If Biden Falls, Who Will Rise?

[Rhea]

What do you mean by that? He actually has the most stated policy ideas than anyone else running. It's quite extensive. Everything from college athlete stars getting a cut of the money they pull in, to a psychologist in the white house, to the American Mall Act, to election day being a national holiday, to term limits on supreme court appointments, and on and on.

That word, “plan,” he’s not using it like you think he is.
I went an read his page. I did not see a single “plan.”
I saw lots of positions on issues, but no plans.

 

[laughing dog]

Jolly Penguin
What makes you think an inexperienced politician would get anything done?

What makes you think experience at being a politician makes them better at serving the nation rather than their own personal advancement and profit?

Totally irrelevant to my question. Serving the nation requires the ability to get things done - which takes experience as a politician.

I repeat - what makes you think an inexperienced politician would get anything done?

 

[Toni]

Not very high. But he was Fourth place last I looked. Really nobody is polling very high aside from Biden, Warren, and Bernie. But that can and likely will change, especially if and when Biden collapses.

Yang, much like Bernie last time around, is a relative newcomer and unknown. He is climbing steadily but does need a big bump. If he can stay in the race as the herd thins, his message will be heard in the debates and he will climb much higher. Will he win? Probably not, which is unfortunate, but it's possible, and even if he doesn't, then much like Bernie last time around, he may still get his message out and sway the future course of the party.



He polls ahead of Klobuchar, Harris, and Booker in a few polls. Do you dismiss them?

I don't read all polls at this point in any contest. I like Klobuchar, Harris and Booker, all of whom have a track record and a history of holding public office and serving the public.

Yang doesn't have those things. Yet. And maybe never. Maybe some day, he will be a good presidential candidate but he's not a good candidate now. He hasn't demonstrated that he can win or that once he wins, he can work with anyone to accomplish anything. We have a 'businessman' in office now. He's a disaster. It's not only because of his political or 'political' stances. He's ineffective at anything other than rabble rousing and being a dupe. I think Yang is much smarter and doesn't have dementia and has better ideas but I don't know that he has even a tiny inkling of how to accomplish anything at all.

Both because he doesn’t have the broad based support to make them pay attention but also because they are people just as the voters are and so far, he hasn’t convinced enough people that his ideas are good enough or that he’s the one to implement them.

He needs time and exposure. It's early enough that he can get both yet.

.

Sure, he should check back in 4-8 years.

Building something takes a lot more time than destroying it.

Yes. And it helps if you're actually building something, rather than just saying whatever is politically expedient to advance yourself a la Harris, Booker and Biden.

Snort.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Serving the nation requires the ability to get things done - which takes experience as a politician.

I disagree with your second premise. I believe that experience as a politician makes most less likely, not more likely to get things done that serve the public.

 

[Elixir]

What makes you think experience at being a politician makes them better at serving the nation ....

The same thing that makes you think that experience flying airplanes makes a person better at being an airline pilot.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What makes you think experience at being a politician makes them better at serving the nation ....

The same thing that makes you think that experience flying airplanes makes a person better at being an airline pilot.

Airline pilots don't get rewarded for crashing planes.

 

[Elixir]

What makes you think experience at being a politician makes them better at serving the nation ....

The same thing that makes you think that experience flying airplanes makes a person better at being an airline pilot.

Airline pilots don't get rewarded for crashing planes.

They DO get rewarded for flying airplanes. It's called a job, and people get rewarded for doing them. Some people have side jobs that reward them for doing things that are detrimental to their jobs, or even for not doing their jobs. That occurs in every job field. Doesn't mean "everyone does it".

(I have a friend who was Eugene Cernan's roommate in flight school, and also became the first pilot to be shot down twice in the Vietnam war.
As a matter of fact, he was well rewarded for "crashing" those two planes. Admittedly, he did NOT go on to become an airline pilot! )

 

[Rhea]

Serving the nation requires the ability to get things done - which takes experience as a politician.

I disagree with your second premise. I believe that experience as a politician makes most less likely, not more likely to get things done that serve the public.

You are mixing up the choice of what things they would like to get done ("Things that serve the public") with what they are able to get done (The president can't do things alone). This basic understanding of the American system of government is the root of your knowledge gap, it appears.

 

[laughing dog]

Serving the nation requires the ability to get things done - which takes experience as a politician.

I disagree with your second premise. I believe that experience as a politician makes most less likely, not more likely to get things done that serve the public.

Rhea pointed this out that you are confusing goals (things that serve the public) with the ability to achieve the goals, so your response is irrelevant. For a President to achieve goals, that President must be able to persuade recalcitrant members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and build coalitions in order to get the enabling legislation.

So, for the third time, what makes you think that an inexperienced politician (like Mr. Yang) would get anything done?

 

[Derec]

I think economics is too much on the right and needs to go left a little.

True, but Warren is not about moving to the left "a little". Biden is more than adequate in that regard.

As for the rest I think it's just pondering to the base. Nobody in his right mind thinks that Michael Brown was murdered.

Which is what concerns me about Warren. She is either not in her right mind, or she is consciously pandering to those who are not in their right mind. Does she think of such people as her base? "Is you is or is you ain't my constituency?"

