Yet it is the lef that so far has suffered most, with socialist and social democrat parties that were influential in Europe for the best part of 100 years reduced to nothing in national legislatures, while angry birds like the 5 Star Movement or the League, or even the 'Brexit Party' can win seats which they then use for no purpose at all, other than to squabble with each other, or seek an exit from the Parliament they just entered -about the only successful outcome the Brexit Party can claim.

Lastly my point in the links was to highlight the contradictions in the ideas that form the Libertaran discourse as a means of explaining why I think its advocates in the US and the UK (hard to believe but this includes Sajid Javid, Dominic Raab and Priti Patel) have no long term future in central government, but I think will endure at some level in some US States.

[Stavros]

I worry about Biden’s son and how the opposition can exploit him.


This is going to be a theme, I expect, but a risky one for a man who has his own links to China, via the Bank of China and those permanently complex property deals in New York; not to mention his lovely daughter and the trade marks in China and other related issues. A blessed son, and a blessed daughter -who will take the Crown?

"Hello, is that the Bank of China? Can we do business together"-
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/24/trump-biden-china-debt-205475

"Hello, China -let's do some business. My Name is Ivanka. My blood is blue and my daddy is like, super-rich"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivanka-trump-voting-machines/

[filghy2]

Although I agree with much of what you say, I think my main interest is in the way that in the US Conservatives have failed to prevent their most basic ideas being corrupted by political practice and expediency, that they have attempted to re-define it but ended up in effect turning it into a meaningless concept, and that the Democrats have failed to exploit this confusion by failing to re-define what it is that they believe in.

I'm not sure that philosophical coherence is essential or even possible these days. In order to achieve that parties would need to have a support base whose interests are well-aligned and large enough to form an electoral majority.

In the old days the major parties could have coherent philosophies because politics was based essentially on economic class. The party of the left represented the working class (manual workers), while the party of the right represented the middle and upper classes (business people, professionals and land-owners). Cultural issues were less important because both sides accepted the predominance of Christianity, patriarchy, heterosexuality and whiteness. This seems no longer tenable because of economic and social changes.

The Republican party started playing the race card around 50 years ago because it realised that it could no longer rely on traditional free market conservatism to win electoral majorities, as the middle class became more educated and more liberal. In order to appeal to white working class voters it emphasised 'culture war' issues to distract attention from its primary agenda of advancing the interests of the well-off. This started well before Trump; he has just taken it further.

The obvious tension is that if the working class continue to struggle when Republicans are in power they might realise that their economic interests are not being served. So far they have been able to offset this by further ramping up the culture wars and appealing to blue collar workers through protectionism, anti-immigrant policies and opposing environment policies affecting their industries.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have seen their traditional support base eroded though shifts in the economy away from highly-unionised blue collar jobs in manufacturing etc. They have attempted to compensate by broadening their appeal to minorities and socially-progressive educated urban voters. This has created tensions that have contributed to white working class voters drifting toward the Republicans.

The centre-left policy agenda over the past 30 years has been to accept a largely deregulated globalised economy, while supporting relatively moderate policy interventions to ameliorate its excesses. Regardless of the result in November I tend to agree that playing safe and hoping to benefit from the other side's excesses and mistakes will not suffice going forward. The right time for a policy rethink would have been after the 2016 election loss. Unfortunately, the US system, where the opposition party does not even have a leader until the election year, does not seem to lend itself to this.

[Stavros]

I agree with your post, but rather than resolve the contradiction in American politics, which also exists in the UK but in a different form, the intellectual basis of my argument matters, for this reason-

It may be true that in the US now, the Liberal and the Conservative do not correspond to the terms as they were understood in 1776, indeed, that today the claim appears to be that the Liberal American is more or less a socialist who seeks to change the Constitutional intentions of the USA, where it is the Conservatives who seek to refurbish its original intentions.

But this is manifest rubbish, for the one thing that the American Revolutionaries were not and never could have been is Conservative, because the whole purpose of the Revolution was to argue against Burke and his uncritical subservience to the Crown, and embrace a Liberal concept of the State which had no King and where power was distributed in common with an emphasis on individual and community as the sources of power. In this sense, Liberalism is 'the American ideology' and one must assume every American who believes the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution are the foundations of the US, is by definition, a Liberal.

Wolfe disagrees but Ryan argues Libertarian ideas cannot be separated from Liberal ideas, which means that on one level, the Liberatarians in the US are closer to the Founding Fathers than Conservatives and Liberals so-called today ie Democrats and Socialists, but confuse their own agenda, because of their Libertarian commitments, presenting an extreme version of the Revolution that was not there at the time and has never found its way into any law, because there must be a Federal State and the Federal Government that the Libertarians find obnoxious, even as they seek to capture power locally in their State in order to enact their own version of or 'restoration' of the Revolution -the Liberal Revolution of 1776 never envisaged the absence of Government, and this is what utimately makes the Libertarian movement in the US today a contradiction in terms.

So what? you might ask. But the Federalist Society which has played so major a role in the 'selection' of hundreds of Judges in the US (see link at end of this paragraph), appears at times to favour what it claims is a 'Conservative' agenda, when in reality it is not Conservative, because it seeks to change rather than to conserve so much of US Law that has been passed in since the 1960s, but it is not Liberal either, because it can only pay lip service to much if not most of the Constitutional arrangments that were laid down between 1776 and 1789 which in realty they object to. Two other factors are also at work here: Christian Fundamentalism, and Race, two factors that Libertarians ought to object to.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/28/donald-trump-judges-create-new-conservative-america-republicans

Thus, my suggestion is that somewhere in this fog of definitions, something is happening that many Americans may object to, because
a) the idea that the Government ought not to intervene in the economy sounds fair, but is not met in the conditions of contemporary Capitalism, whether the President is the 'radical left' Democrat Obama or whatever label you want to pin on his successor -both have inherited an economy dependent on Federal and State Government contracts, and neither did, or intend to make any structural changes to replace Government with free markets -it is worth noting that Obama's successor has claimed he does not believe in 'free markets' but 'fair markets' which I guess is how he defines the US taxpayer bailing out his failed businesses.

b) the Liberal idea that social and individual choices shoud keep the Government out of the Library and the Bedroom was not exactly met in the 19th century because 'peer pressure' in society allowed the imposition of rules on behaviour, at a time when most Americans lived in small religious communities where a 'higher' authority established those rules. So what is interesting is how it may not be the Libertarian elements in the Judiciary and the State that are seeking change to intervene in the Library and the Bedroom but the 'Evangelical Christians', and though they may share social prejudices that were common in 1800, today the agenda goes beyond the prohibitions of Abortion, Divorce and Homosexualty, to embrace mystical ideas the 'End Times' and the 'Tribulations' sounding at times more like a death cult than a practical religion.

d) thus there is not only a contradiction in the so-called Conservatives as to what they believe in, they make common cause with the Evangelical Christians with whom they must disagree on most things but only to secure positions of power and authority, so that the real Americans who have no interest in either, face the prospect of their freedoms and their rights being mashed between the jaws of Libertarians and Evangelical Christians who in numerical terms represent a minority of the population, with the added confusion that Race, which ought to mean nothing to both, is the anvil on which to re-shape their America, Black Americans its permanent victims.

