Jump to content
iNow

Biden’s VP Choice

Recommended Posts

Out of curiosity I typed in nasty dot com to see if it was taken and it belongs to a fetish site that redirects you to its site.

 

I like the cut of Harris.Does she have Welsh ancestry perchance with that surname?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geordief said:

I like the cut of Harris.Does she have Welsh ancestry perchance with that surname?

Her mom came over from India and her dad's from British Jamaica. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Her mom came over from India and her dad's from British Jamaica. 

We'll have her  ,then:-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An analysis I heard that resonates with me:

In the 80s, Reagan appealed to huge numbers of people who didn’t normally vote Republican. These individuals became known as the Reagan Democrats. What’s happening now and what we all need to encourage and support are the huge number of people who don’t normally vote Democrat and help them become Biden Republicans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, iNow said:

An analysis I heard that resonates with me:

In the 80s, Reagan appealed to huge numbers of people who didn’t normally vote Republican. These individuals became known as the Reagan Democrats. What’s happening now and what we all need to encourage and support are the huge number of people who don’t normally vote Democrat and help them become Biden Republicans. 

Republicans lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 national elections. Following the SCOTUS decision on Shelby County vs Holder in 2014 Republicans have massively ramped up voter disenfranchisement efforts. Courts have ruled against many of the new voting practices in FL, GA, SC, WI, etc. It is a game of whack-O-mole though. Soon as a ruling come down new ways to disenfranchise come and the battle starts again. Elections don't get do-overs either. So even when it is decided a state had an unlawful system in place during a previous election the law is just changed moving forward.

Democrats do not need to appeal to some new unlikely voting block of people. Democrats already receive more votes. Democrats demonstratively (polls, voter registration, voting history, etc) have more support. The issue is fair elections. The President openly admits he is blocking Postal Service funding to weakening ability of successful mail in voting. Zero attempts are being made to keep that a secret or spin it as being about anything else. Despite a referendum in FL that people overwhelming supported to get a million people their voting rights back State officials are still fighting it in court. Who knows what percentage will actually get to vote in Nov in FL. That's game. That (voter disenfranchisement) is what will determine the outcome in many localities and thus the electoral college. Trump isn't wasting one second of his time attempting to broaden his appeal, reach out to new groups of voters, and far as I can tell doesn't even have stated plans for what he'd do if given 4 more years.

Joe Biden will win the popular vote. Every knows that. Democrats have more support. The electoral game is county by county in FL, GA, MI, OH, PA, and WI. Sabotaging mail in voting in Philly and Tampa, limiting polling locations creating 8hr long lines in Milwaukee & Cleveland, drafting confusing ballots, changing registration deadlines, limiting early voting, etc, etc is how Republicans plan to win. Democrats need people on the ground shining light on local requires and ensuring everyone understands how and where to vote. Democrats already have more supporters. Democrats don't need to run around flip over rocks looking for more. Not if their votes will wind up in the trash anyway. Democrats need to work to best ensure the voters they have get their votes counted.

 

Edited by Ten oz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A problem in almost every democracy...

Conservative's will always try to conserve their advantage, their not trying to be the bad guy's, they just want a moat...

While the liberals, concentrate on a better world for all; the problem is, when they get their way, they forget to include a moat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to make very explicit your definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative'; I assume you mean Republican and Democrat, Dim.

If you take the literal definition of 'liberal, you would need to include socialist ,and even communist, as far left extensions of liberalism ( just as fascism is a far right extension of conservatism ).
And I assure you, socialist and communist regimes have built moats.
Some have even built 'iron curtains' or walls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Democrats already receive more votes.  <snip> Democrats don't need to run around flip over rocks looking for more. Not if their votes will wind up in the trash anyway. Democrats need to work to best ensure the voters they have get their votes counted.

All fair points with which I agree completely. I suggest we can do both and that these are not mutually exclusive, but acknowledge your point that one seems more important than other and for the reasons you cite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Not if their votes will wind up in the trash anyway. Democrats need to work to best ensure the voters they have get their votes counted.

Or if D Trump has his crony at the USPS remove postal boxes to stop mail-in voting.
And sorting machines to slow down mail delivery, so votes don't get counted in time.

