US Presidential Election 2020

seamus

Harris is a good tonic tbf. One of the pillars of the GOP is being tough on crime, and they can't claim Harris isn't. At a much more petty level her sex and ethnicity completely destroys the Trump campaign's attempt to steal black votes by getting Kanye West on a ballot.

The optics of the VP debate will also be interesting. Ignoring Pence's wooden plank persona, there are suggestions that his "beliefs" may require his wife or mother to be present when talking to another woman.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

What are the Republicans going to do? Criticise her for being too soft on the police while also saying the Democrats are anti-police?

Are they going to criticise her for not prosecuting Mnuchin?

Too shortsighted.

The recommencement of corporate, neo-liberal Democrats will lead to another Trump. Unlike the current one, the next one will be more 'presidential'.

The working man and woman's circumstances are not going to fundamentally change with Biden and Harris. Obama was more progressive than both and they still ended up with Trump.

I feel sorry the people that want change, that want healthcare, that want a decent wage, that want a reasonably priced education.

Tis quite a sad state of affairs when the ballot paper in November will be a choice between hardcore Republicans and moderate Republicans.

duploelabs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Too shortsighted.

The recommencement of corporate, neo-liberal Democrats will lead to another Trump. Unlike the current one, the next one will be more 'presidential'.

The working man and woman's circumstances are not going to fundamentally change with Biden and Harris. Obama was more progressive than both and they still ended up with Trump.

I feel sorry the people that want change, that want healthcare, that want a decent wage, that want a reasonably priced education.

Tis quite a sad state of affairs when the ballot paper in November will be a choice between hardcore Republicans and moderate Republicans.

Can you join the dots for us that...
'The recommencement of corporate, neo-liberal Democrats will lead to another Trump. '

sydthebeat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Too shortsighted.

The recommencement of corporate, neo-liberal Democrats will lead to another Trump. Unlike the current one, the next one will be more 'presidential'.

The working man and woman's circumstances are not going to fundamentally change with Biden and Harris. Obama was more progressive than both and they still ended up with Trump.

I feel sorry the people that want change, that want healthcare, that want a decent wage, that want a reasonably priced education.

Tis quite a sad state of affairs when the ballot paper in November will be a choice between hardcore Republicans and moderate Republicans.

Trump really fcuked up trying to help the "working man" didn't he....

And did untold environmental damage in the process of his complete failure

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

Trump really fcuked up trying to help the "working man" didn't he....

And did untold environmental damage in the process of his complete failure

He did.

and

he did.


Not sure what it has to do with my post but fair enough.

pixelburp

The Democrats would have been mad to propose another seismic shift as a replacement to the current one. America is adrift and neoliberal or not, a return to some semblance of normalcy in governance is needed. If there's an air of inheritance with this VP, then the idea of choosing a more openly liberal or left-leaning candidate would have simply played into Trump's blather about the Democrats as the "radical left".

c.p.w.g.w

Looking at the 2016 election, a lot of democrats didn't vote as they felt Hillary was a terrible option. Those lost votes handed Trump the oval office...

I do think that the selection of Harris might has a similar affect with some democrat voters this time, not as much mind...

I don't think we can trust the polls either, in 2016 Hillary was miles ahead on election Day and we all know how that turned out

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

The Democrats would have been mad to propose another seismic shift as a replacement to the current one. America is adrift and neoliberal or not, a return to some semblance of normalcy in governance is needed. If there's an air of inheritance with this VP, then the idea of choosing a more openly liberal or left-leaning candidate would have simply played into Trump's blather about the Democrats as the "radical left".

Agreed. Biden is "vanilla" and after 4 years of having jalapenos rammed down their throats, I think "vanilla" is exactly what they need.

Harris can be criticised for some things, but compared to the vindictive, nasty, bullying, racist, self destructive and polarising policy of Trump and the sycophant Pence, there is simply no contest whatsoever.