If there is one last thought on this attempt to unite the obscure with the real present, it is that one cannot escape the argument that the Founding Fathers of the American Revoution were slave-owners who were motivated to remove the Crown from American life so that they could benefit from the economic opporunities that America gave them. I think it was Charles Beard who first argued that the American Revolution was a classic -and class-based- Revolution of the property-owning bourgeoisie against an absentee landlord who never worked a day for a dollar. History has shown how the poorest immigrant to America could 'make it', where 'make it' was an American dream of freedom and prosperity, but just as money and wealth was at the basis of the Revolution, where wealth could be valued in terms of land and 'human chattel', the cynic might argue that what underpins the Republican project today is to capture Federal and State Government, because whatever policies they prefer -it is where the money is.

Follow the Money may now tell us more about American governance than the Bill of Rights or the Gettysburg Address.

[filghy2]

It may be true that in the US now, the Liberal and the Conservative do not correspond to the terms as they were understood in 1776, indeed, that today the claim appears to be that the Liberal American is more or less a socialist who seeks to change the Constitutional intentions of the USA, where it is the Conservatives who seek to refurbish its original intentions.

The founding fathers were essentially believers in limited government and universal individual rights. As you say, this would have put them in the liberal rather than the conservative camp in those days. Where they would stand in today's politics is a moot point because I think they viewed their work as providing a framework to govern how decisions are made and political power exercised, rather than setting out what governments should be doing 250 years ahead. They would certainly have been appalled by the current administration's claims of unlimited executive privilege, which are against everything they stood for.

The problem I have with thinking in terms of liberal vs conservative (or left vs right) is that it assumes that political views can be characterised along a two-dimensional spectrum. There are probably three main spectra affecting political views these days:
(i) smaller government vs larger government
(ii) socially conservative/unicultural vs socially liberal/multicultural
(iii) nationalist vs internationalist

The Republican Party at present is smaller government, socially conservative and nationalist, while the Democrats could be characterised as larger government, socially liberal and internationalist. There are 6 other combinations which are also conceivable, which makes it hard to think in left vs right terms.

[Stavros]

The problem I have with thinking in terms of liberal vs conservative (or left vs right) is that it assumes that political views can be characterised along a two-dimensional spectrum. There are probably three main spectra affecting political views these days:
(i) smaller government vs larger government
(ii) socially conservative/unicultural vs socially liberal/multicultural
(iii) nationalist vs internationalist

The Republican Party at present is smaller government, socially conservative and nationalist, while the Democrats could be characterised as larger government, socially liberal and internationalist. There are 6 other combinations which are also conceivable, which makes it hard to think in left vs right terms.

As a description of what Liberals and Conservatives think today, your post sums it up. But in doing so, it begs the question -have Liberals and Conservatives been faiithful to ther ambitions?

The Republican Party might claim to want smaller government, but has not only not achieved this, it has literally increased the size of American Government through the GW Bush Administration's creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which in some areas does the same work as the FBI. Indeed, one wonders why the 45th President of the USA, having insulted the former leadership of the FBI as 'human scum' has not gone one stage further and shut the FBI down on the basis the DHS can do that job. At least here in the UK ,having created the Department for Exiting the European Union (cost: £100 million a year), the Government has now shut it down.
One could also argue that if the debt is the indicator, Republicans since Reagan have opted for Colossal rather than Little Government. By now a tired comparison, but to compare Eisenhower's economics to Reagan's is like comparing a slice of toast to an ALL YOU CAN EAT Buffet, probably in Texas.

There is also the view that if American Conservatives once defined their aim as 'to conserve stability', the currrent 'Conservatives' are addicted to disruption and instability.

There are plenty of other contradictions with both parties, but perhaps the most intriguing is the extent to which, influenced it seems by 'Evangelical Christians', it is the politics of the bedroom, which Republicans have adopted, as if it were a fetish...but I shall stop here as I am in any case grateful to anyone who reads my usually very long posts.

[broncofan]

The centre-left policy agenda over the past 30 years has been to accept a largely deregulated globalised economy, while supporting relatively moderate policy interventions to ameliorate its excesses. Regardless of the result in November I tend to agree that playing safe and hoping to benefit from the other side's excesses and mistakes will not suffice going forward. The right time for a policy rethink would have been after the 2016 election loss.
I agree with your description of our political climate but I am not sure what kind of strategy change would be effective. Does a post-mortem of the 2016 election indicate that we lost because of mistakes in broad policy objectives or because Hillary was a candidate who had been effectively maligned over a long career and made some errors while campaigning.

Your knowledge of our long term political trends far exceeds mine but I am not sure that significant changes in what we present to the public wouldn't have the effect of taking a small loss and making it larger. Obviously the point Stavros has made, which is that you have to have some sense of what you win if you win matters. You have also previously made the point if I recall correctly that one cannot automatically assume that the most moderate platform pulls the most voters. Voter turnout matters and so does the excitement of the public about your platform.

Why don't I keep my query short since I'm enjoying the quality of the discussion. What kind of platform could the Democratic Party run that would achieve their objectives of more fairness in the marketplace and better programs but would also give them a better chance of winning? Regardless of the actual outcome of the primaries, who most embodied that?

[trish]

Regarding point (i): I don’t believe the divide centers on the size of government, but rather on the functions government should serve. Very few liberals want a needlessly large government and very few conservatives (with a few exceptions) want absolutely no government. We all want a government just large and authoritative enough to serve our needs and protect our rights, but not so powerful and authoritative as to threaten our freedoms. However, we disagree on what our needs, our rights and our freedoms are. Thus issue (i) slides into issue (ii): are our needs, rights and freedoms to be determined by a single culture or are do they allow for a plurality of cultures. At least on the issue of religious cultures the Constitution already favors a plurality (in that it determinedly places no one religious way life above another).

Personally, I love Jesus, pick-up trucks, country music, cheap beer and AR-15’s. Everything else is un-american.

Gotta say, running Biden is not putting our best foot forward. (Has anyone been watching Cuomo give his daily briefings? They’re genius.) But it’s probably too late to change. The question is, “What can Biden do to excite the base and draw others in?” Obviously the platforms of both parties are going to promise to revive the economy while keeping us safe. The winner is the one that’ll sound the most convincing to the largest number of idiots. In this race, I’m hoping the well-meaning idiots outnumber the rest.

[blackchubby38]

I agree with your description of our political climate but I am not sure what kind of strategy change would be effective. Does a post-mortem of the 2016 election indicate that we lost because of mistakes in broad policy objectives or because Hillary was a candidate who had been effectively maligned over a long career and made some errors while campaigning.

Your knowledge of our long term political trends far exceeds mine but I am not sure that significant changes in what we present to the public wouldn't have the effect of taking a small loss and making it larger. Obviously the point Stavros has made, which is that you have to have some sense of what you win if you win matters. You have also previously made the point if I recall correctly that one cannot automatically assume that the most moderate platform pulls the most voters. Voter turnout matters and so does the excitement of the public about your platform.

Why don't I keep my query short since I'm enjoying the quality of the discussion. What kind of platform could the Democratic Party run that would achieve their objectives of more fairness in the marketplace and better programs but would also give them a better chance of winning? Regardless of the actual outcome of the primaries, who most embodied that?

Hillary lost because she was the wrong candidate at the wrong time and because she made too many mistakes to overcome it.

