• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Democrats 2020

While I would be very surprised if Stacey agrees to what Biden is asking, assuming the rumors are even true, I think it's an interesting move.

While it's true that Biden opposed busing, it wasn't because he was racist, it was because he believed that busing was racist. A lot of us thought that busing was a good idea when it was first introduced, but in retrospect, it turned out to be a terrible idea. I've known black families from that era that didn't want their children to be forced to change schools, and spend long rides on buses. Busing never really integrated the schools.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bidens-tough-talk-on-1970s-school-desegregation-plan-could-get-new-scrutiny-in-todays-democratic-party/2019/03/07/9115583e-3eb2-11e9-a0d3-1210e58a94cf_story.html?utm_term=.81febd2e5462

In the interview, Biden dismissed government efforts to impose diversity in schools. “We’ve lost our bearings since the 1954 Brown vs. School Board desegregation case,” he said. “To ‘desegregate’ is different than to ‘integrate.’ . . . I am philosophically opposed to quota systems. They insure mediocrity.”


If anything, he said, it was busing plans that were racist.

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with,” Biden said. “What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist! Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?”

The way to integrate the schools is the way it happened in my small city. All of our schools are well integrated because our neighborhoods have become far more integrated. But, Biden was right when he said that majority black schools should be given the resources needed to help their students achieve a better education. That was the real problem back in the day.

Biden has apologized for the legislation that passed in 1994, as it turned out to have an unexpected, negative impact on the black population. He wasn't the only one that supported that legislation and later regretted it. Hindsight is 20/20, so I doubt those who supported that legislation realized its impact. Biden has also apologized for the way he treated Anita Hill. Again, things have changed for the better since that episode and I'm sure Biden isn't the only politician who has learned from his past mistakes. Think of how loved Bill Clinton was during his presidency, despite some of the things that he did to women. I thought he should have resigned back then, but I was in the minority. I would like to say that things have changed since then, but the fact that Trump is our current president, despite being well known for having women claim that he sexually assaulted him, tells me that we still have a long way to go. At least Biden, unlike Clinton and Trump was never accused of sexually assaulting women.

Biden has been a champion of the civil rights movement and he certainly gets some cred for being the VP of the first Black president. So, it's fine if you don't support Biden, but don't exaggerate his past mistakes, while overlooking all the good he has done for minorities. Like other smart people, he has learned from the mistakes that he may have made during the earlier part of his life.

And, surprisingly enough, a few of my black acquaintances told me that Biden is the only person, should he decided to run, who they could enthusiastically support. These are older women, so I'm not going to claim that younger black women agree with this, but older black women, who follow politics realize how much Biden did to help move the civil rights movement forward. Besides that, they really want someone who can beat Trump and there have been plenty of rumors and leaks that Trump fears Biden more than the other candidates.

All of these candidate have done things in the past that make them less than perfect. All politicians have weaknesses and all of those who have been in office for any length of time have made mistakes.

Again, you don't have to support him, but don't make exaggerated claims against him. It wouldn't surprise me if he decides not to run due to his age. But, on the other hand, there is one candidate who is older than Biden and his supporters don't seem to be making an issue of it. There are several candidates who will be over 70 if one of them becomes the nominee, and the current president will be 74 should he win reelection. Just sayin'.
 
MSNBC is reporting that Biden is about to announce and that he may have already chosen Stacy Abrams as his running mate.
Old White Guy tells ambitious Black Politician she can be his wing man.

It's like The Help of politics.

As a reminder, Biden will be 78 during Inauguration in January 2021. Trump and Reagan are the oldest... Trump being the first to roll over 70 before becoming the leader. Presidents in the last 100 years are generally 50s and 60s. Biden is too damn old. If he wanted to run, he should have run one of the half dozen other times he flirted with it.
 
I saw Stacey on MSNBC this week interviewed. She said that if she runs, she will do it alone, not as someone else's running mate. I think if whoever wins the primaries asked her to run as VP, she might feel differently. At least that's the impression I got, although she never said that. She does need more experience, but imo, she is one of the most dynamic, realistic, intelligent politicians I've ever heard speak.

I also heard a couple of others are considering getting into the race. I can't even remember their names.
 
And why in the heck did I say "Martin Trudeau" when I meant "Justin Trudeau"?!

I was wondering who Martin Trudeau was. Justin is most definitely a bimbo. I don't know anything about Beto except that it's the name of a guy who ran for something in the US and people liked him (yet he still lost right? I think? I don't know)
 


I've been wondering for a long time how Uncle Joe has managed to largely escape the wrath of the #metoo movement et al of the last few years. His handsy and kissy behavior against women and young girls has been well documented (lots of video footage...not just rumors and say-so) for years. It's especially odd, as he has been a big advocate of VAWA and other women's issues.

Ladies, be wary of the male feminists! They are not your friends!!
 