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I don't think we can trust the polls either, in 2016 Hillary was miles ahead on election Day and we all know how that turned out

No, she wasn't

rossie1977

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Biden/Harris ticket is a return to the neo-liberalism that created the environment in which someone like Trump could get elected. The next time, instead of a bumbling buffoon like The Donald, it'll be a more savvy and polished person. That'll be fun.

Except that's not the reason Trump won.

Regardless who the Dems pick the Republicans and right wing media will tear them apart be they a conservative democrat, a neo liberal, a right leaning, left leaning or socialist, man or woman, young or old, inexperienced or experienced.. it does not matter.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

The Democrats would have been mad to propose another seismic shift as a replacement to the current one. America is adrift and neoliberal or not, a return to some semblance of normalcy in governance is needed. If there's an air of inheritance with this VP, then the idea of choosing a more openly liberal or left-leaning candidate would have simply played into Trump's blather about the Democrats as the "radical left".

Trump is going to bang the "radical left" drum, regardless of who's on the Democratic ticket.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293285949917495300

Had they actually had two a progressive ticket, there'd be genuine enthusiasm rather than "At least they're not Trump". All they're doing is kicking the can down the road.

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

Except that's not the reason Trump won.

Regardless who the Dems pick the Republicans and right wing media will tear them apart be they a conservative democrat, a neo liberal, a right leaning, left leaning or socialist, man or woman, young or old, inexperienced or experienced.. it does not matter.

That is precisely why Trump won. Decades of political theatre.

c.p.w.g.w

everlast75 wrote: »

Agreed. Biden is "vanilla" and after 4 years of having jalapenos rammed down their throats, I think "vanilla" is exactly what they need.

Harris can be criticised for some things, but compared to the vindictive, nasty, bullying, racist, self destructive and polarising policy of Trump and the sycophant Pence, there is simply no contest whatsoever.



No, she wasn't

Apologies, not the polls, but the projection chances of victory...Also Matt Taibbi had be warning that the majority of the media where downplaying Trump's chances and was ignored and ridiculed in some circles too...

Alex Cortez, would have been a better running mate, might have appeased the Sanders voters...But probably "too socialist" for the yanks...I love to see the yanks reaction to a actual socialist

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump is going to bang the "radical left" drum, regardless of who's on the Democratic ticket.

Had they actually had two a progressive ticket, there'd be genuine enthusiasm rather than "At least they're not Trump". All they're doing is kicking the can down the road.

Trump's base is lost, of course. But there's a roiling demographic of Undecideds or lapsed Conservatives looking elsewhere. Picking a progressive VP candidate would have confirmed the doubts in the minds of a host of potential voters - including Democrat ones. It shouldn't be assumed Democrats have consistent ideology here. Taking social media and our own European progressive bias as indicators, it's easy to assume the time is nigh for a Progressive Democrat ticket but that's far from the truth IMO. America needs stability, and progressive politics by degrees. Transformative change isn't possible in a partisan environment & right now, the Democrats need to be the adults in the room. The Democrat party - and America - is still more Pelosi than Ocasio-Cortez IMO.

Bass Reeves

The danger for the Democrats is Putin. He is going to mass test his vaccine on the Russian population over the next 4-6 weeks. If it successfull what are the odds he will make it available to American pharma. A Trump victory may be more appealing to him rather than a Biden one.

Biden is not just vanilla he pure bland. No serious Democrat ran in the primaries as they taught Trump was unbeatable. Clinton got elected to president that way as many taught Bush no 1was unbeatable after Kwuait.

Up until now I taught Biden was unbeatable I am not so sure now. 12 weeks is a long time for this to play out. I expect Trump to make mincemeat of Biden in the debates especially if he is under pressure. He needs the numbers to remain very strong for him to him. It's hard to stop slippage and that brings it own pressures. And there will be slippage in his vote. Controling it is the problem.

