Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Draco-Onis]

In my opinion anyone older than 70 should not be a president to begin with, the body just can't handle this and this can adversely affect millions. I'm sure that we will have (acting) President Harris before long.

That's where we agree I would extend that to all political office sadly that's not the US, a virus like COVID-19 could have easily wiped out 90% of the US leadership. Our government is basically a retirement home which comes with all sorts of bad things. We have leaders who can't turn on a computer without help writing legislation on the internet it's all kinds of horrible.

[Gaidax]

That's where we agree I would extend that to all political office sadly that's not the US, a virus like COVID-19 could have easily wiped out 90% of the US leadership. Our government is basically a retirement home which comes with all sorts of bad things. We have leaders who can't turn on a computer without help writing legislation on the internet it's all kinds of horrible.

Well I'm more like - President (and yes the team) need to be younger and more energetic. It's just biology. I'm sure Biden is not sleeping on the couch all day long, but in the end he's an old guy and the body and energy are not there. This affects things.

IMO, Obama is EXACTLY what President should be energy/age-wise.

I just don't understand why DNC/RNC keep pushing forward these living corpses. Make way to "younger" people.

[Draco-Onis]

Well I'm more like - President (and yes the team) need to be younger and more energetic. It's just biology. I'm sure Biden is not sleeping on the couch all day long, but in the end he's an old guy and the body and energy are not there. This affects things.

IMO, Obama is EXACTLY what President should be energy/age-wise.

I just don't understand why DNC/RNC keep pushing forward these living corpses. Make way to "younger" people.

The political system in the US is rigged so that most Senators and representatives have lifetime appointments. If we had more political parties that wouldn't happen but there's only two and politicians only care about power. If the leaders of the Senate were to all drop dead tomorrow there's no heirs or anyone groomed to take over it would be chaos. They don't get younger people to replace them just slightly younger people sadly, that's why they die on the job.

[Breccia]

This was expected. Sad, but expected.

Indeed.

It's good to know the checks and balances work, even if we don't like the result. I mean, what kind of person ignores the results of legitimate bla bla bla murderous insurrection parallel.

[Elenos]

I've been thinking over the last few days what this all means for Biden.

I agreed with his withdrawal decision, but his execution was pretty piss poor.

Biden is going to spend the next year at least dealing with the political blowback at home and abroad. We're going to wake up to news stories of X number of horrible things the Taliban have done. Democrats will likely lose the midterms, lose the House and maybe the Senate.

Then this story will never end. This is going to be the Benghazi of his presidency, except far far worse: In Libya the US lost an ambassador in a stupid intervention that they shouldn't have gotten involved in, an intervention that Republicans fully supported by the way. In Afghanistan the US just lost an entire country with all the consequences that go with that.

Then the orange imbecile will run for president again and we will deal with COVID for years because of the anti-vaxxers and anti-mask morons.

Like I said, a purely-selfish mentality... which may be even worse.

That's how most people work, most governments work and most countries.

[Edge-]

Well I'm more like - President (and yes the team) need to be younger and more energetic. It's just biology. I'm sure Biden is not sleeping on the couch all day long, but in the end he's an old guy and the body and energy are not there. This affects things.

IMO, Obama is EXACTLY what President should be energy/age-wise.

I just don't understand why DNC/RNC keep pushing forward these living corpses. Make way to "younger" people.

I mean, he can get on a bike and ride around. He's hardly an old guy with a walker. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more people who could actually get jobs in the current job market rather than senior citizens running things, but he's hardly some invalid.

And DNC/RNC doesn't really "push" them forward as an organization. People run and voters pick. Voters almost picked another old guy, and the younger folks in the running largely weren't getting too much support.

The political system in the US is rigged so that most Senators and representatives have lifetime appointments.

Not really? Getting money out of politics will help a lot, but it has nothing to do with "rigging" and much more to do with voters being lazy and unengaged. They vote for the name they know or have seen a bunch, not necessarily for the person they like most because they haven't bothered to look up the candidates.

Well I'm more like - President (and yes the team) need to be younger and more energetic. It's just biology. I'm sure Biden is not sleeping on the couch all day long, but in the end he's an old guy and the body and energy are not there. This affects things.

IMO, Obama is EXACTLY what President should be energy/age-wise.

I just don't understand why DNC/RNC keep pushing forward these living corpses. Make way to "younger" people.