All the while protesting that mail-in votes lead to election fraud, but requesting mail-in ballots for himself and wife.

 

The beginning of the end for D Trump's Presidency.

Former Republican Governor John Kasich was a teleconferenced speaker at the Democratic Convention yesterday.
Indicating that these are certainly NOT normal times, he said

"America is at a crossroads"
And that being a life-long Republican "holds second place to my responsibility to my country".

Several other Republicans or former Republicans, also spoke.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/republicans-speak-at-democratic-convention-donald-trump-has-no-clue/ar-BB1855gm?ocid=msedgntp

It's about time that ( at least some ) Republicans placed country above party.

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

Or if D Trump has his crony at the USPS remove postal boxes to stop mail-in voting.
And sorting machines to slow down mail delivery, so votes don't get counted in time.

All the while protesting that mail-in votes lead to election fraud, but requesting mail-in ballots for himself and wife.

 

The beginning of the end for D Trump's Presidency.

Former Republican Governor John Kasich was a teleconferenced speaker at the Democratic Convention yesterday.
Indicating that these are certainly NOT normal times, he said

"America is at a crossroads"
And that being a life-long Republican "holds second place to my responsibility to my country".

Several other Republicans or former Republicans, also spoke.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/republicans-speak-at-democratic-convention-donald-trump-has-no-clue/ar-BB1855gm?ocid=msedgntp

It's about time that ( at least some ) Republicans placed country above party.

On a sobering note, mentioned by  some election statistician, a sitting President hasn't lost their second election for forty years...

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

On a sobering note, mentioned by  some election statistician, a sitting President hasn't lost their second election for forty years...

Da, it  normally only flips every 8 years.

Been an... interesting... four years though so I'm hoping we get lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MigL said:

All the while protesting that mail-in votes lead to election fraud, but requesting mail-in ballots for himself and wife.

One would think that a man who's on his second mail order bride wouldn't have such negative things to say about the post office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

It's about time that ( at least some ) Republicans placed country above party.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” - James Mattis (Trump's appointed former Sec of Defense.)

“I don’t think he’s fit for office. I don’t think he has the competence to carry out the job,” - John Bolton (Trump's appointed National Security Advisor)

“a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says [what’s on his mind.]” -  Rex Tillerson (Trump's Appointed Sec of State).

Trump's own cabinet has rejected him. Trump is on his 4th National Security Advisor, 3rd Chief of Staff, 2nd Attorney General, 2nd Sec State, is shopping for a 3rd Sec of DHS, etc, etc in just 3yrs in office. Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen named Trump as a co-conspirator in felons. Mitt Romney, former Republican nominee for President, voted to impeach Trump. It isn't even partisan to say Trump is criminally corrupt. Republicans say it. Trump's own staff says it. It is really disgusting situation.

One of the things I like so much about Biden selecting Harris as his running mate is that I feel it singles a desire/willingness to hold people accountable. Nothing like this has been done before. Nixon was guilt of a single crime (at least far as the public was concerned) and resigned. The follow admin really didn't need to do much of an extensive dive into things. With Trump there is a myriad of situation which will require investigation. Everything the govt has entered into under Trump needs to be looked at through a new lens. Weapons deal with Saudi Arabia w/khashoggi killing, Favorable govt contracts to allies, Chinese patents to Trump family members & associates, insider trading, intelligence sharing with Russia, etc, etc, etc. Then there is just the partisan political nonsense where Republicans ignored congressional authority, obstructed federal investigations, misappropriated funds, etc, etc. Harris knows the law and it have to bring all her experience to bare navigating between which things should be dealt with as policy changes via Congress, executive authority, or referred to the Attorney Generals office.

 

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

On a sobering note, mentioned by  some election statistician, a sitting President hasn't lost their second election for forty years...

Bush lost as an incumbent in 1992. That was just 28yrs ago. Not 40yrs ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” - James Mattis (Trump's appointed former Sec of Defense.)

“I don’t think he’s fit for office. I don’t think he has the competence to carry out the job,” - John Bolton (Trump's appointed National Security Advisor)

“a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says [what’s on his mind.]” -  Rex Tillerson (Trump's Appointed Sec of State).