Quin_Dub

People complaining that Biden/Harris are Standard Issue Democrats etc. are missing the point of the right here and now.

The House is broken down , ugly and in dire need of renovation and modernisation so you want an architect and an Interior designer to change the plan and build something suitable for modern living.

But right now , the damn thing is on fire , so you need the Fire Service. The Architects and the Interior designers can come along later to give you the house you want to live in.

Put the bloody fire out 1st.

rossie1977

Even then Harris is not neo liberal. Manic Moran who lived in California will tell you she was easily most left leaning senator in the state during his time there.

One of her main policies is medicare for all. She went out of her way to not accept corporate donations during the Democrat primary.

seamus

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The danger for the Democrats is Putin. He is going to mass test his vaccine on the Russian population over the next 4-6 weeks. If it successfull what are the odds he will make it available to American pharma. A Trump victory may be more appealing to him rather than a Biden one.

The data on the success of the Russian vaccine will not be available before November. Not real data anyway, only the fake stuff. Phase 3 trials takes months, even years, for a good reason. No responsible or reputable medical professional would declare a treatment successful after just a few weeks of testing.

The difference is that in the run-up to an election, Trump doesn't get to control the narrative. He can put a gag on the CDC, discredit the WHO and then parrot whatever data Putin gives to him.

But he can't gag Biden, who can use the data from the CDC and the WHO to counter any such narrative. Trump claiming, "we have access to the Russian vaccine", can easily be turned around as the ramblings of a madman hellbent on poisoning Americans for personal gain.

everlast75

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The danger for the Democrats is Putin. He is going to mass test his vaccine on the Russian population over the next 4-6 weeks. If it successfull what are the odds he will make it available to American pharma. A Trump victory may be more appealing to him rather than a Biden one.

He made sure of it in 2016, and is doing his best to make it happen again in 2020. And sure, why wouldn't he? Trump has done his bidding since day 1.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

People complaining that Biden/Harris are Standard Issue Democrats etc. are missing the point of the right here and now.

The House is broken down , ugly and in dire need of renovation and modernisation so you want an architect and an Interior designer to change the plan and build something suitable for modern living.

But right now , the damn thing is on fire , so you need the Fire Service. The Architects and the Interior designers can come along later to give you the house you want to live in.

Put the bloody fire out 1st.

100% correct

Quin_Dub

seamus wrote: »

The data on the success of the Russian vaccine will not be available before November. Not real data anyway, only the fake stuff. Phase 3 trials takes months, even years, for a good reason. No responsible or reputable medical professional would declare a treatment successful after just a few weeks of testing.

The difference is that in the run-up to an election, Trump doesn't get to control the narrative. He can put a gag on the CDC, discredit the WHO and then parrot whatever data Putin gives to him.

But he can't gag Biden, who can use the data from the CDC and the WHO to counter any such narrative. Trump claiming, "we have access to the Russian vaccine", can easily be turned around as the ramblings of a madman hellbent on poisoning Americans for personal gain.

The candidates also begin to get a level of Security briefings as well once they are confirmed if I remember correctly.

So Biden will have access to a lot of the same internal information that Trump has in September/October - Will be interesting to see the difference in interpretation of that info.

Igotadose

rossie1977 wrote: »

Even then Harris is not neo liberal. Manic Moran who lived in California will tell you she was easily most left leaning senator in the state during his time there.

One of her main policies is medicare for all. She went out of her way to not accept corporate donations during the Democrat primary.

Uhh, the other two were Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Easy to be more left-leaning than either of those (she succeeded Boxer who retired.)

And she was an excellent AG for CA, and reelected to the post as I recall including getting donations from the #IMPOTUS and his Goya spokesmodel daughter.

She was awesome in her dissection of Barr, had him quivering his John Goodman-like massive jowls. She's a huge asset and hopefully puts Biden over the top in what will be a very fraught election with all the skullduggery by the tGOP.

