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

[Cooked Crack]

6 hours ago, nonniey said:

As for Specter saying Biden told him this - Biden never disputed it.

Except for him publicly saying he believed her. Dude seemed to have shut up about the issue until he was running for President. Biden thinking she was lying only seems to come from right wing sources with an agenda.

 

In terms of bending over backwards he definitely failed if that was his intention.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-joe-biden-hasnt-owned-up-to-about-anita-hill

[TradeTheBeal!]

Here’s a bold statement...What happened 28 years at the Hill/Thomas hearings will have absolutely no effect on my opinion regarding Biden’s candidacy.

[twa]

NYT's putting out more details on Hunter Biden Ukraine deals......... might get interesting

[TheGoodBits]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

NYT's putting out more details on Hunter Biden Ukraine deals......... might get interesting

 

It sure might. I'd imagine "Biden/Ukraine" will be a pretty constant refrain for the next 18mo, much like "Uranium One" and "Emails" were in 2016. 

[DogofWar1]

8 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Whats difference between her and Beto on policy?

 

She has much more fleshed out policy proposals.

 

But she's also a woman and a very progressive one at that.

 

She's basically the boogieman for white males.  They check their closet and under their bed for her every night.

 

It's why, unfortunately, while she is possibly the best candidate for president from a policy perspective, she is likely a better VP candidate than President.

[PleaseBlitz]

18 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

Mostly stopped posting polls but Beto being up was very interesting.

 

My main takeaway here is that everyone beats Trump except Warren.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

This will excite our resident "Never Trump" conservatives and neoliberals but is another reason why Biden will not make it out of the primaries and would probably lose an election to Trump.

 

 

Biden has a record and it isn't for helping the people. if Dems want to win, they need to excite their electorate to come out to vote. Joe Biden isn't that.

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

During this time period, many liberal Democrats began to call for a Balanced Budget Amendment, including Governor Jerry Brown of California, who ran for president against Carter in 1980, and then-Congressman Paul Simon, who, upon his election to the U.S. Senate, would write the version of the amendment that came closest to passing.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget_amendment

 

 

A balanced budget amendment could have been very helpful post-9/11, imo.

[DogofWar1]

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Biden has a record and it isn't for helping the people. if Dems want to win, they need to excite their electorate to come out to vote. Joe Biden isn't that.

 

 

Nate Silver's opinion is where I'm at.

 

 

This is the same stuff that Clinton got attacked for, in a frankly unfair manner, and the divisiveness of that is at least in part what dragged her down.

 

Did you see a bunch of Republicans in November 2016 freaking out that Trump was once pro-choice?

 

No, they voted for him and accepted that his policy position had changed.

 

 

Indeed, we all better hope that people can change their positions over time, because if not, all those videos of Bernie in Soviet-bloc situations from the 70's and 80's are going to become that much worse.  (And the kicker is that Bernie has voted weirdly pro-Russia much more recently than Biden has voted pro-gutting Social Security)

[nonniey]

9 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

This will excite our resident "Never Trump" conservatives and neoliberals but is another reason why Biden will not make it out of the primaries and would probably lose an election to Trump.

 

 

Biden has a record and it isn't for helping the people. if Dems want to win, they need to excite their electorate to come out to vote. Joe Biden isn't that.

 

If winning is the most important thing for the Dems Biden is their best bet. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

Nate Silver's opinion is where I'm at.

 

 

This is the same stuff that Clinton got attacked for, in a frankly unfair manner, and the divisiveness of that is at least in part what dragged her down.

 

Did you see a bunch of Republicans in November 2016 freaking out that Trump was once pro-choice?

 

No, they voted for him and accepted that his policy position had changed.

 

 

Indeed, we all better hope that people can change their positions over time, because if not, all those videos of Bernie in Soviet-bloc situations from the 70's and 80's are going to become that much worse.  (And the kicker is that Bernie has voted weirdly pro-Russia much more recently than Biden has voted pro-gutting Social Security)

 

Joe Biden hasn't disavowed anything he voted on in the past. At least Hillary said she was wrong by calling black men "super predators." Biden has not done any of that and I doubt he thinks he was wrong in any he has done in the past.

 

And if you go further down in that tweet thread, the Obama admin also proposed cutting social security when they were negotiating with the extreme right in the Congress from 13-15. It's sweet that Nate Silver believes Biden can evolve and grow, but he has not said he was wrong on any of that. Shoot, just a few days ago he said Dick Cheany is a good guy and helped him with legal matters on being a VP.

[Dan T.]

9 minutes ago, nonniey said:

If winning is the most important thing for the Dems Biden is their best bet. 

 

The Dems winning, which means relegating Donald Trump to the scrap heap of history - is the most important thing for America.  Anybody but Trump.

[nonniey]

3 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

The Dems winning, which means relegating Donald Trump to the scrap heap of history - is the most important thing for America.  Anybody but Trump.

So you should vote for Biden in the primary.

[Dan T.]

4 minutes ago, nonniey said:

So you should vote for Biden in the primary.

 

Or vote for William Weld or Larry Hogan in that other primary.

[nonniey]

26 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

Or vote for William Weld or Larry Hogan in that other primary.

For me unless someone else jumps in that is a given. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Good stuff.

 

[DogofWar1]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

Joe Biden hasn't disavowed anything he voted on in the past. At least Hillary said she was wrong by calling black men "super predators." Biden has not done any of that and I doubt he thinks he was wrong in any he has done in the past.

 

And if you go further down in that tweet thread, the Obama admin also proposed cutting social security when they were negotiating with the extreme right in the Congress from 13-15. It's sweet that Nate Silver believes Biden can evolve and grow, but he has not said he was wrong on any of that. Shoot, just a few days ago he said Dick Cheany is a good guy and helped him with legal matters on being a VP.