I mean, he can get on a bike and ride around. He's hardly an old guy with a walker. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more people who could actually get jobs in the current job market rather than senior citizens running things, but he's hardly some invalid.

If the leaders of the Senate were to all drop dead tomorrow there's no heirs or anyone groomed to take over it would be chaos.

I'd believe this more with the Republican party, but Democrats have some fairly strong leaders in their younger ranks. Folks like Booker would have a learning curve, but would be fine for a leadership position.

They don't get younger people to replace them just slightly younger people sadly, that's why they die on the job.

"They" being the DNC/RNC? Because they don't pick the candidates. They'll often support the incumbent or will throw their party support behind a newcomer, but at the end of the day it's still voters. If voters want younger faces, they can hope that they'll run (or heck, they can run!) and then vote for them.

[Gaidax]

I've been thinking over the last few days what this all means for Biden.

I agreed with his withdrawal decision, but his execution was pretty piss poor.

Biden is going to spend the next year at least dealing with the political blowback at home and abroad. We're going to wake up to news stories of X number of horrible things the Taliban have done. Democrats will likely lose the midterms, lose the House and maybe the Senate.

Then this story will never end. This is going to be the Benghazi of his presidency, except far far worse: In Libya the US lost an ambassador in a stupid intervention that they shouldn't have gotten involved in, an intervention that Republicans fully supported by the way. In Afghanistan the US just lost an entire country with all the consequences that go with that.

Then the orange imbecile will run for president again and we will deal with COVID for years because of the anti-vaxxers and anti-mask morons.

I don't think Trump will be able to win vs Harris. This is Biden's last term, because come on the guy won't run for president 82 years old.

By the time presidential election will be a thing, Afghanistan will blow over. But for midterms, I'm sure red will surge because fallout is real and it's only really starting.

I think the best thing Biden can do is to eat the flack and start pushing Harris forward in a year or two. Then not run for re-election himself but instead put forward a well positioned and prepped Harris.

[Draco-Onis]

Not really? Getting money out of politics will help a lot, but it has nothing to do with "rigging" and much more to do with voters being lazy and unengaged. They vote for the name they know or have seen a bunch, not necessarily for the person they like most because they haven't bothered to look up the candidates.

Most politicians run unopposed in their primary and if they are opposed the party does everything it can to crush any competition after that most districts are easy street to victory. All you have to do is look at the progressive movement in the democratic party or Trumpism in the republican party competition is heavily discouraged. While I agree that getting money out of politics would help it wouldn't do anything about gerrymandering and voter suppression. It would make it so that voters have a voice again instead of corporations which I support but not the system itself.

[Machismo]

I've been thinking over the last few days what this all means for Biden.

I agreed with his withdrawal decision, but his execution was pretty piss poor.

Biden is going to spend the next year at least dealing with the political blowback at home and abroad. We're going to wake up to news stories of X number of horrible things the Taliban have done. Democrats will likely lose the midterms, lose the House and maybe the Senate.

Then this story will never end. This is going to be the Benghazi of his presidency, except far far worse: In Libya the US lost an ambassador in a stupid intervention that they shouldn't have gotten involved in, an intervention that Republicans fully supported by the way. In Afghanistan the US just lost an entire country with all the consequences that go with that.

Then the orange imbecile will run for president again and we will deal with COVID for years because of the anti-vaxxers and anti-mask morons.



That's how most people work, most governments work and most countries.

"I don't care if thos completely ruins you, it'll be better for me."

I guess most people and governments are utter shitbags.

[Draco-Onis]

I've been thinking over the last few days what this all means for Biden.

I agreed with his withdrawal decision, but his execution was pretty piss poor.

Biden is going to spend the next year at least dealing with the political blowback at home and abroad. We're going to wake up to news stories of X number of horrible things the Taliban have done. Democrats will likely lose the midterms, lose the House and maybe the Senate.

Then this story will never end. This is going to be the Benghazi of his presidency, except far far worse: In Libya the US lost an ambassador in a stupid intervention that they shouldn't have gotten involved in, an intervention that Republicans fully supported by the way. In Afghanistan the US just lost an entire country with all the consequences that go with that.

Then the orange imbecile will run for president again and we will deal with COVID for years because of the anti-vaxxers and anti-mask morons.



That's how most people work, most governments work and most countries.

The reason that you are wrong is that over 70% of the US wanted out of Afghanistan most people don't want to go back in and don't give a flying fuck about what goes on in Afghanistan. I will agree that the withdraw execution was piss poor but this is not what will determine elections, it's too early in his presidency and 3 years may as well be a lifetime in politics. I simply do not see any reality where Afghanistan determines or has any effect in US election versus something like gerrymandering and voter suppression.