Instead of the Democrats realizing that and trying to figure out why they lost and what could give them the best chance to win in 2020, they spent the past 3.5 years picking battles with Trump that that they eventually went on to lose. Now they're stuck with a candidate that by all rights should be able to win in November. But at the same time, has to deal with issues like his son's position with a foreign company. As well as possibly being guilty of sexual assault.

As for what platform the Democratic Party should run on, its simple as this. 4 more years of Trump means he gets to pick another Supreme Court nominee.

[filghy2]

The Republican Party might claim to want smaller government, but has not only not achieved this, it has literally increased the size of American Government through the GW Bush Administration's creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which in some areas does the same work as the FBI.


Regarding point (i): I don’t believe the divide centers on the size of government, but rather on the functions government should serve. Very few liberals want a needlessly large government and very few conservatives (with a few exceptions) want absolutely no government.

I think Republicans do believe in small government, except when it comes to their preferences for social conservatism and America First nationalism. They don't believe in government action to promote social equity or to regulate market failures (such as environmental externalities, public safety, monopoly power, financial instability). So I guess (i) is really about a subset of government functions, although in most countries it would cover most of what government does.

[filghy2]

I agree with your description of our political climate but I am not sure what kind of strategy change would be effective. Does a post-mortem of the 2016 election indicate that we lost because of mistakes in broad policy objectives or because Hillary was a candidate who had been effectively maligned over a long career and made some errors while campaigning.

The Democrats should have been strong favourites to win in 2016 because the economy was good, the outgoing president was popular, and the opposition candidate was flawed and unpopular. It might be that Trump's victory was somewhat accidental, but the real question is why was he close enough that a combination of accidents got him across the line. I think that was because voters in previously Democrat-leaning 'rust-belt' states were sufficiently dissatisfied with the status quo to overlook Trump's flaws and vote for someone who promised to shake things up. As I've argued before, I can't see that trying to restore the pre-Trump status quo can be the answer.

In terms of policy directions I think part of the answer will involve a more questioning attitude toward globalisation, as economists like Dani Rodrik and Joe Stiglitz have been arguing - not crude protectionism but something more strategic. There also needs to be more active policies to promote economic development in the rust-belt states, like Roosevelt did in the New Deal. Higher-education reform should also be a priority to increase economic opportunity - the current US system seems almost designed to impede upward mobility. There should also be a better safety net, but I think the main organising principle needs to be to give the left-behinds a hand up to improve their lot through their own efforts.

[filghy2]

But at the same time, has to deal with issues like his son's position with a foreign company. As well as possibly being guilty of sexual assault.

I'm curious as to why these should be big problems for Biden when the same issues apply to Trump in spades.

[blackchubby38]

I'm curious as to why these should be big problems for Biden when the same issues apply to Trump in spades.
Because how does it look when the party that became the champion of the Me Too Movement and who used a sexual assault allegation as a reason to try to block Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. Then turns around and nominates and endorses a candidate that who also has been accused of sexual assault. Especially when the media hasn't really been in a rush to talk about the story.

While in the grand scheme of things given who is currently sitting in the White House, you're right those things shouldn't be problem. But for some Democratic voters who aren't too excited about Biden in the first place, this just gives them more reason not to be thrilled with him. Then there is also the question how do Independent voters feel about him.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to how much you are willing to hold your nose as you overlook some of the candidate's past transgressions and vote for them. Whether they're proven to be real or are they just allegations. Trump supporters have shown they're willing to do just that. Will some Democrats and Independents be willing to do the same. Speaking for myself, I know I'm.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=trish;1926637
Personally, I love Jesus, pick-up trucks, country music, cheap beer and AR-15’s. Everything else is un-american.
-A pity, I was hoping you were going to say you like Tom Hanks, Miles Davis, Zinfandel and... a table tennis paddle...(!)

Has anyone been watching Cuomo give his daily briefings? They’re genius.
-Have seen some of it in the UK, but don't know much about the man, other than I think his father was once Governor? Can he be written in to the ballot at the Convention, or more precisely -is he any good at the rest of his job? I assume you don't become Governor of New York without getting your hands dirty.

Ps Today is the anniversary of that day in 1789 when George Washington was sworn in as the first elected President of the USA. I think these days that is what is known as a 'Fun Fact'. Ho ho.

[broncofan]

Sexual assault is difficult to talk about because it's a heinous crime that frequently can't be corroborated by physical evidence or testimony from a disinterested witness. And yet an accusation of sexual assault tends to be very reliable and by itself can form the basis of a criminal conviction. While it is true that false accusations are rare, they do occur. There is a difference between reflexively assuming every person accused is definitely guilty and thinking that an accusation makes them likely to be. The slogan for the Me Too was, "believe women." Yet, the only avenue for a man accused of sexually assaulting a woman to exculpate himself is to make sure people don't believe that woman.

In the case of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats wanted his accuser to be heard. She was and he had an opportunity to respond. In doing so, he made himself sound unfit for office. His accuser, Dr. Ford Blasey, sounded credible. Brett Kavanaugh could have been replaced with a wing-nut who had not been credibly accused of sexual assault. This was not acceptable to Republicans.

Then there's the case of Donald Trump. Like Biden, he has also not had his day in court and been found guilty of sexual assault. But he has been accused by dozens of women of assaulting them. While a person who is accused by one woman of assault might not be guilty, the probability that Trump committed sexual assault is near certainty. This will certainly not go on a campaign ad for Joe Biden: I might not have, he definitely did.

But we come to the fact that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will be elected President. Given that practical reality, not voting for Joe Biden because of Tara Reade's accusation doesn't seem logical to me.

[broncofan]

In doing so, he made himself sound unfit for office.

Sorry I didn't mean for "office". I meant for taking away women's reproductive rights.

[fred41]

In the case of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats wanted his accuser to be heard. She was and he had an opportunity to respond. In doing so, he made himself sound unfit for office. His accuser, Dr. Ford Blasey, sounded credible. Brett Kavanaugh could have been replaced with a wing-nut who had not been credibly accused of sexual assault. This was not acceptable to Republicans.

I have a problem with this statement Bronc. You say he could have been replaced with a wing nut who had not been credibly accused of sexual assault...but the fact that he was “credibly” accused is always going to be in contention. “You” deemed her “credible” in that Previous sentence. By what standard though? I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve worked in the court system for a very large portion of my life. I’ve learned that, emotions aside, reliable credibility comes from corroborating testimony or other factual evidence. There was none of that at the Kavanaugh hearings. To say that it doesn’t matter because at the very least he over reacted emotionally at the hearings isn’t fair either..he has a wife and children....how would you or anyone else have reacted with an accusation almost 30 or more years ago?

Let me re-adjust this in a more honest matter - For whatever reason, you find out, that in fact, Joe Biden inserted his unwanted fingers into Tara Reade’s vagina...maybe it’s shown to you in a dream...whatever. Do you still vote Biden ...or Trump?

[fred41]

You’d vote Biden...why? Because he’d still be the best candidate in your eyes. If you have to vote between two people, one’s a criminal the other one incompetent, you vote for the criminal (in the hope he gets caught, goes to jail, his Vice gets the job...no problem)...because the alternative is to vote for someone who might really fuck things up in a really BIG way..lol ( in your view, anyway).