Brian?

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Looking at the 2016 election, a lot of democrats didn't vote as they felt Hillary was a terrible option. Those lost votes handed Trump the oval office...

I do think that the selection of Harris might has a similar affect with some democrat voters this time, not as much mind...

I don't think we can trust the polls either, in 2016 Hillary was miles ahead on election Day and we all know how that turned out

Hilary was not miles ahead on Election Day. It’s a lie that’s been repeated so often people believe it to be true.

Hilary was ahead on national polls. She won the popular vote. National polls were pretty spot on.

On the states Hilary lost “unexpectedly”, all the polls were within the margin of error.

The electoral college was a statistical toss up on he eve of the election with the trend in favour of Trump.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Trump is going to bang the "radical left" drum, regardless of who's on the Democratic ticket.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293285949917495300

Had they actually had two a progressive ticket, there'd be genuine enthusiasm rather than "At least they're not Trump". All they're doing is kicking the can down the road.

Two “progressives” on the ticket would be a landslide for Trump.

Wanderer78

is_that_so wrote: »

Biden would be an interregnum President between the mayhem and chaos of Trump and what America wants to move to. I don't think he is awful at all, the Dems chose him and they had a huge range of alternatives to pick from. Biden could be a sort of centrist honest broker, one not absolutely entrenched in partisan politics. Not that it necessarily means a stellar term but it could be a period of calm and a chance to pause while the US tries to figure out where it's going. God knows they need it.

i completely agree with you here, if mister orange gets back in, theyre (we re) in serious trouble

marno21

Brian? wrote: »

Hilary was not miles ahead on Election Day. It’s a lie that’s been repeated so often people believe it to be true.

Hilary was ahead on national polls. She won the popular vote. National polls were pretty spot on.

On the states Hilary lost “unexpectedly”, all the polls were within the margin of error.

The electoral college was a statistical toss up on he eve of the election with the trend in favour of Trump.

Indeed. There were 136,669,276 votes cast in the 2016 election.

Hillary won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes, which ties in with the national polling.

However, the popular vote is irrelevant. Trump won the electoral college 306-232 (discounting faithless electors). He won Michigan by 10,704 votes (0.23%), Wisconsin by 22,748 votes (0.77%) and Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes (0.72%). These three states decided the election. Out of 136,669,276 votes, he won the election by 77,744 votes. Unless you are going with massive sampling, there's no poll going to accurately predict that. As was said, it was a pure tossup on election day but the trend favoured Trump. Which is what happened in the final outcome.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Two “progressives” on the ticket would be a landslide for Trump.

Absolute, unadulterated, drivel.

Joe Biden threatening US allies so they wouldn't grant Snowden asylum. Snowden fluked himself into a lucky situation as had he carried on to Ecuador **** knows what would have happened him.

https://twitter.com/ml_1maria/status/1254494921542766592

everlast75

With Biden's solid pick for VP, let's have a quick look at to who Trump is endorsing lately..

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293525010523578375?s=20

So, that's the direction he wants the GOP to take?

Carfacemandog

For anyone unaware, Marjorie Taylor Greene is a QAnon conspiracy follower. I believe that marks the 15th QAnon followers so far that republicans have democratically voted to represent them in November.

Anyone paying attention in the last few years will not even be remotely surprised. Cults gonna cult.

Tell me how

everlast75 wrote: »

With Biden's solid pick for VP, let's have a quick look at to who Trump is endorsing lately..

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293525010523578375?s=20

So, that's the direction he wants the GOP to take?

Who Trump endorses is not particularly a direction the GOP want to take at this point, but a direction they then pretend they want to take.

He is a loose cannon within the party right now and they have two choices, back him (as they are doing) or submit to the first walkover in US presidential election history.

If he loses in November, the about turn from them will be rapid, nauseating and predictable.

