Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[nonniey]

9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Please. Obama had been a State and US Senator for 11 years before he took the reins of POTUS. 

 

It's not even comparable to Trump. Or even what you claimed and or pretended to claim.

 

And yes, serving in office at the State and/or Federal level gives you insider knowledge of the political world. Your refusal to acknowledge that is silly.

OK I concede one can get an inside knowledge of anything when one experiences it.  But shouldn't your criteria be someone who actually is good at the political game? 

[The Evil Genius]

2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

OK I concede can get an inside knowledge of anything when one experiences it.  But shouldn't your criteria be someone who actually is good at the political game? 

 

Sure what's good though? Is it passing the ACA despite an opposition Congress that vowed never to pass any of your meaningful legislation? 

[nonniey]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Sure what's good though? Is it passing the ACA despite an opposition Congress that vowed never to pass any of your meaningful legislation? 

No that is an example of the weakness I'm talking about.  Being good is passing significant legislation when your party is in the minority (Clinton). Being ok is getting bipartisan support when you don't need it (W Bush), being poor at it is only being able to pass legislation when your party is in the majority (Obama), and being terrible is pissing off your own party enough where you can't pass something even though your party has a majority (Trump).

[tshile]

51 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Most recent in 2016 would have been Obama - Obama was weak when it came to the political game once in office - really no disputing that (Not as weak as Trump though - heck Trump can't even get his own party to support him on many issues).

I don’t think this is accurate. He was labeled inexperienced by the right and I’m not even sure they were all that wrong. 

 

The criticism in hindsight isn’t that he was a weak politician. It’s that he way underestimated the level the republicans would stoop too. And it was pretty bad. My distrust and contempt for the republicans began with their behavior when Obama was elected. 

 

And I don’t know that anyone (qualified in the first place) could have anticipated what the republicans would do. 

 

I really wonder how much he could have done if the republicans were interested in doing their jobs in good faith as they’re supposed to, instead of... whatever you want to call what they did. 

2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Being good is passing significant legislation when your party is in the minority (Clinton).

This was not possible under Obama. 

 

They started the relationship by accusing/furthering the idea that he was a secrete Muslim from Kenya here to infiltrate our government and destroy our country. 

 

I mean what the **** are you supposed to do with that?

34 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I think most of us can agree that Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to not understanding things and the inability or unwillingness to learn.

 

The unwillingness to learn is the most egregious thing a person can have. 

 

Its a special level of stupid to not realize you’re not smart. 

[nonniey]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

I don’t think this is accurate. He was labeled inexperienced by the right and I’m not even sure they were all that wrong. 

 

The criticism in hindsight isn’t that he was a weak politician. It’s that he way underestimated the level the republicans would stoop too. And it was pretty bad. My distrust and contempt for the republicans began with their behavior when Obama was elected. 

 

And I don’t know that anyone (qualified in the first place) could have anticipated what the republicans would do. 

 

I really wonder how much he could have done if the republicans were interested in doing their jobs in good faith as they’re supposed to, instead of... whatever you want to call what they did. 

Why did the repeal of the ACA fail?  It was because Trump poked his finger in the eyes of a couple of Republican Senators making it pretty easy for them to poke right back.  What was almost literally the first thing Obama did upon becoming President? He poked a group of Republicans right in the eye (Eric Cantor) during the stimulus negotiations ("elections have consequences" ring a bell)?  Good Politicians don't do that.

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Why did the repeal of the ACA fail?  It was because Trump poked his finger in the eyes of a couple of Republican Senators making it pretty easy for them to poke right back.  What was almost literally the first thing Obama did upon becoming President? He poked a group of Republicans right in the eye (Eric Cantor) during the stimulus negotiations ("elections have consequences" ring a bell)?  

 

Your entire analogy fails because the reason why it didn’t pass is that they didn’t have a plan. They had something, and it was terrible, but it wasn’t a plan. 

 

Also telling people as the new boss that things are going to be different (after 8 years of bush) in a closed door meeting is way different than being on TV accusing a POW-turned-senator-forever of being a loser and somehow his time and experience as a service member during wartime is deserving of some level of criticism because he “got caught”

 

 

[mistertim]

11 minutes ago, nonniey said:

No that is an example of the weakness I'm talking about.  Being good is passing significant legislation when your party is in the minority (Clinton). Being ok is getting bipartisan support when you don't need it (W Bush), being poor at it is only being able to pass legislation when your party is in the majority (Obama), and being terrible is pissing off your own party enough where you can't pass something even though your party has a majority (Trump).

 

The only way Clinton was able to pass any major legislation after the Rs took over is by basically backing Republican legislation and pretending it was bipartisan...the welfare reform act was a very conservative bill that congressional Rs had been pushing for a while and Clinton finally acquiesced. Bush had some bipartisan support for certain things but much of that had to do with 9/11 and the aftermath. He certainly didn't have it for Social Security privatization or his tax cuts. Then Obama took over in a climate where you literally had the leader of the Senate Republicans admitting that their singular goal was not to let Obama get reelected and deny him any victories. They then proceeded to refuse to work with him on anything, period. Even on a healthcare bill that was based on a system a leader of their own party had enacted and which had a bunch of ideas originally put forth by that dastardly bastion of left wing poison, The Heritage Foundation.

 

Nothing short of saying "I will do whatever you tell me to do" to the Republicans in Congress would have gotten Obama anywhere.

[Springfield]

The day that Mitch McConnel leaves the senate will be a bright day for our country.  He’s peobably done more to hurt this great nation than any other politician in recent history.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Your entire analogy fails because the reason why it didn’t pass is that they didn’t have a plan. They had something, and it was terrible, but it wasn’t a plan. 