[broncofan]

I have a problem with this statement Bronc. You say he could have been replaced with a wing nut who had not been credibly accused of sexual assault...but the fact that he was “credibly” accused is always going to be in contention. “You” deemed her “credible” in that Previous sentence. By what standard though? I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve worked in the court system for a very large portion of my life. I’ve learned that, emotions aside, reliable credibility comes from corroborating testimony or other factual evidence. There was none of that at the Kavanaugh hearings. To say that it doesn’t matter because at the very least he over reacted emotionally at the hearings isn’t fair either..he has a wife and children....how would you or anyone else have reacted with an accusation almost 30 or more years ago?


Let me re-adjust this in a more honest matter - For whatever reason, you find out, that in fact, Joe Biden inserted his unwanted fingers into Tara Reade’s vagina...maybe it’s shown to you in a dream...whatever. Do you still vote Biden ...or Trump?
The accusations never would have made their way to court 30 years later because it wouldn't have given Kavanaugh an opportunity to defend them. If it went to court, as you say there is nothing in the way of specifics or corroboration that would have gotten a conviction. I take a liberty with the word credible because I only mean that I listened to both Ford and Kavanaugh and found her convincing and him evasive and not very forthright.

Let's assume Kavanaugh was innocent, which is the assumption we're supposed to start with. That means that when Dr. Blasey Ford came forward he really had no clue what she was talking about. It would undoubtedly be hurtful and embarrassing and a nightmare for him. I just don't know see that's how he would have/should have responded. You're right, it provoke all kinds of distress and strong emotions, but one would expect he would try to demonstrate there was nothing to the accusation with thoughtful testimony.

My only point about the Republicans is that they were not faced with a choice between Kavanaugh and a Democrat. If they really believed Dr. Ford, and if they thought Kavanaugh conducted himself poorly they could have appointed someone else with the same Judicial philosophy at no political cost.

I would vote for Biden over Trump even if he committed sexual assault because I'm certain Trump has violated multiple women. It's awful, but it's a choice between two candidates in the election. What if Trump hadn't done the things he's openly bragged about doing to women? I can see how this becomes a very difficult moral dilemma. I'm faced with the fact that I see Trump's incompetence and unique character deficits costing thousands of lives. I really see it that way.

[fred41]

Let’s see Bronc...lol. I posted that in the middle of the night after two bottles of wine. I think my point was that a lot of what we do is tribal anyhow, and that - whether we realize it or not, our opinions on political events, sometimes extraneous to an election , but not always, are already shaped in a preconceived way...something like that. Why do I say that? Because I can literally picture the same event in reverse - with the concerned party (Kavanaugh) having a reliably liberal ideology and submitted by Democrats...and you (or another poster), writing that whether or not it’s a criminal hearing or a “job interview”...western civilizations generally operate under the principle of Innocent until proven Guilty and blah, blah blah..
But anyhow, it’s tough ..because a considerable amount of time has now passed and I’ve already forgotten some of the smaller details. Wasn’t there some type of time constraint for the appointment? I’m not sure. I did find an interesting article on how he’s ruling on decisions now, but the Time article is dated the summer of 2019 :
https://time.com/longform/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-first-term/

As to :
”I would vote for Biden over Trump even if he committed sexual assault because I'm certain Trump has violated multiple women. It's awful, but it's a choice between two candidates in the election. What if Trump hadn't done the things he's openly bragged about doing to women? I can see how this becomes a very difficult moral dilemma. I'm faced with the fact that I see Trump's incompetence and unique character deficits costing thousands of lives. I really see it that way.”

- I think there may have been a time when it was easier to pick between two choices like that , because perhaps the political parties weren’t so far apart at one point. Whether or not that was ever actually the case I’m not sure of since I’m really not much of a history buff, but at the very least, at this point in time , you’re really not making a choice “just between two guys”. If you suspect, for instance, that nominee Mr. A may have committed a crime, but seems competent and his opponent, Mr. B, is squeaky clean....but an idiot...then you’d still have the problem of electing , not only a moron, but someone who’s heavily ideologically opposed to your personal beliefs. Both Guilty of similar crimes, both innocent of similar crimes or...your guy guilty and the other guy innocent...it really doesn’t matter to a selection so much anymore. Maybe it really is time to break away from the two party system...I’m not sure. Anyhow this whole thought pattern came out when, I’m not certain if you remember this anymore, I asked a long time ago what it would take for someone to cast a vote for a candidate in the opposing party...if certain crimes were involved, and I believe you and Trish responded. Sometimes local elections are more fun because the fiber still seems to matter more than the Parties they attach their names to...sometimes just a way to get on a ballot. Sorry for the rambling post, but thanks for the response.

[fred41]

Oh and, I believe, Biden is probably innocent unless other women step forward. Problem is - he’s always been so creepy touchy feely, that a sexual assault allegation of unwanted touching seems plausible. That’s on him and his personality. I never really bought the whole “I’m from another time” argument either. I NEVER thought it was appropriate for guys to touch women a lot, even if they claim it was in a Paternal way...and I’m not that young either. It’s just weird. Interestingly enough, I always thought Trump was the opposite - that he didn’t even like to touch people, or be touched, at all.
Wait, got another one...What if you believed Biden was guilty, but Trump has a heart attack and someone else becomes the nominee...someone more even keeled, would that make a difference? Lol...either way - Have a Great Day!

[broncofan]

Anyhow this whole thought pattern came out when, I’m not certain if you remember this anymore, I asked a long time ago what it would take for someone to cast a vote for a candidate in the opposing party...if certain crimes were involved, and I believe you and Trish responded.
I remember you asking what it would take for me to vote for a Republican, but I'm not sure I remember it in the context of the Democrat committing crimes. But what if it were a lefty who was really out there and maybe a Republican who was a moderate? Maybe you didn't ask it that way but I came to the conclusion that in most cases it would be really hard for me.

It's not just political affiliation but there are a few social issues that were sticking points for me. But what if Mitt Romney ran against Jill Stein? I would vote for Mitt Romney over any of the candidates I've seen from the Green Party here because frankly they've been a dump site for every conspiracy theorist on the planet. I know she's not a Democrat, but the Green Party does sometimes cannibalize votes from Democrats.

If I were a conservative, how would I respond to the President calling the media the enemy of the people and claiming he has total power over the states, then calling for Virginians to protect their second amendment rights through civil unrest during a pandemic? Or if a Democrat did similar things, would I vote for the Democrat because they're pro-choice and support gay marriage? I think I wouldn't and it may be tribalism but I haven't seen a Democrat show such a flagrant disregard for institutions and people as Trump.

[fred41]

If I were a conservative, how would I respond to the President calling the media the enemy of the people and claiming he has total power over the states, then calling for Virginians to protect their second amendment rights through civil unrest during a pandemic? Or if a Democrat did similar things, would I vote for the Democrat because they're pro-choice and support gay marriage? I think I wouldn't and it may be tribalism but I haven't seen a Democrat show such a flagrant disregard for institutions and people as Trump.

If you were a true establishment Republican (affiliate and/or voter) I would imagine you would hate him. If you’re one of the extreme wingers, most likely Tea Party and/or Libertarian types, you’d probably be okay with him. The extreme wings of both parties tend to be filled with a lot of bomb throwing types , who are just happy when others are miserable (I didn’t say ALL mind you, but you know who you are). They like when Trump calls people names and makes people uncomfortable (It’s him sticking it to the Establishment man! :roll:..). The Green Party doesn’t have any out and out boors that I know of...and Bernie is pretty polite, but probably to a fault - if you listen to some of his most ardent supporters...which leads me to believe that if he was as crude as Trump...he’d still have their support, perhaps more so.