Penn

Trump will back anyone who speaks nicely about him. That's it. That's his minimum qualifying criteria. If they support him, he'll support them. Anything less than that incurs his derision.

marno21

everlast75 wrote: »

With Biden's solid pick for VP, let's have a quick look at to who Trump is endorsing lately..

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293525010523578375?s=20

So, that's the direction he wants the GOP to take?

https://twitter.com/bluestein/status/1293354791926747136

Charming.

This is the uber Trump wing of the GOP. But then again lets not forget that Trump won Georgia 14 by 75 to 22. The only Georgia district in which Trump had a bigger win was the 9th, which is represented by none other than Doug Collins.

These districts are better if you have absolutely no expectations for them as far as I can see.

Rjd2

Deleted User wrote: »

Joe Biden threatening US allies so they wouldn't grant Snowden asylum. Snowden fluked himself into a lucky situation as had he carried on to Ecuador **** knows what would have happened him.

https://twitter.com/ml_1maria/status/1254494921542766592

Biden's foreign policy will arguably be just as bad as Trump's.

The difference will be the likes of MSNBC and CNN will fawn over it so you won't see much scrutiny . The party has been infiltrated by "never trump" neocons and Biden has much more time for them than the left of the party.

The Harris choice is what it is, won't make a difference but I totally understand the annoyance of the left, Harris has some very questionable stances on many issues, but the suburban republican voters who Biden adores so much won't care.

https://twitter.com/M_C_Yates/status/1293300812001742855

Igotadose

Rjd2 wrote: »

Biden's foreign policy will arguably be just as bad as Trump's.

Hmm... more nuclear weapons (#IMPOTUS) versus fewer (Biden/long-time Democratic policy.)
Starting and staying with trade agreements (Democrats) versus throwing them out and 'renegotiating' (#IMPOTUS)

So, what are your arguments that Biden's foreign policy will be 'just as bad as Trumps?'

The difference will be the likes of MSNBC and CNN will fawn over it so you won't see much scrutiny . The party has been infiltrated by "never trump" neocons and Biden has much more time for them than the left of the party.

The Harris choice is what it is, won't make a difference but I totally understand the annoyance of the left, Harris has some very questionable stances on many issues, but the suburban republican voters who Biden adores so much won't care.

It is, what it is. New GOP motto? And it won't make a difference why? Because it was going to be Biden in a landslide?

Rjd2

Igotadose wrote: »

Hmm... more nuclear weapons (#IMPOTUS) versus fewer (Biden/long-time Democratic policy.)
Starting and staying with trade agreements (Democrats) versus throwing them out and 'renegotiating' (#IMPOTUS)

So, what are your arguments that Biden's foreign policy will be 'just as bad as Trumps?'



It is, what it is. New GOP motto? And it won't make a difference why? Because it was going to be Biden in a landslide?

I'm not defending Trump, he's as big as hawk as anyone.

Biden will be better than Trump on most issues, because well how can't anyone....but foreign policy will be the one issue their won't be a huge difference.

Nobody cares about foreign policy in America anyhow, look at how so many of the people who promoted the Iraq war whose careers have thrived since then.

Biden been a hawk will lose him no votes, heck I wouldn't be shocked if its barely debated at the debates.

duploelabs

Rjd2 wrote: »

I'm not defending Trump, he's as big as hawk as anyone.

Biden will be better than Trump on most issues, because well how can't anyone....but foreign policy will be the one issue their won't be a huge difference.

Nobody cares about foreign policy in America anyhow, look at how so many of the people who promoted the Iraq war whose careers have thrived since then.

Biden been a hawk will lose him no votes, heck I wouldn't be shocked if its barely debated at the debates.

I respectfully disagree. I don't see Biden cosying up to authoritarian dictators like Putin, Kim, the Saudi royal family, etc etc. Or staying out of the Paris accords. Or imposing tariffs on imports. Or pulling out of nato.

I could go on...

