Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

[Archinerd]

Possibly the oddest meme a campaign has put out.

Careful about scrolling down on the twitter replies. There is at least one bare scrotum.

[Grifman]

My prediction is Biden/Harris or Biden/Warren, but probably the former. If they have an old white guy at the top, they need a POC in the second slot.

I tend to agree but Biden/Harris is going to be a tough pill for the Bernie Bros and she has some baggage. Perhaps Biden/Booker. Booker was a lot of folks number 2 or 3.

Hadn’t thought of that - he would be a good choice. And anyone other than Bernie is going to be a problem for the Bernie cult so what else is new? Harris may have some baggage but so does everyone - no one is perfect. But Booker would be a good choice.
I do think there will be a lot of positioning for VP since Biden is most likely a one term president - whoever is VP will have a leg up for 2024.

[hepcat]

I'm still having trouble with the meatball photo. Should I be squinting my eyes or something?

[Isgrimnur]

It's a sailboat.

[TheMix]

It's a sailboat.

[LordMortis]

It's a sailboat.

Brenda

[Grifman]

I'm still having trouble with the meatball photo. Should I be squinting my eyes or something?

Look at the bottom meatball, it should be obvious.

[hepcat]

I was just kidding' around.

[Archinerd]

Now that I've given it a little more thought, I might vote for Bloomberg.
A meme generator is the most obvious next step after reality tv star.

[Daehawk]

Thanks to Blues News for original post. You can check it here and see the funny old man comments.

https://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board ... did=207324

-------------------------------------------

Joe Biden interview in The New York Times

Turns out Biden is one of those morons who preach that video games teach you how to kill. Guess the Army puts mice on all the kids rifles. There goes any young people support. Old dolt.

In a Joe Biden interview in The New York Times, the former US vice president and current presidential hopeful discusses technology, saying he's in favor of revoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says that online platforms aren't liable for things their users post on them. He also talks about his dealings with silicon valley during his time at the White House. In one of his signature freewheeling rambles he calls the executives he spoke with "creeps," "righteous," and "arrogant," referring to their output as "games to teach you how to kill people." Here's the perspective on current technology from someone who still refers to phone calls as coming through a switchboard:

And you may recall, the criticism I got for meeting with the leaders in Silicon Valley, when I was trying to work out an agreement dealing with them protecting intellectual property for artists in the United States of America. And at one point, one of the little creeps sitting around that table, who was a multi- — close to a billionaire — who told me he was an artist because he was able to come up with games to teach you how to kill people, you know the ——

CW: Like video games.

Yeah, video games. And I was lectured by one of the senior leaders there that by saying if I insisted on what Leahy’d put together and we were, I thought we were going to fully support, that they would blow up the network, figuratively speaking. Have everybody contact. They get out and go out and contact the switchboard, just blow it up.

And then one of these righteous people said to me that, you know, “We are the economic engine of America. We are the ones.” And fortunately I had done a little homework before I went and I said, you know, I find it fascinating. As I added up the seven outfits, everyone’s there but Microsoft. I said, you have fewer people on your payroll than all the losses that General Motors just faced in the last quarter, of employees. So don’t lecture me about how you’ve created all this employment.

The point is, there’s an arrogance about it, an overwhelming arrogance that we are, we are the ones. We can do what we want to do. I disagree.

[malchior]

Like this one...



Just kidding! This is clearly a parody. I read the real piece and it doesn't disabuse that he is out of touch. I agree he is strong on many issues though. Unfortunately, this election isn't about going to be about the issues.

One interesting thing was that the NY Times probed him lightly on structural changes and he was a flat *NO* to any changes. The EC, Court structure changes, term limits, legislative filibuster. A flat no to all that. First it is interesting that we are finally at a point that the media is asking the question. But I'll focus on the outcome, as a hypothetical let's say the only way to move forward and remove Trump from power is to run a centrist with their hand tied behind their back. How the heck is that setting ourselves up for a different kind of failure? It is hard not to see striving for stable, lasting political progress in this country as anything other than quixotic.