I’ve been a registered Democrat - but mostly to vote in local elections - the Democratic Party is so strong in NYC, it’s usually said you have to be a Democrat to vote, because quite often the Democratic Primary is the real election. I’ve became a registered Republican when I decided I didn’t want to be a hypocrite since I tended to vote conservative. Now I’m unaffiliated (President Trump being a strong contributing factor to that decision)...my beliefs straddle me almost dead center. I share little with both extremes of the two party platforms. I voted Clinton last election, because I figured she’d be better at actually running and understanding the job (and she doesn’t flout the rules of etiquette and common decency the way no one besides Trump does)...But I’m not an anyone other than Trump voter. If Bernie had won the primary I would have voted Trump. I believe Bernie is a very decent man and I also believe he’s one of the most honest, non corrupt politicians out there. But I don’t like his past love fest of embracing left wing totalitarian regimes...and I cannot go along with his economic policy views. Just screaming out that everything he supports is a basic human right, doesn’t make it so. I’m living on a decent pension with money attached to the market also. I understand that, even if he were to win the Presidency, there’s fat chance many of his issues would get past even people in the Democratic Party, but I’m not gambling on that.

[filghy2]

Because I can literally picture the same event in reverse - with the concerned party (Kavanaugh) having a reliably liberal ideology and submitted by Democrats...and you (or another poster), writing that whether or not it’s a criminal hearing or a “job interview”...western civilizations generally operate under the principle of Innocent until proven Guilty and blah, blah blah.

Presumption of innocence doesn't generally apply to job applicants though. There have been many past instances where nominations for official positions were withdrawn when something came up that cast a cloud over the nominee. Regular people often miss out on jobs for lesser reasons without due process - eg the interviewer just didn't like something about their manner or a previous employer made a negative comment and they were given no chance to respond. And how many of the myriads Trump has sacked received any due process?

At the end of the day it's a political decision and I think they decided to go ahead for political reasons because sticking it to liberals and the 'me too' movement appealed to the party base.

Aside from the rape allegation, there were good reasons to reject Kavanaugh in terms of judicial philosophy, notably his past support for an expansive interpretation of executive privilege. That may turn out to be critical at some future time.

[filghy2]

I can see how this becomes a very difficult moral dilemma.

I'm not sure it's such a moral dilemma when we are talking about possible harm to one individual in the past versus the likelihood of harming the future well-being of hundreds of millions of people as well as seriously undermining democratic institutions. Even if the Republican candidate was someone squeaky clean would that outweigh the fact that he supports a policy that would leave millions more without health cover, to cite just one example?

I think a candidate's private conduct is relevant only for what it indicates about how they would behave in office. Bill Clinton's sexual behaviour was clearly not good but there is no evidence that this character flaw had any effect on the way he conducted himself as President. Trump, on the other, had a long history of dishonesty and lack of empathy for other people, and that has clearly carried over to his conduct as President. I don't see any equivalence between Republicans' willingness to overlook Trump's malignant narcissism and lack of moral scruples on any matter and Democrats' willingness to overlook sexual misconduct by Clinton and possibly Biden.

[broncofan]

I'm not sure it's such a moral dilemma when we are talking about possible harm to one individual in the past versus the likelihood of harming the future well-being of hundreds of millions of people as well as seriously undermining democratic institutions. Even if the Republican candidate was someone squeaky clean would that outweigh the fact that he supports a policy that would leave millions more without health cover, to cite just one example?

Perhaps we always choose the action that leads to the most utility but doesn't that make us vulnerable to ignoring and not deterring behavior that in the long run is harmful? I think you hit on the reason that I would have difficulty ever voting against even a morally reprehensible Democratic candidate.

But I suppose the dilemma is that on the one hand you're tempted to choose the option that leads to the best aggregate outcome but on the other hand there is injustice at the level of the individual, even if the bad act has already occurred.

I agree that Trump's character problems provide an entirely separate and much greater level of threat than anything else because of how it affects everything he does.

[fred41]

I'm not sure it's such a moral dilemma...

It obviously becomes a tougher dilemma if you change the characters and the crime one has possibly committed (or any other circumstances of wrong doing). So, in the event this argument gets carried further, in either this, or possibly another thread in this section...there’s going to have to be a caveat - I’m going to invoke the “cute puppy, with a gun to it’s head, behind a curtain rule”...to make sure that the ONLY choices one has, is to vote on the two candidates (a Democrat and a Republican).abstaining is not an available option.

P.S. In the event you’re not a dog lover - replace the puppy with your cute baby brother Aloysius.

[Stavros]

A symmetry of the unexpected might be unfolding in the UK and the USA. By Christmas, the President and Prime Minister could be different people from the men they are today.

In the UK, Boris Johnson has one month in which to make a criitical decision: if as a result of Covid 19 there has been such disruption to the negotiations on trade with the EU they cannot be concluded, he must seek an extension of the December deadline before the end of June. The original timetable had March as the onset of trade negotiations, with November the end date of the first phase to enable member states to consider the agreemet before a December signing. If that is not possible, and if Johnson does not seek an extension, and if there is no agreement by November, the UK will leave without a deal. In the past Johnson has welcomed this, but in the precise context of a country in a medical and economic crisis, is this not the worst time to be leaving the EU without a deal to rely solely on the WTO?

But if Johnson does what is right for the UK to seek an extension for another year, then, along with internal criticism of his mangement of the Covid 19 crisis, he could face a leadership contest, perhaps in December. It doesn't look likely, but then in the UK we have got used to the unxpected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399

Meanwhile, and I admit I don't know the precise mechanics of this, it seems to me that the US is being set up, or the President and his party are trying to set up a contested election in which, if it happens in November -and I think there is still a possibilty that he will at least try to postpone it- the controversy over 'mail in' votes, allegations of vote rigging, fraud etc, could mean that three or more States cannot offer a defiinitive count, or the losers will take the vote to Court and delay the outcome -even if the vote is not close. I think the calculation will be on the Electoral College votes and whether contested results in States can change the outcome of the election.

The man don't like losing, I think he will take everyone on, because in addition it will further weaken and divide the USA as a country.

Two hypotheticals, but are they so remote from reality?

[Stavros]

An advisor to GW Bush was on BBC-Radio 4's The World at One (ie 1pm) and argued that the election could be postponed, and thinks the President is going to (try and) make China the key issue that divides the candidates.

She also pointed out each state has its own election methods, and this prompts the question: why?

It seems to me that the US needs an independent and Federal Election Commission to radically overhaul the way elections are held in the US. Thus-
-Change election day from a Tuesday in November to a Saturday and Sunday.
-One system for all: every State to have the same methods of voting: in-person, mail-in.
-Ballot Papers for County, State, and Presidential candidates to be separate.
-Boundaries of electoral districts to be set by the Commission.

One curiosity is mail-in votes. In the UK we call them postal votes and they used to be limited to people who could not vote in any other way, because, say, they were out of the country on election day, or in hospital and so on. The Blair goverment lifted those limitations so that postal voting is now a matter of choice, though for some it is a gift to conspiracy theorists who claim multiple voters at one address can all vote the same way -and be filled in by one person. Whatever.