Kamala Harris is Hillary 2.0 – Michael Tauberg – Medium

Reason 1 — She has a Mixed Record
As Attorney General of the state, one of Harris’ top lawyers argued that parole was bad for California as it drained the pool of cheap workers ... Harris’ record as San Francisco district attorney isn’t much better. In this position, she supported controversial legislation that would prosecute the parents of children who skipped school ...
That would be great for hippie-punching, for running against what one labels left-wing extremism. Which she would do by bragging about how tough on crime she was, unlike those soft-on-crime lefties.

Reason 2 — She was Too Friendly to Bankers
Like Hillary Clinton with her Goldman Sachs speeches.

Reason 3 — She’s Easy to Attack from the Left
Despite her mixed record, Kamala Harris has done a good job of presenting herself as a true progressive. As part of her campaign platform, she is promising trillions in new taxes, protection for low-income renters, Medicare-for-all, and bail reductions⁷. She’s has praised socialist upstart Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez. She’s even taken a page from Obama’s playbook and written a memoir to help contextualize her past decisions.

Reason 4 — She Was Anointed by the Media

Reason 5 — Her Messaging is Bad
While Kamala Harris has a much better stage presence than Hillary Clinton, her messaging ins’t any better. When announcing her candidacy, she unveiled her campaign slogan: “For the People”. While it is definitely more inclusive and less self-centered than Hillary’s “I’m With Her”, it’s still pretty anodyne.
For the people in what way?
This may also be an unfair gripe, but Harris’ memoir, “The Truths We Hold” sounds similarly muddled. There’s time for her team to hire better copywriters, but until then, this wishy-washy passive tone is exactly what sunk Hillary and Al Gore before her.

Reason 6 — She Might Seem Too Fake
Ok look, Kamala Harris is not nearly as wooden or weird as Hillary Clinton. Or Al Gore, or Mitt Romney for that matter. At the same time, it’s not clear that she has what Obama and Bill Clinton had, the ability to appear relatable.
 
I've been wondering for a long time how Uncle Joe has managed to largely escape the wrath of the #metoo movement et al of the last few years. His handsy and kissy behavior against women and young girls has been well documented (lots of video footage...not just rumors and say-so) for years. It's especially odd, as he has been a big advocate of VAWA and other women's issues.

I have not been the fan of Biden since his vocal support for making it easier to expel male college students accused of sexual assault and restrict their opportunity to defend themselves. The overtly sexist VAWA is another legislation that needs to be scrapped and replaced with something gender-neutral.

But this Flores thing seems to be an attempt to Franken him. She is in the Bernie camp for example. And it seems she and Biden were never alone during the event in question. And it has been 5 years ago - the timing seems awfully suspect.
Ladies, be wary of the male feminists! They are not your friends!!
Let Biden and Franken be a cautionary tale for all men who support radical feminism. Radical feminists are not your friends!

- - - Updated - - -

One big difference is that Kamala is not trying to pretend that 16 years of being married to a governor and then president qualifies as government experience.
 
I called it about Biden months ago, and you just love to see this kind of thing happen. No way he makes it through the primaries, and I'm starting to think he might not even run.
 
I suspect for 2020, Biden is now toast. This is going to drag on and on for some months. My vote at this moment is going to Elizabeth Warren. She is a dead serious policy wonk. I suspect the likeability card will be a bit of a problem for her, but then lack of likeability didn't stop el Trumpo. I don't care to drink a beer with Warren. But I want a junk yard mean candidate that understands the issues that are important to me. A scorched Earth president with brains and knowledge where the bodies are buried.

I could live with any other Democrat who wins the nomination. Perhaps Inslee or Beto. But the against Trump, I'd vote for Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo.
 
I called it about Biden months ago, and you just love to see this kind of thing happen. No way he makes it through the primaries, and I'm starting to think he might not even run.
He never said he was going to run. He seems to have been doing a Palin out there. He is clearly too old and I think his biggest weakness is Anita Hill.

Kamala Harris is Hillary 2.0 – Michael Tauberg – Medium

Reason 1 — She has a Mixed Record

That would be great for hippie-punching, for running against what one labels left-wing extremism. Which she would do by bragging about how tough on crime she was, unlike those soft-on-crime lefties.

Reason 2 — She was Too Friendly to Bankers
Like Hillary Clinton with her Goldman Sachs speeches.

Reason 3 — She’s Easy to Attack from the Left


Reason 4 — She Was Anointed by the Media

Reason 5 — Her Messaging is Bad
While Kamala Harris has a much better stage presence than Hillary Clinton, her messaging ins’t any better. When announcing her candidacy, she unveiled her campaign slogan: “For the People”. While it is definitely more inclusive and less self-centered than Hillary’s “I’m With Her”, it’s still pretty anodyne.
For the people in what way?
This may also be an unfair gripe, but Harris’ memoir, “The Truths We Hold” sounds similarly muddled. There’s time for her team to hire better copywriters, but until then, this wishy-washy passive tone is exactly what sunk Hillary and Al Gore before her.