Rjd2

duploelabs wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. I don't see Biden cosying up to authoritarian dictators like Putin, Kim, the Saudi royal family, etc etc. Or staying out of the Paris accords. Or imposing tariffs on imports. Or pulling out of nato.

I could go on...

He attacked Trump from the right on China and Venezuela and I expect he will seek regime change in Syria which will be bloody.

He likely will have Susan Rice one of the biggest hawks of the Obama regime in a prominent position. Biden might be less ****e than Trump on foreign policy and less likely to cosy up to dictators, but he will be very hawkish.

It's not something that will hurt his campaign, the only people in the Dem party who want to have a serious debate about foreign policy are the squad, Ro Khanna and Tulsi who are after polling constantly at a majestic 1 % when running for president

Quin_Dub

duploelabs wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. I don't see Biden cosying up to authoritarian dictators like Putin, Kim, the Saudi royal family, etc etc. Or staying out of the Paris accords. Or imposing tariffs on imports. Or pulling out of nato.

I could go on...

Exactly - Foreign policy isn't just about Wars and Military action , something the US could learn a bit more about to be honest.

The biggest impact that Trump has had in terms of Foreign policy is the loss of "soft power" for the US.

They are no longer trusted or respected by pretty much anyone.

Plenty of countries will still want to be friendly towards them , but they will be circumspect sharing information with them or taking direction from them.

Even if Biden can convince them that he is trustworthy and on the level, everyone will now forever think "Sure, but what about the next guy?, I'll keep my options open in case you elect a nutter again".

The US will never again be seen as a policy or thought leader globally. Still a huge player of course, but the respect & trust lost under the Trump admin will be virtually impossible to restore.

Manic Moran

Water John wrote: »

Manic you're a member of the Army of US TMK. So an army general tells all his sergeants to each conduct their section as they see fit. Give me a break.

No, I'm a member of the Army National Guard. The President of the United States could try to give me a direct order, I would be under no obligation to follow it, he is not in my chain of command. If the Governor and the President gave me conflicting orders, I am bound to follow those of the Governor. The only way that can change is if I am federalised into the Title 10 forces of the US military. This exact situation happened in the 1950s when the President and Governors did not see eye to eye. Unlike the military, all other parts of government are generally beyond the control of the Federal executive. The President cannot federalise the State Dept of Public Health, for example. Tenth Amendment, and all that.

Igotadose wrote: »

Hey, the Federal Government *did* have testing centers, so the governors and states weren't the implementors. Of course, those got shut down.
I even remember a Covid briefing where the #IMPOTUS crowed about testing centers in Walmart parking lots, and a trip he made to the CDC stating there were 'beautiful tests' and 'anyone could get one.' These weren't State actions, these were Federal he was talking about.

Sorry, no. They were federally funded, but they were run by local agencies. The folks doing the swabbing were not wearing CDC or USPHS jackets. This is a standard procedure for incidents in the US, there are various legislations in place such as the Stafford Act which permit States to request emergency assistance from the Federal Government, but they do not allow the Federal Government to take the lead (Excepting special cases like insurrection, homeland defense etc). You will note that the headlines state "Trump ends funding for..." not "Trump shuts down" (Not least because the sites did remain open, just the States were paying for them now)

If you want full details on the process, which is simple in practice at the time, but something of a nightmare for accountants after the fact, look up the National Incident Management System. Even when actual federal assets are used, such as military facilities like the hospital ships we sent to NYC and LA, the States are sent a bill. The US uses an entirely 'pull' driven system, starting at the city/county level, and that applies both for request and fulfillment. Indeed, there is a prohibition on federal assets doing anything which can be done at the local level. It can be paid for by the Feds, but if someone on the ground can do it, the feds can't. A case in point was the US military's involvement in Hurricane Sandy relief in NY. You may recall the Marines landed and helped out with cleanup. They were not requested by the State to do so. The US Government later got sued by local businesses for conducting debris removal which they (the local businesses) had the capacity to do, and business income was taken away from them. Federal manpower can only be used when it exceeds local capacity, and even then, normally only at the request of the States.