On the other hand, while I believe Colorado has had majority mail-in votes for years, some lose out, like this community of Navajo in Arizona-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/22/mail-in-voting-native-americans-election

[filghy2]

She also pointed out each state has its own election methods, and this prompts the question: why?

It seems to me that the US needs an independent and Federal Election Commission to radically overhaul the way elections are held in the US. Thus-
-Change election day from a Tuesday in November to a Saturday and Sunday.
-One system for all: every State to have the same methods of voting: in-person, mail-in.
-Ballot Papers for County, State, and Presidential candidates to be separate.
-Boundaries of electoral districts to be set by the Commission.

One curiosity is mail-in votes. In the UK we call them postal votes and they used to be limited to people who could not vote in any other way, because, say, they were out of the country on election day, or in hospital and so on. The Blair goverment lifted those limitations so that postal voting is now a matter of choice, though for some it is a gift to conspiracy theorists who claim multiple voters at one address can all vote the same way -and be filled in by one person. Whatever.


Because the Constitution says the selection of Electors is a matter for the States. It doesn't even specify that they must be elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election Changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, which is a tall order - 2/3 of both houses and then 3/4 of state legislatures must agree.

About 10% of votes cast in the last Australian federal election were made by post, and I've never seen any suggestion that voter fraud is an issue.

[fred41]

Here’s an excellent article in The NY Times as to which party would benefit most by mail in votes. Let me ruin the ending for you - we still don’t know, but it gives reasons it may help or hinder either party. Don’t know how long it’ll stay up:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/vote-by-mail-coronavirus.html

My concern wouldn’t be fraud, but I do have some reservations about loss of votes, either due to negligence or perhaps mistakes by either the voter or the postal service. Another problem, as pointed out by the article - voter registry can be a problem, sometimes due to changing addresses by a voter...a problem that occurs less with in-person voting, because registration can be done right then and there.

It would be nice if we can have a digital voting system we can depend on, but then not every one has a cell phone or computer. I guess nothing’s perfect. Maybe one day.

I don’t mind in person voting, some countries risk far greater threats to life, than just a virus to vote - and they come out to do it anyway, but that being said if you want more voting by the populace, then we’ll have to find a better way.

[Stavros]

Because the Constitution says the selection of Electors is a matter for the States. It doesn't even specify that they must be elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election Changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, which is a tall order - 2/3 of both houses and then 3/4 of state legislatures must agree.

About 10% of votes cast in the last Australian federal election were made by post, and I've never seen any suggestion that voter fraud is an issue.

I understand the Constituional aspects but if the US is serious about reform, is it not time for them to at least debate the reforms that will improve the operations of democracy? The point is, and not just because of the threats being made to the 2020 election, if now is not the time for reforn, when will it be? And are some of my proposals so unacceptable to both parties in Congress?
On the Tuesday phenomenon complete with 'buggies' (not buggers!) I found this explanation-
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/10/23/162484410/why-are-elections-on-tuesdays?t=1590458960924

[Stavros]

Here’s an excellent article in The NY Times as to which party would benefit most by mail in votes. Let me ruin the ending for you - we still don’t know, but it gives reasons it may help or hinder either party. Don’t know how long it’ll stay up:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/vote-by-mail-coronavirus.html

My concern wouldn’t be fraud, but I do have some reservations about loss of votes, either due to negligence or perhaps mistakes by either the voter or the postal service. Another problem, as pointed out by the article - voter registry can be a problem, sometimes due to changing addresses by a voter...a problem that occurs less with in-person voting, because registration can be done right then and there.

It would be nice if we can have a digital voting system we can depend on, but then not every one has a cell phone or computer. I guess nothing’s perfect. Maybe one day.

I don’t mind in person voting, some countries risk far greater threats to life, than just a virus to vote - and they come out to do it anyway, but that being said if you want more voting by the populace, then we’ll have to find a better way.

It is an fascinating set of questions, and maybe the solution is a 'one-size fits all'? I do wonder why there are so many different ways of voting, and also I once saw a ballot paper and it looked like the menu from a fast food joint. Voting should be a pleasure, not an ordeal.

[fred41]

I understand the Constituional aspects but if the US is serious about reform, is it not time for them to at least debate the reforms that will improve the operations of democracy? The point is, and not just because of the threats being made to the 2020 election, if now is not the time for reforn, when will it be? And are some of my proposals so unacceptable to both parties in Congress?
On the Tuesday phenomenon complete with 'buggies' (not buggers!) I found this explanation-
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/10/23/162484410/why-are-elections-on-tuesdays?t=1590458960924

I would prefer that they make that Tuesday a national holiday instead of switching it too the weekend. Why? I could very well be wrong (I hope that I am), but I have a sneaking suspicion that either solution isn’t going to change the numbers all that much. In fact, they may make them worse. There are people that already have that day off as a holiday that don’t vote. A lot of people are just lazy. I’ve had debates on this with fellow employees (not evidence, I know) who will give you various reasons for not voting (on my job we got the whole day off...some other jobs let you leave early or you get two hours off, otherwise polls are also open beyond typical working hours). Their explanations rarely pass muster and , when listening to how they actually spent their time that day, it makes it easy to draw the conclusion that they simply couldn’t be bothered to vote. If you now change voting to the weekend, is it really more likely that someone will break up the opportunity to go away for a two day weekend and do their civic duty to vote? Same reason you can’t change it to a Monday - you just created a three day weekend. We have a hard enough time finding folks willing to sit on juries...and they sometimes get paid for that.

[Stavros]

Either this is all just election gunfire, or the November election, if it happens, could be the most chaotic in US history -allegations made in advance by the party anxious it is going to lose? Or a full-spectrum assault on Democracy as you used to know it, to make the process itself appear invalid?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/27/honest-elections-project-conservative-voting-restrictions

Can the President shut down social media? You have to wonder why Twitter is still going if Hillary Clinton can be pilloried as a 'skank'. The language of American politics is now so vile, and so deliberately vile, I wonder if any major public figure is going to say now is the time this must stop. Allegations of murder, insulting women, the disabed. Really, can nothing be done to stop it?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/27/trump-twitter-social-media-threat-conservatives

[dns4809]

:iagree:

[blackchubby38]

Three things happened over the past week that probably ruined Amy Klobuchar's chances of being picked as Biden's running mate and none of them were of her doing:

1. Biden's comments about black voters.
2. Black activists warning Biden not to pick her because of how poorly she did with black voters. Apparently they want it to be Warren.
3. The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, a city in her home state.

I'm still hoping she gets picked because it will help balance out the ticket regionally. I also think because of Biden's age, I think you need a candidate that's going to inspire faith in the voters that the country will be in good hands if something were to happen to him. Finally, given how she fared in the debates, I think she will do well in one against Mike Pence.

[Stavros]

Thanks for your thoughts, the oddschecker is linked below. Michelle Obama s 6th favourite though I think we know by now she has no interest in the job...so its Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, then Val Demings who is a new name to me, as is the 8th placed Catherine Masto.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/democratic-vp-nominee

[filghy2]

The language of American politics is now so vile, and so deliberately vile, I wonder if any major public figure is going to say now is the time this must stop. Allegations of murder, insulting women, the disabed. Really, can nothing be done to stop it?[/URL]

Why would that make any difference? The previous Republican president and their previous presidential candidate have criticised his behaviour and it had absolutely no effect on Trump or his supporters. The only thing that would make a difference is if Fox News said this must stop, but that isn't going to happen as long as Murdoch thinks that Trump's reelection will serve his interests.