One other thing that struck me throughout the interview is that he is talking about all the stuff Obama (and by proxy himself) got done, and all I could think about it was that 4 years later much of it has been rolled back and undone. The signature piece of Obamacare has been undermined. His solution? A public option. HOW!? It is just as unrealistic a goal as medicare for all. Joe is against killing the legislative filibuster. He seems to be banking a whole lot on the GOP responding to a Trump loss by abandoning their decades long strategy. That seems very unlikely. McConnell or some other shitbag GOP leadership type is going to fall back on obstruction.

The boiled down point here is that we are seeing a lack of vision and leadership. The politicians *still will not talk to the American people* straight about the current state of the nation. The policy machine of the United States is deeply in disarray both internally and externally. This is a state of failure. Our best shot is to hope to get someone completely ineffectual to save us from autocracy. It's very ugly. Lots could happen to change things but the next decade or two is not looking good for us if this is where we are.

[YellowKing]

That seems very unlikely. McConnell or some other shitbag GOP leadership type is going to fall back on obstruction.

That's going to happen whether it's Biden, Warren, or Sanders. So I'm not sure what difference it makes. It's not like just because Warren and Sanders expect obstruction going in that it's going to change the outcome.

[malchior]

That seems very unlikely. McConnell or some other shitbag GOP leadership type is going to fall back on obstruction.

That's going to happen whether it's Biden, Warren, or Sanders. So I'm not sure what difference it makes. It's not like just because Warren and Sanders expect obstruction going in that it's going to change the outcome.

That isn't a problem solely on Joe for sure. However, different approaches may change the outcome. Right now his focus appears to be that the problem is mostly Trump. While Trump is a huge problem, that's still wrong. IMO there is no chance for a good outcome because he isn't even facing the problem.

[Zarathud]

Stop McConnell and his “free” filibuster if legislation will not be passed by Republicans and the Senate starts working again.

[Kurth]

Biden is not a "change" candidate, obviously. As others have said, he's a "return to normalcy" candidate. I understand (and agree with some of) the structural changes that are being advocated. It's not that they're all bad ideas and aren't worthy of debate. It's just that I think it's putting the cart before the horse to focus on those structural changes while we still have a wannabe dictator like Trump in the White House.

Anything to get him out is the right strategy right now.

That said, I've become less and less enthusiastic about Biden the more I see him in action. The Biden of 10 years ago may have been the right candidate for today, but I'm becoming really skeptical that Joe Biden is the right guy today. It sucks we don't have much in the way of alternatives.

[Kraken]

Although we don't know what surprises the world will throw at us over the next 10 months, I don't think any Democrat is going to defeat Trump unless the charmed economy sputters out, and economists mostly agree now that the odds of that happening this year are low. However, I do like their chances of taking the Senate. So I think that the first two years of Trump's second term will be restrained by a hostile Congress.

[Defiant]

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden accused rival Bernie Sanders’s campaign on Saturday of disseminating a “doctored” video edited to falsely appear to show the former vice president supporting cutting Social Security, and called on the Sanders campaign to disown it.

At the center of the back-and-forth is a newsletter the Sanders campaign distributed recently that pointed to a speech Biden gave to the Brookings Institution think tank in 2018. Biden is quoted as saying, “Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we had to go after? Social Security and Medicare.”

However, the video of the speech makes clear Biden was actually mocking Ryan for the proposal. He leans into the microphone and says in a deep, menacing stage whisper: “Social Security and Medicare.” Biden then goes on to say – in remarks not disseminated by the Sanders campaign – that the tax code needs to be reformed so enough revenue is raised to save Social Security and Medicare.

PolitiFact, an independent fact-checker, rated the Sanders newsletter as false

The gloves are coming off

[Daehawk]

I wish the democratic party would stop being so old. No point in catering to older folks as a lot of Trump worshipers.

[Defiant]

I wish the democratic party would stop being so old. No point in catering to older folks as a lot of Trump worshipers.

I do wish the Democrats in congress (and running for the Presidency) were younger, but politicians need to go after votes of all age groups - 45% of 65+ year olds voted Democratic in 2016, and 49% in 2019. That's still a lot of important votes, and older voters vote at a higher turnout.

[Kraken]

Politicians spend their lives acquiring power, connections, money, influence, favors, reputations, records, and experience. Naturally the top players tend to be old.