I think Warren once elected will work on the economy mostly. Andrew Yang is the best candidate but he is not winning

A president doesn't have the luxury of "mostly" working on a single issue. Whoever is elected will be responsible for all of it, and therefore should be well-rounded.

 

[Toni]

True, but Warren is not about moving to the left "a little". Biden is more than adequate in that regard.


Which is what concerns me about Warren. She is either not in her right mind, or she is consciously pandering to those who are not in their right mind. Does she think of such people as her base? "Is you is or is you ain't my constituency?"

I think Warren once elected will work on the economy mostly. Andrew Yang is the best candidate but he is not winning

A president doesn't have the luxury of "mostly" working on a single issue. Whoever is elected will be responsible for all of it, and therefore should be well-rounded.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about Warren or her supporters being not in their right minds? Can you explain?

You are correct that a president does not have the luxury of working on a single issue and must be responsible (at least in part ) for all of it. You are correct that a POTUS needs to be well rounded.

Out of curiosity, who do you like the best?

 

[Elixir]

You are correct that a president does not have the luxury of working on a single issue and must be responsible (at least in part ) for all of it.

Must? No, what a candidate must do is to say they will make X (whatever it is) all better no matter what the challenge. Also helps to point out that X (whatever it is) sucks.
Have we learned nothing from Trump?

 

[Patooka]

What makes you think experience at being a politician makes them better at serving the nation rather than their own personal advancement and profit?

The fact that every example of an "inexperienced politician" in recent history put themselves into the spotlight solely for their own personal advancement and profit.

 

[barbos]

True, but Warren is not about moving to the left "a little". Biden is more than adequate in that regard.

No, "Nothing will fundamentally change" guy is not adequate enough for me.

Which is what concerns me about Warren. She is either not in her right mind, or she is consciously pandering to those who are not in their right mind. Does she think of such people as her base? "Is you is or is you ain't my constituency?"

She is definitely pondering.

I think Warren once elected will work on the economy mostly. Andrew Yang is the best candidate but he is not winning

A president doesn't have the luxury of "mostly" working on a single issue. Whoever is elected will be responsible for all of it, and therefore should be well-rounded.

Presidents definitely have a luxury of forgetting promises they gave during election campaigns. Warren is smart enough to know how politics works.

 

[barbos]

What makes you think experience at being a politician makes them better at serving the nation rather than their own personal advancement and profit?

The fact that every example of an "inexperienced politician" in recent history put themselves into the spotlight solely for their own personal advancement and profit.

As opposed to "experienced politician"? And last time I checked Obama was pretty inexperienced and did OK.

 

[Toni]

What makes you think experience at being a politician makes them better at serving the nation rather than their own personal advancement and profit?

The fact that every example of an "inexperienced politician" in recent history put themselves into the spotlight solely for their own personal advancement and profit.

As opposed to "experienced politician"? And last time I checked Obama was pretty inexperienced and did OK.

He had considerably more experience than Yang.

Or Trump.

 

[barbos]

As opposed to "experienced politician"? And last time I checked Obama was pretty inexperienced and did OK.

He had considerably more experience than Yang.

Or Trump.

No, not considerably, just a little bit more. In fact when he was accused of having no experience his people said his presidential election was his experience.

Fact is, political experience is only good for getting elected and then reelected, it's actually detrimental to getting things done because these people are activly not interested in getting things done, they are interested in gridlock.

 

[laughing dog]

Fact is, political experience is only good for getting elected and then reelected, it's actually detrimental to getting things done because these people are activly not interested in getting things done, they are interested in gridlock.

The examples of presidents FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, George Bush, Clinton and Obama in the USA, and PMs Thatcher and Blair (sorry, my British history is not so good) prove otherwise.

 

[Toni]

As opposed to "experienced politician"? And last time I checked Obama was pretty inexperienced and did OK.

He had considerably more experience than Yang.

Or Trump.

No, not considerably, just a little bit more. In fact when he was accused of having no experience his people said his presidential election was his experience.

In terms of public service, Obama has had quite a bit more experience. He started as a community organizer before Harvard Law where he was selected first as editor of the Harvard Law Review, and then as President of the Harvard Law review, then worked to increase voter registration in various projects, was a highly successful lawyer and continued to work in public service prior to his political career which began with serving in the IL state legislature.

Yang's resume is also impressive but lacks any experience in public service. At all.

Fact is, political experience is only good for getting elected and then reelected, it's actually detrimental to getting things done because these people are activly not interested in getting things done, they are interested in gridlock.

Really?

What, pray tell do you think Trump's accomplishments have been?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, not considerably, just a little bit more. In fact when he was accused of having no experience his people said his presidential election was his experience.

Senator Obama did not have a lot of political experience. He was a college professor on Constitutional Law, however. In addition, he had shown a solid interest in public works. Additionally, there was a massive DC movement to support him. The biggest trouble with outsiders is they lack the reins to get anything done in DC or even worse, let other people have the reins (see Stephen Miller). Personally I think Obama could have used a little more Senate experience, but too much Senate experience means you have a voting record that will get taken terribly out of context. But Obama was definitely very intelligent, had the constitutional expertise, a drive for public service, and a DC machine that was quite happy to have him.

Yang is a rich. If Yang wasn't rich, he wouldn't be running on a very weak platform.