[broncofan]

Why would that make any difference? The previous Republican president and their previous presidential candidate have criticised his behaviour and it had absolutely no effect on Trump or his supporters. The only thing that would make a difference is if Fox News said this must stop, but that isn't going to happen as long as Murdoch thinks that Trump's reelection will serve his interests.
If Fox took an honest line it probably would make a difference though it's interesting that at one point Trump had gotten so fed up with Chris Wallace occasionally being honest that he threatened to stop watching Fox and his supporters were looking for other outlets like OANN. I frequently see memes that show what CNN is broadcasting simultaneous with what MSNBC and Fox broadcast. It will be covid-19, state police in Minneapolis, and Chef Somebody making a steak sandwich respectively. These graphics do make Fox look like State tv, though Trump's control is only indirect, as Fox is there simply to boost the Republican party and make money presumably.

Today he tweeted that "when the looting starts the shooting starts" and twitter put a warning on his tweet that it glorified violence. He clearly wants to abolish whatever parts of the first amendment he can and is now having some tantrum about whether he can sanction twitter.

The fact is, he will do whatever he can get away with to consolidate his power. If Fox doesn't want to stop catering to his every whim and impulse and the Republican party doesn't want to stop him, the slide to authoritarianism will continue and right now it seems to be accelerating.

[broncofan]

Actually in this case what he wants to do is abolish the separation of powers. Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protects websites that host the views of third parties so that they are not liable for what third parties say. He keeps saying "revoke Section 230" but of course that would be a legislative change and not something he can do with any of his article ii powers. In a sense it does implicate the first amendment because it would be the government seeking a change in the law to punish speech by a particular company.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28/21273241/section-230-explained-trump-social-media-twitter-facebook

[blackchubby38]

I would prefer that they make that Tuesday a national holiday instead of switching it too the weekend. Why? I could very well be wrong (I hope that I am), but I have a sneaking suspicion that either solution isn’t going to change the numbers all that much. In fact, they may make them worse. There are people that already have that day off as a holiday that don’t vote. A lot of people are just lazy. I’ve had debates on this with fellow employees (not evidence, I know) who will give you various reasons for not voting (on my job we got the whole day off...some other jobs let you leave early or you get two hours off, otherwise polls are also open beyond typical working hours). Their explanations rarely pass muster and , when listening to how they actually spent their time that day, it makes it easy to draw the conclusion that they simply couldn’t be bothered to vote. If you now change voting to the weekend, is it really more likely that someone will break up the opportunity to go away for a two day weekend and do their civic duty to vote? Same reason you can’t change it to a Monday - you just created a three day weekend. We have a hard enough time finding folks willing to sit on juries...and they sometimes get paid for that.

Could you imagine trying to get someone to vote on a weekend during the middle of football season.

Most of the times that I have voted, its been either before I went into work or coming home from it. So there are ways to get around Election Day not being a national holiday or on a weekend. If you request a day off from work, most employers will honor that request. So just do the same for Election Day.

[fred41]

Could you imagine trying to get someone to vote on a weekend during the middle of football season.

Most of the times that I have voted, its been either before I went into work or coming home from it. So there are ways to get around Election Day not being a national holiday or on a weekend. If you request a day off from work, most employers will honor that request. So just do the same for Election Day.

Quite frankly, I no longer care how people want to vote in the United States. I’m always going to vote, otherwise I feel I’d be giving up the right to bitch and complain..lol. I honestly

[fred41]

The quote should’ve continued : I honestly believe that it should be a little inconvenient to vote. I think people should give pause to the moment. There are areas around the world ...many areas, not just a few, where voting can mean actually risking your life...for real, but when given the opportunity, they still come out and do it. Think of what their answer might be , to a complaint of the line being a little too long...or in fact, any complaint that has to do with “social distancing”.

So yeah, my opinion - most voting should be done in person. I’m always going to feel that way because of the importance of it. That’s what voting means to me.

[Stavros]

Should voting be compulsory? Barrack Obama thought so, and famously, or notoriously, Australia has a voter turnout of 90-91%, though attending the polling station and being given a ballot doesn't mean the vote itself can take place -the voter can write on the paper 'I'd rather have a cold beer' or something more provocative...so it doesn't mean the State has taken away the right of people to refuse to participat, just made it more annoying. Two articles -one on Australia, the other more general put the case for and against. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/08/how-australias-compulsory-voting-saved-it-from-trumpism https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/beyond-turnout-consequences-compulsory-voting

[broncofan]

I'm in between Fred's view and compulsory voting. I don't think anyone should vote who actually doesn't want to or won't even fill out a ballot. But I think our democracy wants to know what leaders people prefer, not what sacrifice they'll make to place their vote. So I think it should be made reasonably convenient but also ensure the integrity of the election and prevent fraud to a reasonable degree. I think mailing does that and even if it's not the norm I think it's perfectly reasonable where there's a pandemic and people face unequal risks and in person voting might prevent some people from voting.

[blackchubby38]

I wonder if its just coincidence or its because she is one of Minnesota's two senators that Amy Klobuchar's was one to make the announcement about the additional charges against the cops in George Floyd case. Or is it because Biden has already made up his mind about her being his running mate and just hasn't made the announcement yet.

[blackchubby38]

One more thing about Biden's vice president nominee. Because of the death of George Floyd, progressives would have a problem with him picking someone with a background in law enforcement. Which not only effects Klobuchar's chances, but Harris' as well.

[Fitzcarraldo]

One more thing about Biden's vice president nominee. Because of the death of George Floyd, progressives would have a problem with him picking someone with a background in law enforcement. Which not only effects Klobuchar's chances, but Harris' as well.

What about Val Demings? She was police chief in Orlando (and her husband was formerly sheriff of Orange County), but she's black and female.

[blackchubby38]

What about Val Demings? She was police chief in Orlando (and her husband was formerly sheriff of Orange County), but she's black and female.

I would be all for it. But like I said in my earlier post, there are some progressive who don't want him to pick anyone with a background in law enforcement. Even if they are a minority.

[fred41]

I’m starting to hear Tammy Duckworth mentioned a lot. She does have an incredible biography.

[Stavros]

21at Century America -but the machines don't work. Looks like this will be the most contested election, at so many levels...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/12/us-presidential-election-fiasco-voter-suppression

[blackchubby38]

Breaking News:

Amy Klobuchar is forced out...I mean takes herself out of consideration for Joe Biden's VP pick.

[blackchubby38]

I often heard that one of the things that Biden is going to have to answer for with black voters is his writing of the 1994 crime bill. So I decided to do a little research about it to see what he exactly needs to apologize for.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

Just a quick overview, the only parts of the law that I have an issue with would be:

Fifty new federal offenses were added, including provisions making membership in gangs a crime.
Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants Program

The feeling is that that last one may have led to an increase in the prison population. But it even seems that maybe open to debate.

So if I'm Biden, I concentrate on the positives of the bill and talk about the incidences that led to the bill being passed.