That said, the prospect of your nominee being a one-term president is discouraging. Sanders has already had a heart attack and Biden is obviously not sharp. Maybe that won't be a showstopper since they'll be running against an incumbent who is also visibly declining, if Trump lasts until November. But we'd all rather vote for somebody who's likely to function effectively for eight years.

[Daehawk]

Thats why all positions need term limits.

[Holman]

Thats why all positions need term limits.

So that young politicians will be *completely* at the mercy and under the control of corporate lobbyists?

[Daehawk]

Outlaw lobbyist.

[Unagi]

Thats why all positions need term limits.

So that young politicians will be *completely* at the mercy and under the control of corporate lobbyists?

So then, no term limits ?

I mean, let’s say we give senators 20 years tops. Is that so bad ?

[Holman]

I'm in favor of term limits for POTUS (two terms of that much power is enough), and in fact I'd like to see something for judges.

But if you have congressional term limits, you'll never have statesmen.

For congress, let the voters decide who gets to have a long career. The problem is gerrymandering, not unlimited terms.

[Unagi]

I disagree.

I like to think something like 20 years is enough for the statesmen benefit while still allowing and forcing new blood into the pool.

[Kraken]

I'd favor limiting terms for appointees, such as judges (esp. of the supreme variety). For elected positions, we have elections. Let's focus on making those more competitive instead.

I could be persuaded otherwise if the term is long enough for someone to make a career of it. Limit representatives to 12 terms and senators to four (24 years)? OK, I guess, although I still don't like the idea of forcing out someone who's at the top of their game. If the idea is to prevent politics from becoming a career in the first place, that ensures that the country will be run by amateurs who're just passing through. Not a great idea, IMO.

[malchior]

Thats why all positions need term limits.

So that young politicians will be *completely* at the mercy and under the control of corporate lobbyists?

I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying the older politicians aren't under control of corporate lobbyists? Because that is has been a multi-generational problem here; generally *all* the politicians are "bought" with very few exceptions.

That said, term limits aren't a fix for much. I don't see them fixing root problems in our society. Such as that politicians nation-wide pick their voters. Unlimited money is allowed in politics. The Senate and EC structure disenfranchises huge parts of the electorate, etc. Term limits are a feel good measure that probably won't change much except remove experience from the system.

[Defiant]

The New York Times has endorsed....

(Drum roll, please)

Spoiler:

Klobuchar and Warren

[malchior]

Great answer. Powerful. It is too bad that he is an anomaly now. Decent people do not generally rise to power anymore.

[LordMortis]

Booker and Beto really seemed like the best of people. I dunno about the best of Presidential materials but as to being people goes, those two were just at the top from everything I could see. (It took a bit of time to see it Booker as I didn't know he existed before his run)

[Kraken]

The New York Times has endorsed....

(Drum roll, please)

Spoiler:

Klobuchar and Warren

Before reading their editorial, I thought endorsing two candidates was weasly, but their reasoning is sound enough. They acknowledge that their own history should steer them toward the establishment candidate, so foregoing the easy step took some courage.

I've been on Team Warren from the start, so I'm pleased to see them agree that she's the best progressive standard-bearer.

I don't particularly like any of the centrists, and Biden least of all. Among the not-Bidens, Klobuchar is as good as any, I suppose.

A few days ago I took one of those 20-question quizzes to determine which candidate's views are closest to your own. Unsurprisingly, Warren won by a large margin. Steyer and Klobuchar tied for a distant second. Biden was dead last, getting only 5/20 answers right.

I only read the first parts of the linked story (The Choice and The Endorsement). Might go back later and look at each candidate's individual assessment, but since NYT's conclusions basically match my own, I don't feel the need to dig deeper into their reasoning.

[malchior]

Booker and Beto really seemed like the best of people. I dunno about the best of Presidential materials but as to being people goes, those two were just at the top from everything I could see. (It took a bit of time to see it Booker as I didn't know he existed before his run)

I've seen him speak in person 3 times. He is generally a decent person who happens to come from a cesspool of a state. That's a remarkable achievement. Our other Senator is a total garbage human who very much fits the political mold here.

[Defiant]

Two weeks before Iowa and I'd say it's entirely unclear which candidate, if any, is on an upward trajectory (a.k.a. has "momentum") there.