Trump's own cabinet has rejected him. Trump is on his 4th National Security Advisor, 3rd Chief of Staff, 2nd Attorney General, 2nd Sec State, is shopping for a 3rd Sec of DHS, etc, etc in just 3yrs in office. Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen named Trump as a co-conspirator in felons. Mitt Romney, former Republican nominee for President, voted to impeach Trump. It isn't even partisan to say Trump is criminally corrupt. Republicans say it. Trump's own staff says it. It is really disgusting situation.

One of the things I like so much about Biden selecting Harris as his running mate is that I feel it singles a desire/willingness to hold people accountable. Nothing like this has been done before. Nixon was guilt of a single crime (at least far as the public was concerned) and resigned. The follow admin really didn't need to do much of an extensive dive into things. With Trump there is a myriad of situation which will require investigation. Everything the govt has entered into under Trump needs to be looked at through a new lens. Weapons deal with Saudi Arabia w/khashoggi killing, Favorable govt contracts to allies, Chinese patents to Trump family members & associates, insider trading, intelligence sharing with Russia, etc, etc, etc. Then there is just the partisan political nonsense where Republicans ignored congressional authority, obstructed federal investigations, misappropriated funds, etc, etc. Harris knows the law and it have to bring all her experience to bare navigating between which things should be dealt with as policy changes via Congress, executive authority, or referred to the Attorney Generals office.

 

Bush lost as an incumbent in 1992. That was just 28yrs ago. Not 40yrs ago.

I must have remembered wrong. Probably said only been three in the last forty years, starting with Ford, then Carter, HW Bush

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I must have remembered wrong. Probably said only been three in the last forty years, starting with Ford, then Carter, HW Bush

6 of the last 10 president did not complete 2 full terms. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all completing 2 full is actually an unusual streak. One has to go back a hundred years to find another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

6 of the last 10 president did not complete 2 full terms. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all completing 2 full is actually an unusual streak. One has to go back a hundred years to find another.

 

Quote

There have been nearly a dozen one-term presidents who ran for second terms but were denied by voters, but only three one-term presidents since World War II. The most recent one-term president who lost his re-election bid was George H.W. Bush, a Republican who lost to Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992. 

https://www.thoughtco.com/one-term-us-presidents-3322257

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^Which is why I said "did not complete 2 full terms". JFK was killed, LBJ didn't run for what would've been his 2nd elected term, and Nixon resigned. Ford, Carter, Bush lost re-election. That makes 6 since WW2 that failed to serve 2 full terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m glad you clarified that, as I too missed that “completed” term caveat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would posit that the current presidency is sufficiently weird to make historic precedence an unreliable predictor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

^^^^Which is why I said "did not complete 2 full terms". JFK was killed, LBJ didn't run for what would've been his 2nd elected term, and Nixon resigned. Ford, Carter, Bush lost re-election. That makes 6 since WW2 that failed to serve 2 full terms.

I thought we were on about lost the second election.

pres.PNG.7f9da9d170c336ba4728b85a58cf8b1a.PNG

 

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I would posit that the current presidency is sufficiently weird to make historic precedence an unreliable predictor.

Quite possibly... hopefully.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I would posit that the current presidency is sufficiently weird to make historic precedence an unreliable predictor.

I am not implying it is predictive of anything. Just that its interest. Clinton, Bush, Obama are the last 3 Presidents to consecutively all serve out 2 full terms since Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson left office in 1921. So it would be unique in that respect if Trump were to get another term.

It is possible that the streak of consecutive 2 term presidents says something about the nature of partisanship and media politcal advocacy in modern politics. If Nixon was POTUS today I don't think there is a chance Watergate would be enough to force him out of office. Especially if Nixon has devoted cable news pundits making his defense around the clock and social media.To that point had Bill Clinton been POTUS in Nixon's day such a public lie as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" would probably have resulted in his removal from office. I also don't think Bush could have survived 2 questionable elections where it was broadly suspected his campaign cheated. The threshold to get rid of a Presidents seems far greater today. So much so I have no idea what will happen if Trump declares victory in November, claims the vote in various swing states is wrong, and just refuses to leave.

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m glad you clarified that, as I too missed that “completed” term caveat

Yeah, just an additional thought I had after we (StringJunky and I) cleared up who the last incumbent to lose was

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.