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

[Renegade7]

28 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I'm not entirely sure what "ready" means for a VP. I don't think it's a position that should go exclusively to Senators or Governors.

 

This is fair and not my strength either saying what ready actually means.  I just have my opinion as a voter.

 

Quote

Mayors of major metro regions in America are a lot more qualified than most governors or senators when it comes to policy execution and community outreach. She's proven to be a really good mayor and she will have a credibility on an issue that is deeply hurting the social fabric of this country.

 

I mean, NYC doesn't have a very good track record with their mayors that run for president lately.

 

I see why you'd say that, but Bottoms has been mayor for three years, I'd be more open to a mayor who'd be doing it longer.

 

 

Personally I prefer Governors as they have more experience with realities of Urban, Rural, and everything in between at executive level.  If Biden hadn't said VP had to be a woman, I'd consider argument for Gavin since hed be ready to be President by time Biden ended 1st term, maybe sooner.

 

But what makes someone ready?  That's different then can they handle it or how long it would take to get there. Have we ever made a mayor a VP before as a baseline? There's a reason President has an age limit to even be eligible for the position, it's unlike any other position in the world.

[visionary]

Besides VP, I am curious if he will name other positions before the election.  I thought they had said previously that they were thinking about it, but haven't heard much on that front lately.  

It would be interesting if he formed a shadow cabinet like they have in the UK and some others.  Though it might freak out some folks on the right, lol.  

[@DCGoldPants]

1 minute ago, visionary said:

Besides VP, I am curious if he will name other positions before the election.  I thought they had said previously that they were thinking about it, but haven't heard much on that front lately.  

It would be interesting if he formed a shadow cabinet like they have in the UK and some others.  Though it might freak out some folks on the right, lol.  

 

Not sure that I would. For every "Warren to Commerce" that would pump up the left, it would be to usable from their opponents. Would rather see a focus on Pence, Barr, Mnuchin as being corrupt and using their positions to rob the United States. Ideally, so whenever they speak up to defend Don, it becomes them defending themselves. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

3 minutes ago, visionary said:

Besides VP, I am curious if he will name other positions before the election.  I thought they had said previously that they were thinking about it, but haven't heard much on that front lately.  

It would be interesting if he formed a shadow cabinet like they have in the UK and some others.  Though it might freak out some folks on the right, lol.  

I've been advocating this for a long time. And it's a way to show diversity if he's smart and picks Warren as VP. 

 

Either way, though, it's a good idea because he'll have some constituencies and geographical areas it'd be nice to show some love to.

[Hersh]

9 minutes ago, visionary said:

Besides VP, I am curious if he will name other positions before the election.  I thought they had said previously that they were thinking about it, but haven't heard much on that front lately.  

It would be interesting if he formed a shadow cabinet like they have in the UK and some others.  Though it might freak out some folks on the right, lol.  

 

Definitely should put names out there for a potential cabinet. I don't think he needs to name a person to a specific position at this point. 

[TheDoyler23]

4 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Definitely should put names out there for a potential cabinet. I don't think he needs to name a person to a specific position at this point. 

 

Hell yes. Bring out Kamala. Bring out Duckworth, Bring out Yang & Mayor Pete. Show the voters who else they're voting for when you vote blue. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

34 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Not sure that I would. For every "Warren to Commerce" that would pump up the left, it would be to usable from their opponents. Would rather see a focus on Pence, Barr, Mnuchin as being corrupt and using their positions to rob the United States. Ideally, so whenever they speak up to defend Don, it becomes them defending themselves. 

I hear this as the common rebuttal, but I find it honestly silly for at least three obvious reasons:

 

1. Trump is going to be attacking and throwing idiotically false charges constantly. To try to shield yourself from that by being afraid to do anything that could be attacked would be laughably futile and defensive/weak.

 

2. Trump attacking a potential Cabinet appointee would come across as desperate and the idea that an incumbent is going to be re-elected attacking not the opposing nominee, but  his underlings is comical. The only way those attacks could ever amount to anything is if there were something so bad it should have been caught in vetting anyway. 

 

3. It should be exactly the fight Biden should relish. 'Oh, you want to talk about my Secretary of State pick? Fine, but let's also talk about how you picked one who you now say is a "moron" and then replaced him with someone who is stealing taxpayer money' 'You want to attack my AG pick? Fine, let's talk about you picked one who you now say isn't mentally qualified for the job, replaced him with a glorified cabin boy and then with the most lawless Attorney General in American history' etc. 