[Beefhammer]

The political system in the US is rigged so that most Senators and representatives have lifetime appointments. If we had more political parties that wouldn't happen but there's only two and politicians only care about power. If the leaders of the Senate were to all drop dead tomorrow there's no heirs or anyone groomed to take over it would be chaos. They don't get younger people to replace them just slightly younger people sadly, that's why they die on the job.

1, nothing wrong if constituents want the same person term after term.
2, it's more of a citizen issue. Name recognition is huge. Mix that in with people int having time to actually care. So when election time comes, they see a name they know and a the coresct letter next to it, they vote that way.

It's not really the system being rigged.

- - - Updated - - -

The reason that you are wrong is that over 70% of the US wanted out of Afghanistan most people don't want to go back in and don't give a flying fuck about what goes on in Afghanistan. I will agree that the withdraw execution was piss poor but this is not what will determine elections, it's too early in his presidency and 3 years may as well be a lifetime in politics. I simply do not see any reality where Afghanistan determines or has any effect in US election versus something like gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Don't worry, that side will try to keep this relevant for 2024.

[Edge-]

It's not really the system being rigged.

Most of the claims of "rigging" seem to stem from complaints that it's not a "level playing field" and that parties will support incumbents or other candidates and that's somehow unfair to those that don't get a party endorsement. Which like...yeah I guess but also like...life ain't fair?

[Elenos]

"I don't care if thos completely ruins you, it'll be better for me."

I guess most people and governments are utter shitbags.

That's life, and yes they are.

The reason that you are wrong is that over 70% of the US wanted out of Afghanistan most people don't want to go back in and don't give a flying fuck about what goes on in Afghanistan. I will agree that the withdraw execution was piss poor but this is not what will determine elections, it's too early in his presidency and 3 years may as well be a lifetime in politics. I simply do not see any reality where Afghanistan determines or has any effect in US election versus something like gerrymandering and voter suppression.

That is true, most people wanted out, what they will be upset over is how it was handled.

And you know what? People change their minds, we aren't stone. They changed their minds on Bush on Iraq in 2006 midterms for instance.

A year of a non-stop barrage of horrible stories that will be covered by the mainstream media daily? Yeah you can be certain people will care. Virtually every media outlet is doing that and virtually all are negative towards Biden.

[Breccia]

I'm sure little texas will show us his outrage over that interview trump walk out of because he was asked questions he wasn't prepared for any minute now.

Ooo, which one do you think @TexasRules will respond to?

This one?

This one?

This one? Shit, that one was Mike Pence.

This one?

This one?

This one?

And that's just Trump not taking questions. You'll notice they're all 2020. That's because in 2017, 2018, and 2019, Trump held a total of eight press conferences. Biden has already had five.

By the way, one of those is intentional bait. At least if @TexasRules comes back and says "Hey! You shouldn't have posted [this one] because [it's not a fair comparison]" we'll at least know he looked.

*ahem*

Which means he'll need to defend the rest. Or, he can say nothing and by doing such admit he's a hypocrite. Or, he can say "you're right, Trump shouldn't have done it either". Which is the route I would take, if I were a Republican trying to prove I wasn't a member of the rabid fanbase.

I won't get into what @Edge- said, other than to remind all the rabid fanbase members in the audience that Trump had tried to eject people from the WH press because they asked questions he didn't like. Oh, and he had them investigated, and asked his spies to find their personal information. Meanwhile Biden...pointed out a FOX News reporter was asking loaded questions when they were?

As always, there is no reasonable, genuine attempt to paint Biden's actions as bad without also admitting Trump's were worse. Trump's supporters are better off talking about Afghanistan, because at least Trump didn't technically do it. Everything else they've thrown at Biden ignores the context of Trump's own actions, which is hypocrisy.

You have 24 hours, @TexasRules so I suggest you get started.

[Beefhammer]

Most of the claims of "rigging" seem to stem from complaints that it's not a "level playing field" and that parties will support incumbents or other candidates and that's somehow unfair to those that don't get a party endorsement. Which like...yeah I guess but also like...life ain't fair?

Well, the party should support the incumbent unless they feel that congressperson is a liability.

Obviously incumbents have an advantage, but that's like road teams complaining about their opponents home field advantage.