So, the bottom line way it works, States can request federal assistance for funding, normally 75% costs, though occasionally 100%, to pay for capabilities which they have but cannot normally afford to utilise, such as the current use of National Guard doctors in hospitals for COVID capacity (State employees, paid under Federal Title 32 authorities and not State accounting lines). If it is beyond the capability of the State, then Federal assets can be brought in through a request system from the state's assigned Federal Co-ordinating Officer, and the State is later billed by the Feds for services provided. The State may later be able to gain some money back from the Feds in disaster relief or whatever, but if that relief money (budgeted by Congress, remember) fails to cover the expenses to the State of the federal bills, then the State eats the cost. The State is responsible for everything which happens in its borders, not the Feds. (Exceptions, federal, tribal land)

You have to wrap your head around the differences between how an incident is handled in the US vs almost anywhere else in the world before you can really understand where things work or not (And I should add I've taken weeks of courses on this, it's not something you can google in two minutes). The system has some huge advantages in most incidents like earthquakes, wildfires, hurricanes, etc, but also can be said to suffer liabilities at the national scale (COVID) or when local government is totally non-functional (Puerto Rico after Maria)

rossie1977 wrote: »

Even then Harris is not neo liberal. Manic Moran who lived in California will tell you she was easily most left leaning senator in the state during his time there.

One of her main policies is medicare for all. She went out of her way to not accept corporate donations during the Democrat primary.

I don't think she was as far left as Barbara Boxer, and by CA standards, Harris certainly isn't out there. The concern (inasmuch as anyone really considers the VP pick as a factor in voting for President) is that nationally, she's an elected official from one of the most liberal cities in one of the most liberal States, and her voting record in the Senate is arguably the fourth-most-progressive of all 100 of them, even more so than Warren in 5th. I don't see how she is going to harm Biden's chances, but neither do I see her particularly appealing to voters in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Absolute, unadulterated, drivel.

Would you like to explain why you think that?

PopePalpatine

Carfacemandog wrote: »

For anyone unaware, Marjorie Taylor Greene is a QAnon conspiracy follower. I believe that marks the 15th QAnon followers so far that republicans have democratically voted to represent them in November.

Anyone paying attention in the last few years will not even be remotely surprised. Cults gonna cult.

I think I'm starting to miss the Tea Party.

Nody

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think I'm starting to miss the Tea Party.

Why? They are the exact same group of people being lead around the nose by billionaires using the same methods; the only thing that has changed the message has gotten even more wacky.

JL555

Penn wrote: »

Trump will back anyone who speaks nicely about him. That's it. That's his minimum qualifying criteria. If they support him, he'll support them. Anything less than that incurs his derision.

Sure aren't they all like that?


(oops. hope that wasn't to anyone's disliking)

Itssoeasy

So it seems the defund the police movement isn't going so well and there is push back from several black law makers in Seattle and prominent black activists. Millions of dollars in funding is gone along with 100 police officers and the commissioner who is a black woman is stepping down. Also, the Seattle city council has removed all SPD officers from schools.

I don't think kamala Harris or joe Biden are on board with defunding the police and neither should they be. America needs to reform their police forces not defund them. I bring this up because even though the polls look good for Biden/Harris now the old democratic purity test looks like it's raring it's head again. For a group that says they are about inclusion when they get an idea(although well meaning in the aftermath of George floyds death) they seem to also outkick their coverage and mess it up.

Quin_Dub

"Defund" was always a terrible word.

It's never really been "defund" , it's been about shifting the focus of the budgets and spending money in the community to stop crime from ever happening in the 1st place.

Spending money on Smoke Alarms instead of Fire Extinguishers if you will.