Reason 6 — She Might Seem Too Fake
Ok look, Kamala Harris is not nearly as wooden or weird as Hillary Clinton. Or Al Gore, or Mitt Romney for that matter. At the same time, it’s not clear that she has what Obama and Bill Clinton had, the ability to appear relatable.
So Kamela Harris it is. Rather moderate to right-leaning on some stuff. As far as anointed by the media, she is young, has experience as state Attorney General, and is now a US Senator. She has been on the radar for a bit as she crosses off a good number of spots for Presidential candidate both in demographics and experience and she wasn't born before the 50s! Just like Cory Booker and Julian Castro.

There is certainly a lot more to her real world applied experience wise, I'd say, than Warren or Sanders. No, she isn't a progressive, but neither was Obama. And when given a free pass in '08, he was as left as we could elect (the other option being further right Clinton). And O'Rourke sure the fuck isn't a progressive.
 
I suspect for 2020, Biden is now toast. This is going to drag on and on for some months. My vote at this moment is going to Elizabeth Warren. She is a dead serious policy wonk.
What has Warren accomplished in her career? Serious question. I have no idea what she has ever done that mattered.
I suspect the likeability card will be a bit of a problem for her, but then lack of likeability didn't stop el Trumpo. I don't care to drink a beer with Warren. But I want a junk yard mean candidate that understands the issues that are important to me. A scorched Earth president with brains and knowledge where the bodies are buried.
Warren lacks clout to act like a Johnson. A person that old with such little clout, I don't see it working.

I could live with any other Democrat who wins the nomination. Perhaps Inslee or Beto. But the against Trump, I'd vote for Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo.
Yes, America has been flushed away. Minosent Bystander '20!!!
 
I've been wondering for a long time how Uncle Joe has managed to largely escape the wrath of the #metoo movement et al of the last few years. His handsy and kissy behavior against women and young girls has been well documented (lots of video footage...not just rumors and say-so) for years. It's especially odd, as he has been a big advocate of VAWA and other women's issues.

The same way Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy got away with it - they Democrat Pass. Back in the 1990s I once joked that I should become a Democrat so that I could sexually harass feminists and get away with it.

In the 1990s I saw a political cartoon. It had Bill Clinton in a Hugh Hefner robe, on one side Gloria Steinem in a playboy bunny leotard, and on the other side Anita Hill also in a playboy bunny leotard. Steinem was written to say "It's not him, it's his hunky domestic policy".

4th Wave Feminism and the MeToo movement have basically gotten rid of the Democrat Pass, as it turns out that many male feminists are exactly the creeps that feminists think most men are. Well, they go by their sample size, and their sample size includes mostly male feminists.
 
The divide in the Democratic voter base is between those who support whatever candidate they feel will be effective at the job of president and those who support whatever candidate values the things they value. The former category of voters looks at legislative accomplishments as a way of judging somebody's track record, and the latter looks at consistent adherence to non-negotiable principles. We're seeing the emergence of a "values voter" who has deep disagreements with not just the other major political party, but a substantial part of their own party. At the same time, the political divide between social issues, economic issues, and foreign policy issues has broken down. The stakes have gotten high enough to make it impossible to support someone who checks some but not all of these boxes, because having an actual moral compass and a regard for human decency tends to steer a candidate in one direction on all of those issues.

Trump has shown us what an ineffective president can do without getting much in the way of legislation passed, and we have lifetime Supreme Court appointments, children in concentration camps at the border, and a wave of right-wing terrorism to show for it. That's not even getting into the big red button scenario. Values matter most, because they are at the base of what a person decides to do. The technicalities of navigating our political establishment, making connections, reaching across the aisle (as if there is anything but a sucking void of black nothingness to reach for) are all disadvantages rather than advantages if someone has a warped indifference towards the problems of ordinary people.
 
The divide in the Democratic voter base is between those who support whatever candidate they feel will be effective at the job of president and those who support whatever candidate values the things they value. The former category of voters looks at legislative accomplishments as a way of judging somebody's track record, and the latter looks at consistent adherence to non-negotiable principles. We're seeing the emergence of a "values voter" who has deep disagreements with not just the other major political party, but a substantial part of their own party. At the same time, the political divide between social issues, economic issues, and foreign policy issues has broken down. The stakes have gotten high enough to make it impossible to support someone who checks some but not all of these boxes, because having an actual moral compass and a regard for human decency tends to steer a candidate in one direction on all of those issues.
As a reminder, Lyndon Johnson signed and was very influential in getting the Civil Rights Act and the Medicare Acts passed.

There are going to be no progressive policies if a Republican is elected President.
 
Back
Top Bottom