 

I mean, the Social Security stuff was part of policy discussions, it never came to fruition, and when you're negotiating big policy plans, lots of things end up on the table.  If, for example, a $500 cut per person to SS secured policy changes on medication that saved $1000 per person, wouldn't that be a net positive?

 

Lots of Dems would probably give Trump at least some wall money if, for example, it helped secure the passage of HB1.  20 years later, do they need to disavow that vote, even though it was done for the greater good, and the good of passing HB1 into law would undoubtedly outweigh the negative of, say, 5B for a wall?

 

Also, he did apologize to Anita Hill, and she is allowed to accept that or not, but it's not exactly accurate to say he doesn't think he was ever wrong in the past (and also, the Hill situation is more complicated than the attacks suggest).

 

 

As for the Cheney thing, it's absolutely an unforced error.  But it's also very on-brand for Biden.  He likes to find the good in people and it takes a lot to get him to really tear into someone, and given that Cheney has now been out of things for now over a decade, it's kind of like speaking ill of the dead from his perspective, I imagine.  But I agree it's creating unneeded controversy, if he had just stayed neutral on Cheney things would have been fine.

[Bozo the kKklown]

3 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

I mean, the Social Security stuff was part of policy discussions, it never came to fruition, and when you're negotiating big policy plans, lots of things end up on the table.  If, for example, a $500 cut per person to SS secured policy changes on medication that saved $1000 per person, wouldn't that be a net positive?

 

Lots of Dems would probably give Trump at least some wall money if, for example, it helped secure the passage of HB1.  20 years later, do they need to disavow that vote, even though it was done for the greater good, and the good of passing HB1 into law would undoubtedly outweigh the negative of, say, 5B for a wall?

 

Also, he did apologize to Anita Hill, and she is allowed to accept that or not, but it's not exactly accurate to say he doesn't think he was ever wrong in the past (and also, the Hill situation is more complicated than the attacks suggest).

 

 

As for the Cheney thing, it's absolutely an unforced error.  But it's also very on-brand for Biden.  He likes to find the good in people and it takes a lot to get him to really tear into someone, and given that Cheney has now been out of things for now over a decade, it's kind of like speaking ill of the dead from his perspective, I imagine.  But I agree it's creating unneeded controversy, if he had just stayed neutral on Cheney things would have been fine.

The problem isn't just voting for it, Biden was a leading voice on these things.

 

[Riggo-toni]

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

As for the Cheney thing, it's absolutely an unforced error.  But it's also very on-brand for Biden.  He likes to find the good in people and it takes a lot to get him to really tear into someone, and given that Cheney has now been out of things for now over a decade, it's kind of like speaking ill of the dead from his perspective, I imagine.  But I agree it's creating unneeded controversy, if he had just stayed neutral on Cheney things would have been fine.

Somebody posted something before (about when I wrote my post about discounting him just based on his age is ageism) where I was going to say this, and I didn't write that post.

 

But I think this is a fundamental problem with Biden, and I think you see it back that Anita Hill hearings.  He works on a preliminary basis that everybody there is being honest and really working in good faith even if there is a long history of that person not being honest and not working in good faith.

 

During the Anita Hill hearings, the Republicans broke the agreed upon rules and Biden essentially let them because he was seeing the best in them.

 

And in general, that's a find and a good thing, but I don't at all think that's a characteristic I want in a President at this time.

 

Biden seems to have a long history of working with people that I don't think are really good people, but he seems to still like them and get along with them and find good things to say with them.  I'm not one that believes you can't not like a person and not work with them.  To me, if you are a Democratic President and the Republicans have a substantial amount of power, yes you need to find ways to work with them (and vice versa).  But you also have to realize and know that there are people that aren't operating honestly and in good faith, and when they don't, you have to call them out for it.

 

And I've never seen Biden behave that way in his career, and while I don't doubt he can change his mind on policy, I'm very dubious if he can change his personality in that manner.

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

My main takeaway here is that everyone beats Trump except Warren.  

That's some sad **** considering her policy proposals.  How much ya'll wanna bet the way she handled her NA heritage lead to this?

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

That's some sad **** considering her policy proposals.  How much ya'll wanna bet the way she handled her NA heritage lead to this?

 

I honestly think it's mostly because she's a smart, older white lady with short blonde hair, so she reminds people too much of Hillary.  That's also some sad ****.  

2 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

I mean, the Social Security stuff was part of policy discussions, it never came to fruition, and when you're negotiating big policy plans, lots of things end up on the table.  If, for example, a $500 cut per person to SS secured policy changes on medication that saved $1000 per person, wouldn't that be a net positive?

 

Lots of Dems would probably give Trump at least some wall money if, for example, it helped secure the passage of HB1.  20 years later, do they need to disavow that vote, even though it was done for the greater good, and the good of passing HB1 into law would undoubtedly outweigh the negative of, say, 5B for a wall?

 

Sorry Doggo, it took you four sentence to explain a concept.  People will tolerate 2 at max. 

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I honestly think it's mostly because she's a smart, older white lady with short blonde hair, so she reminds people too much of Hillary.  That's also some sad ****.  

People want too much from their president.  I didn't care that Hillary was likeable or not, I knew she knew what she was talking about and wouldn't put up with no BS.  We're talking about the top executive of the country, but that doesn't feel like what a lot of people are voting for these days.

[youngestson]

5 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

It sure might. I'd imagine "Biden/Ukraine" will be a pretty constant refrain for the next 18mo, much like "Uranium One" and "Emails" were in 2016. 

Or Swift Boat Vets for Truth. 

 

Remember those guys? The GOP has been creating fake narratives for so long they can't identify a real one.