* Biden's had a couple of nice polls recently along with some not-so-good ones. But it's not clear that he's *moving up* so much as that his position has been a little stronger than acknowledged all along.

* Sanders had seemed to be rising, but his post-debate polls have been.

* Warren does appear to have rebounded off her lows from a month or so ago. Still, most polls show her in 3rd/4th place.

* Buttigieg has been moving *down*, though he's still in the running.

* Klobuchar's numbers probably are moving up, but quite possibly too little, too late.

[Holman]

The New York Times has endorsed....

(Drum roll, please)

Spoiler:

Klobuchar and Warren

Before reading their editorial, I thought endorsing two candidates was weasly, but their reasoning is sound enough. They acknowledge that their own history should steer them toward the establishment candidate, so foregoing the easy step took some courage.

I've been on Team Warren from the start, so I'm pleased to see them agree that she's the best progressive standard-bearer.

I don't particularly like any of the centrists, and Biden least of all. Among the not-Bidens, Klobuchar is as good as any, I suppose.

A few days ago I took one of those 20-question quizzes to determine which candidate's views are closest to your own. Unsurprisingly, Warren won by a large margin. Steyer and Klobuchar tied for a distant second. Biden was dead last, getting only 5/20 answers right.

I only read the first parts of the linked story (The Choice and The Endorsement). Might go back later and look at each candidate's individual assessment, but since NYT's conclusions basically match my own, I don't feel the need to dig deeper into their reasoning.

My wife was reading something to me from someone who saw the NYT's voting process. There were something like 16 people, and each was asked for their number 1 and number 2 choice.

Warren got 8 votes total (most of them number-one choices), Klobuchar got 7. Then it's Booker with 6, Buttigieg with 5, Biden with 2, and Sanders and Bloomsberg with 1.

Ah, here's the thread:



The more-or-less rejection of both Biden and Sanders is interesting. But I really didn't have any prior sense that Klobuchar was any sort of darling of the kind of people I assume make up the NYT editorial board.

I wonder where the Booker votes would go if the vote were today.

[YellowKing]

I think Biden's a done deal barring any unexpected Ukrainian probes or Trump-sponsored hit jobs. He's been a steady ship while others have either scrambled past him in short bursts or been left in his wake. He's holding his own in two of the whitest states in America even though his superpower is support among African-Americans.

i'm not saying that as an enthusiastic Biden supporter, just a realist. I've seen absolutely nothing that's put even a wobble in his campaign so far.

[Holman]

I think Biden's a done deal barring any unexpected Ukrainian probes or Trump-sponsored hit jobs. He's been a steady ship while others have either scrambled past him in short bursts or been left in his wake. He's holding his own in two of the whitest states in America even though his superpower is support among African-Americans.

i'm not saying that as an enthusiastic Biden supporter, just a realist. I've seen absolutely nothing that's put even a wobble in his campaign so far.

I'd feel this way about many other candidates in his current position, but Biden is famous for being his own worst enemy.

Honestly, though I'm a progressive and would prefer several other candidates ahead of Biden, I recognize his popularity and would definitely support him in the general. I'm just terrified that he'll fuck it up by some kind of unforced error.

But who knows? In the Trump era, maybe candidate behavior means nothing whatsoever.

[YellowKing]

He's already made a few gaffes early (some of the vaguely old-fashioned racist stuff, the perception that he's buddy-buddies with the GOP, his handsy-ness with the ladies) - none of it has moved the needle. Combine that with his statement about being a one-term President, and I see the Dems going with the safe bet to beat Trump for 2020 and saving the progressives for 2024.

[Kurth]

The NYT double endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar is exactly the thing that scares me about this election: The democrats are so torn between the progressive and centrist ideals, and I'm deeply concerned that's going to prevent them from coalescing behind any one candidate. Just as the Times was apparently unable to do.

Also, on another note, totally in agreement with the sentiment expressed above that gerrymandering is SO much more a problem that needs to be addressed than term limits.

[Kraken]

My reservation about any centrist Democrat, and especially about Biden, is that they stand for restoring the status quo that voters rejected in 2016. We can't go back to how things were, and I don't think that's what voters want in 2020 even if we could.