Two things I do find interesting is that bill passed the Senate 95-4 and the fact inmates used to be able to receive a Pell Grant for higher education while incarcerated. I couldn't even get a Pell Grant when I was applying for financial aid in the early 1990s.'

[broncofan]

Blackchubby,
thanks for posting that. I've heard Biden criticized for voting on that bill before but didn't know the provisions so I'll read it later. I have to say, punishing membership in any organization is usually suspect, even if it's a gang. It is something we do for terrorist organizations but generally we want to prosecute people for acts they've taken or particular conspiracies they've been a part of.

[blackchubby38]

Blackchubby,
thanks for posting that. I've heard Biden criticized for voting on that bill before but didn't know the provisions so I'll read it later. I have to say, punishing membership in any organization is usually suspect, even if it's a gang. It is something we do for terrorist organizations but generally we want to prosecute people for acts they've taken or particular conspiracies they've been a part of.

That part of the law really didn't make sense to me. Especially since if they wanted to prosecute street gangs as an organization, they could have done it under a RICO indictment.

[Laphroaig]

This is brutal but absolutely on the money...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1275081110897057795

[CaptainSteel]

Well i'm pro Trump.

[Laphroaig]

Well i'm pro Trump.

Better out than in...

[Stavros]

If the poll numbers get worse, he will resign, as he never loses. Then he can write a book about himself as the Greatest Undefeated President in the History of the World.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

This is brutal but absolutely on the money...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1275081110897057795Completely Agree.

[Laphroaig]

If the poll numbers get worse, he will resign, as he never loses. Then he can write a book about himself as the Greatest Undefeated President in the History of the World.

What were the poll numbers before the 2016 election?

Sadly I don't think a Trump loss is a done deal yet by any means. Plus, if it's a close vote he'll claim corruption and probably have to be removed from the White House bunker, kicking and screaming "unfair", by the National Guard.

[Stavros]

What were the poll numbers before the 2016 election?
Sadly I don't think a Trump loss is a done deal yet by any means. Plus, if it's a close vote he'll claim corruption and probably have to be removed from the White House bunker, kicking and screaming "unfair", by the National Guard.

Fair point, but if Covid 19 is still a factor the practical matter of holding an election may be used to delay it -but for how long?

Meanwhile today's Independent is pushing Val Demmings, though this week Kamala Harris's odds rose and she has edged Val Demmings, with Susan Rice surging on the inside...below are some latest odds, and a speech from Demmings when she was Orlando Police chief.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/democratic-vp-nominee

https://bookies.com/news/joe-biden-vp-pick-odds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHULgUTCRn0

[broncofan]

What were the poll numbers before the 2016 election?

I don't know what they were this far out but I created a thread on 9/26/2016 saying that according to 538 and other poll aggregators he was estimated to have close to a 50% chance of winning. What would it be like if he were President. It would be interesting to look at the first couple of responses because some still didn't think it was much of a possibility despite the polls. He is very far behind and some states that are usually not even in contention are going towards Biden. I'd feel a lot better if these were the numbers in September or October.

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?100299-Donald-Trump-Presidency-Day-One

[blackchubby38]

Fair point, but if Covid 19 is still a factor the practical matter of holding an election may be used to delay it -but for how long?

Meanwhile today's Independent is pushing Val Demmings, though this week Kamala Harris's odds rose and she has edged Val Demmings, with Susan Rice surging on the inside...below are some latest odds, and a speech from Demmings when she was Orlando Police chief.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/democratic-vp-nominee

https://bookies.com/news/joe-biden-vp-pick-odds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHULgUTCRn0

He can't pick Demmings because according to one of leaders of the BLM movement, once a black person becomes a cop they're no longer black, they're blue.

I really think Biden painted himself into a corner when he said that he would pick a woman as his running mate at one of the debates. The clamoring for it to be a black woman has only made his choice a bit more difficult.

The most important factor in picking a VP nominee is that they're ready to take over if something were to happen to the President. Now when you go by that criteria, Susan Rice would be the perfect choice, followed by Harris.

But here is where its get trickier for Biden. There are progressives who don't want anybody with a background in law enforcement and I get the sneaking suspicion, anyone with background like Susan's Rice would also fall under that category.

So now the question becomes if he picks the wrong black woman, are progressives and especially the BLM organization going to lose their shit and stay at home on Election Day. They're not excited about Biden in the first place, the wrong VP pick may make them even less enthusiastic.

Or what if he goes with Tammy Duckworth? I mean as long as its a woman of color, everything should be okay, right.

Now if he goes with Stacy Abrams or Karen Bass, does he give some moderates/independents reason to think twice about voting for him because of their lack of experience. Even if you think Obama was going to win regardless in 2008, there had to be some people who had misgivings about McCain because he chose Sarah Palin.

Finally, if you're a progressive white woman, are really cool with the fact that the only reason why Amy Klobuchar is not the nominee is because of the color of her skin?

[Stavros]

Thank you for the insights, Blackubby38, it is hard at this distance to appreciate those nuances that Americans can see clearly. But really, all the top three candidates look capable, and yes, with a career in public service will bring their baggage too, so why can't people just accept that? There are no angels in politics, so why go looking for them?

I don't think it is as bad as 1968 or 1972, when the perception of the Democrats was of a party in chaos, hostage to every interest group going. And with this incumbent President incapable or unwilling to tell anyone what his second term is for, other than to make more money, the Democrats can and should at least offer a vision for the decade ahead, even if it means reviving Hope and Change -perhaps the VP can articulate the direction in which the US is going to go? It is a great opportunity to put clear blue water between the candidates, one hopes they don't muddy the waters instead. One newspaper here predicts a very, very dirty campaign by the Republicans.

[Stavros]

Tammy Duckworth? I did not know much about her but read Frank Bruni's portrait in the New York Times -he thinks she is the kind of candidate immune from the President's vicious attacks, forgetting that John McCain was also a disabled war veteran, and is still the target of the little man. Curiously or not, this link from Fox News can't seem to find much with which to demonize her- but I don't know much else about her.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tammy-duckworth-5-things-to-know-about-bidens-possible-democratic-vp-contender

[Del06]

If the poll numbers get worse, he will resign, as he never loses. Then he can write a book about himself as the Greatest Undefeated President in the History of the World.

You're dreaming, Stavros. He'll never resign. Even if he's defeated at the polls.

[Stavros]

And here is how he can stay in office no matter that he loses the vote again-

https://www.newsweek.com/how-trump-could-lose-election-still-remain-president-opinion-1513975

[KnightHawk 2.0]

And here is how he can stay in office no matter that he loses the vote again-

https://www.newsweek.com/how-trump-could-lose-election-still-remain-president-opinion-1513975That is very scary scenario, and is one that the Clueless Buffoon In Chief will definitely try and use to stay in power if he loses the November Election. and the enablers in congress and the senate will be enabling and let him get away with it. and US Citizens should be very concern if that happens.

[Stavros]

I read in this morning's papers Kanye West may run for the Presidency. Help me out here - who is he? I have no interest in rap, and even less in his wife. Is this serious, or just a media event?

[KnightHawk 2.0]

I read in this morning's papers Kanye West may run for the Presidency. Help me out here - who is he? I have no interest in rap, and even less in his wife. Is this serious, or just a media event?Kayne West is a hip hop artist and a Trump Supporter,Fanboy and Sellout,No i don't he is serious about running for president. He just doing this take votes away from Joe Biden.