 

Also telling people as the new boss that things are going to be different (after 8 years of bush) in a closed door meeting is way different than being on TV accusing a POW-turned-senator-forever of being a loser and somehow his time and experience as a service member during wartime is deserving of some level of criticism because he “got caught”

 

 

 

Jimmy Carter didn't invite the Speaker of the House (of his own Party) to his inauguration balls.  

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

The day that Mitch McConnel leaves the senate will be a bright day for our country.  He’s peobably done more to hurt this great nation than any other politician in recent history.

 

I recall Predicto nominating Newt Gingrich for that position.  

 

His evidence was that one of the first thing Newt did upon taking over congress was to disband the Congressional Research Office.  (I think that's the right name.)  An organization created and run by Congress, for the specific purpose of giving members of congress non-partisan information about the predicted impact of legislation being considered.  

 

Newt did it specifically because he wanted to force all members of the new Republican congress to get their information from lobbyists.  

 

[visionary]

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[88Comrade2000]

5 hours ago, visionary said:

 

Messam and Williamson are so minor, I don't even list them.

5 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

She is this cycle's first big bust.  Unless, she wows them at the debates; she's probably gone by LAbor Day.

[Burgold]

There's so much I like about Warren. She's smart, diligent, knows her stuff inside and out, can be innovative, but she's dry. So much sadly has to do with "personality" and charisma versus competence.  I think the other thing she has going against her is that she has been unfairly attacked forever by the right wing media as a member of the loony left. Thing is, if you listen to her and read her, she's damn reasonable.

 

I don't think she has much of a chance to win. People don't vote for the Professor. They don't vote for Hermoinie. They don't vote for someone who tells them to take their medicine and that broccoli is good for them. Hell, the Right got years of traction because of the outrage that Michelle Obama dared to grow a garden and suggested kids eat healthier!!!

[redskinss]

On 4/8/2019 at 6:34 AM, twa said:

Warren polling in 3rd place in Mass with Beto about to pass her.

 

stick a fork in her.

She's very popular in Massachusetts yet very few Democrats wanted her to run for president. 

Their happy with her performance and want her to stay as a senator.

 

Most of the Massachusetts Democrats I've talked to feel she'd make a good president but also think she's too easy a target for trump and dont want to take the chance.

 

She deserves better but unfortunately that's where we're at.

[Springfield]

Warren would make a great senate majority leader.

[Bozo the kKklown]

Warren, imo, is the best candidate but Americans like glitz and and vagueness. We get what we deserve.

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Warren, imo, is the best candidate but Americans like glitz and and vagueness. We get what we deserve.

 

Americans want to "win". Dems right now want to beat Trump 1st, lead America into a better version of itself 2nd. Thats how it is. 

[Burgold]

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

Warren, imo, is the best candidate but Americans like glitz and and vagueness. We get what we deserve.

People often say, "Why don't candidates talk policy? Where are the details?" What people say they want and what they actually want don't seem to line up.

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

 

1

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Americans want to "win". Dems right now want to beat Trump 1st, lead America into a better version of itself 2nd. Thats how it is. 

The problem is this does not happen.

 

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

People often say, "Why don't candidates talk policy? Where are the details?" What people say they want and what they actually want don't seem to line up.

I think what we both realize is that Americans are full of horse manure and don't want to do much or say much.

 

You have someone that is actually talking real policy to stop wealth going to the top. She is talking about giving mothers free child care. She is talking about breaking up these monopolies and big banks, and she is very passionate about all of it and firey. Instead its, "well she sounds too professorial." Americans get exactly what we deserve. We are currently enthralled in a slow-moving coup and consolidation of power by the top, and someone is advocating policy to stop that. Instead, we get, "yeah, but I am not excited."

 

Americans are very comfortable with suffering to help the wealthy. We get what we deserve.

[Llevron]

Its super disappointing. Its why i wish there was a real 3rd party cause as much as I hate Repubs politically....dems are just stupid and missing the point too much of the time. And its right there for them to take! 

[No Excuses]

I think the problem is much deeper than "Americans like glitz and glamour and don't appreciate politicians with good policies".

 

There is just a complete lack of civic interest in critical social issues, which I think ultimately stems from a fundamentally broken education system in the country.

 

For instance, if you are unaware of how monopolies are on the rise and the damage they inflict in free market economies, then you won't give a crap about Warren's trust busting policies.

 

Democracies suffer when the citizenry is poorly informed and America's broken education system has created an environment where a good majority of the public cannot engage responsibly in the democratic process.

[88Comrade2000]

18 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

I think the problem is much deeper than "Americans like glitz and glamour and don't appreciate politicians with good policies".

 

There is just a complete lack of civic interest in critical social issues, which I think ultimately stems from a fundamentally broken education system in the country.

 

For instance, if you are unaware of how monopolies are on the rise and the damage they inflict in free market economies, then you won't give a crap about Warren's trust busting policies.

 

Democracies suffer when the citizenry is poorly informed and America's broken education system has created an environment where a good majority of the public cannot engage responsibly in the democratic process.

Those in power can't have an educated populous. 

[No Excuses]

4 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Those in power can't have an educated populous. 

 

Doesn't have to be like this at all but it is certainly true in America at the moment.

 

One of the universally shared principles of America's founding fathers was the necessity of public education and the need for a well educated populace to maintain democracy and prevent authoritarianism. We have clearly failed at this two centuries into our democracy.

 

Only in America did the wealthy successfully create a system in which education became just another vessel for economic inequality. There is one education system that does a great job for the well-off and their children, and a parallel education system that will fail most of the people who go through it. And almost all of it is due to how we choose to fund our schools through taxes (or not).

 

A strong public education system is put in practice almost universally throughout the developed world. And I'm not even going to blame this on the federal system. Local NIMBYism is just as much to blame.