[visionary]

It's nice to see them open to making quick changes, but I wonder if they're being a bit too reactive.  

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

38 minutes ago, visionary said:

It's nice to see them open to making quick changes, but I wonder if they're being a bit too reactive.

 

It seems like every time someone does anything, pundits immediately want to consider them for VP.  

[visionary]

 

[Springfield]

I don’t buy that Texas is in play for even a split second.

[@DCGoldPants]

5 minutes ago, Springfield said:

I don’t buy that Texas is in play for even a split second.

 

+1 on this post. If it flips, great. I wouldn't spend a second on it that would take way from PA, Ohio, Mich, Minn, AZ.

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I mean, being a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the free world, you know, demonstrating any aptitude for dealing with World issues or how to run the World's largest economy, might be a decent idea, for starters?

 

Being the mayor of a major city, whose metro region has a population of 6 million people is plenty qualified. Probably more so than a Senator who has never actually had to make governing decisions of any kind.

[Cooked Crack]

 

A bunch of people maskless shouting lock him up doesn't sound good.

[visionary]

 

[Springfield]

29 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

+1 on this post. If it flips, great. I wouldn't spend a second on it that would take way from PA, Ohio, Mich, Minn, AZ.

It’s a nice headline. Same as Biden being up by like 40 points or whatever. I am not satisfied, not in the least. I’m angry as **** and I’m going to vote like that until I’m happy.

[88Comrade2000]

2 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Multiple polls show that. Which is what is so condescending about just forcing an unqualified black woman out there over a candidate with real solutions and whom the black voters prefer and acting like it's doing them a favor. 

There's no reason we HAVE to go with whomever Biden picks as VP as automatically the candidate in 2024. However, him handing it off in 4 years is, imo, easily the best strategy to hold the White House for 12 years. 

One thing about Warren, how much black support did she get in the primaries?

 

As for the 24 nomination, Joe’s veep will have a leg up but that doesn’t mean the Dem primary voters will vote for her. Also, there’s a chance that veep will already be President by the time of the 24 election.

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

 

Definitely should put names out there for a potential cabinet. I don't think he needs to name a person to a specific position at this point. 

I think legally he can’t name his cabinet before the election. 
 

He could say, this is the type of person I want for this cabinet position and so on.

[@DCGoldPants]

 

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

Let Trump have his rallies. Let the maga insects get infected. With all that hot air, maybe Donald finally gets a date with Miss Corona.

[Mr. Sinister]

49 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Let Trump have his rallies. Let the maga insects get infected. With all that hot air, maybe Donald finally gets a date with Miss Corona.

 

And so do the rest of us

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

Being the mayor of a major city, whose metro region has a population of 6 million people is plenty qualified. Probably more so than a Senator who has never actually had to make governing decisions of any kind.

First off, she's not Mayor of the entire region, just of Atlanta.

 

But the fact that you're implying that 2 years as a Mayor of a decent-sized city is more qualification for President than US Senators- who deal daily with the very Legislative process that any President will desperately need to get anything done, deal with the entire federal budget, deal with foreign policy, defense and intelligence (to include classified material) matters, ratify treaties, are responsible for oversight and hearings on national matters too numerous to begin to discuss, hold hearings and votes on the entire Federal Judiciary, are responsible for confirming a multitude of appointments up to and including cabinet posts, among much else- is so utterly ridiculous I won't bother trying to find the proper words to express how much so.

[No Excuses]

13 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

First off, she's not Mayor of the entire region, just of Atlanta.

 

But the fact that you're implying that 2 years as a Mayor of a decent-sized city is more qualification for President than US Senators- who deal daily with the very Legislative process that any President will desperately need to get anything done, deal with the entire federal budget, deal with foreign policy, defense and intelligence (to include classified material) matters, ratify treaties, are responsible for oversight and hearings on national matters too numerous to begin to discuss, hold hearings and votes on the entire Federal Judiciary, are responsible for confirming a multitude of appointments up to and including cabinet posts, among much else- is so utterly ridiculous I won't bother trying to find the proper words to express how much so.

Mayors of cities play a critical role in the governance of their entire metro region. 
 

You can compile a list of all of their relevant experience that Senators will never come close to achieving; from being the public face of their administration, to managing budgets and public agencies, to balancing the needs of the public and private sector, to being responsible for economic growth. 

 

You don’t have to waste your time as if I don’t know the duties of a Senator. The point was never that Senators aren’t qualified (obviously they are). It’s that mayors of major cities are uniquely qualified themselves and their perspective would actually be good in the federal government right now.

[FanboyOf91]