[Machismo]

That's life.




That is true, most people wanted out, what they will be upset over is how it was handled.

And you know what? People change their minds, we aren't stone. They changed their minds on Bush on Iraq in 2006 midterms for instance.

A year of a non-stop barrage of horrible stories that will be covered by the mainstream media daily? Yeah you can be certain people will care.

Nah, they choose to be selfish shitbags. That's not life, that's people making a deliberate choice to be terrible human beings.

[Draco-Onis]

That is true, most people wanted out, what they will be upset over is how it was handled.

And you know what? People change their minds, we aren't stone. They changed their minds on Bush on Iraq in 2006 midterms for instance.

A year of a non-stop barrage of horrible stories that will be covered by the mainstream media daily? Yeah you can be certain people will care. Virtually every media outlet is doing that and virtually all are negative towards Biden.

People changed their minds about Iraq because it became obvious that they lied about Saddam, there was no WMDs and that the entire thing became a shit show. Afghanistan is not Iraq we are pulling out not going in American media has the attention of fish the non stop coverage now is because people are tired of COVID coverage sadly. Again we have 3 years Taliban doing horrible shit won't change hearts and minds because again no one aside from defense contractors wants to go back.

[Endus]

Most of the claims of "rigging" seem to stem from complaints that it's not a "level playing field" and that parties will support incumbents or other candidates and that's somehow unfair to those that don't get a party endorsement. Which like...yeah I guess but also like...life ain't fair?

It's also not the existence of two parties that does it. It's the division of funding primarily between those two parties that does.

You largely buy votes, in the USA, still. Sure, it's done through campaign ads and such rather than straight buying votes, but there's strong correlations between money spent and improved returns at the ballot box. There are exceptions, but they're pretty few.

Campaign spending reform would largely "fix" the issue. Cap campaign gross revenues at a certain level, or even provide campaigns funding direct from the government and forbid private fundraising entirely. And make those caps low. Like, $25 million for a national campaign for the Presidential position.

Third parties have challenges mostly not because of structural issues that prevent new parties gaining ground, but because their voices get drowned out in the campaign season, and nobody knows or cares about them. Otherwise, an entire State could vote third-party, and that new party would win. There's nothing preventing that. Only that nobody knows anything about or trusts the new party, because their campaign funding is generally miniscule compared to the big 2.

It's not a level playing field, but it wasn't ever meant to be, either. It also doesn't help that the electorate is largely so goddamned stupid and gullible that they fall for marketing stunts rather than making an informed choice.

[Beefhammer]

Ooo, which one do you think @TexasRules will respond to?

This one?

This one?

This one? Shit, that one was Mike Pence.

This one?

This one?

This one?

And that's just Trump not taking questions. You'll notice they're all 2020. That's because in 2017, 2018, and 2019, Trump held a total of eight press conferences. Biden has already had five.

By the way, one of those is intentional bait. At least if @TexasRules comes back and says "Hey! You shouldn't have posted [this one] because [it's not a fair comparison]" we'll at least know he looked.

*ahem*

Which means he'll need to defend the rest. Or, he can say nothing and by doing such admit he's a hypocrite. Or, he can say "you're right, Trump shouldn't have done it either". Which is the route I would take, if I were a Republican trying to prove I wasn't a member of the rabid fanbase.

I won't get into what @Edge- said, other than to remind all the rabid fanbase members in the audience that Trump had tried to eject people from the WH press because they asked questions he didn't like. Oh, and he had them investigated, and asked his spies to find their personal information. Meanwhile Biden...pointed out a FOX News reporter was asking loaded questions when they were?

As always, there is no reasonable, genuine attempt to paint Biden's actions as bad without also admitting Trump's were worse. Trump's supporters are better off talking about Afghanistan, because at least Trump didn't technically do it. Everything else they've thrown at Biden ignores the context of Trump's own actions, which is hypocrisy.

You have 24 hours, @TexasRules so I suggest you get started.

He won't. He'll claim he's not a trump supporter despite leveling 0 criticism over similar things Biden or Obama did. I'm sorry if you tow the company line, you don't have to say the exact phrase, "I support Donald trump," to be a supporter of his.

[Orange Joe]

Joe Biden pretending to take questions when he calls on prescreened people. Look how off the rails he went when doocy asked non prepared questions. Whose pulling the strings since Biden can only have preprepared answers?

didn't you try this in another thread? Didn't he also go "off script" and call on people not on the list?