Not sure who started using the term "Defund" but whoever it was did a great job utterly ruining the real meaning of the effort.

Water John

Trump seem to indicate tonight that one of the major police unions would come out in support of him.
London Breed spoke tonight of KH as a prosecutor looking at how communities could reduce crime level.

Itssoeasy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

"Defund" was always a terrible word.

It's never really been "defund" , it's been about shifting the focus of the budgets and spending money in the community to stop crime from ever happening in the 1st place.

Spending money on Smoke Alarms instead of Fire Extinguishers if you will.

Not sure who started using the term "Defund" but whoever it was did a great job utterly ruining the real meaning of the effort.

No it wasn't but it's slightly less stupid then the disband the police ****ehawks. I mean do they not hear how that sounds and the obvious implication ?

stinkypinky

Quin_Dub wrote: »

"Defund" was always a terrible word.

It's never really been "defund" , it's been about shifting the focus of the budgets and spending money in the community to stop crime from ever happening in the 1st place.

Spending money on Smoke Alarms instead of Fire Extinguishers if you will.

Not sure who started using the term "Defund" but whoever it was did a great job utterly ruining the real meaning of the effort.

Even if that's true, a large majority still don't agree with it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/64-americans-oppose-defund-police-movement-key-goals/story?id=71202300

64% of Americans oppose 'defund the police' movement, key goals: POLL

Strong majorities of Americans oppose the movement to "defund the police" and some of its most significant goals, specifically reshuffling funding away from law enforcement to support mental health, housing and education programs, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday finds.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose calls for defunding police departments, compared to 34% who back the movement, and 60% specifically oppose reducing the budget for police to reallocate it to other public health and social programs, while 39% support that move.

---

I think Harris will end up being a bad pick, Biden should have gone with a moderate like Klobuchar. She comes across as fake and I was saying that long before Trump came out with his latest soundbite, the same way people began to see through Beto o'Rourke. In her own state of California her support in the primary was dismal, she quit long before the votes were counted there. Finger wagging and talking down to people only gets you so far.

TomOnBoard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

"Defund" was always a terrible word.

It's never really been "defund" , it's been about shifting the focus of the budgets and spending money in the community to stop crime from ever happening in the 1st place.

Spending money on Smoke Alarms instead of Fire Extinguishers if you will.

Not sure who started using the term "Defund" but whoever it was did a great job utterly ruining the real meaning of the effort.

I absolutely agree with this!

Defund the Police has been hijacked as a concept by anarchists who would prefer to see Police forces abolished so their anarchy can run amok. Those on the side of the reality of Defund the Police want a re-orientation of funding away from the crime fighting aspect towards the crime prevention aspects.

The theory is that police forces are becoming ever more militaristic and have become punishment forces rather than peace / community support forces. As an example, the surplus of military equipment, hauled back from the streets of Iraq after withdrawal, were distributed to police forces that wanted them at low/no cost, where their use was entirely inappropriate. There has been an 'arms race' within policing, creating a paramilitary outfit for whom the public has become an enemy.

Instead of increased spending on policing and prisons, social scientists say that putting more funding into better social housing, education etc will reduce the need for increased police spending and society as a whole will be much better off.

The problem is that some ppl want money moved from police now to social supports now. This would lead to lack of law enforcement before the benefits accrue from better social supports, which would lead to chaos. In reality, an investment is required in social supports first and then, after a lag phase, reduced demand for policing should ensue if the social scientists are correct. In the meantime, ALL paramilitary equipment should be withdrawn and only held for occasional use by selected, highly trained teams such as SWAT. Such equipment has no place on US streets as part of normal Police operations.

briany

Did nobody who was behind #defundthepolice ever think to themselves, "Hang on! In isolation, this slogan could make us look like a bunch of radical nutters!" Why not #reformthepolice? Everyone can get behind that, even the police themselves.

Anyway, on topic. We need to put any idea of Biden being in cognitive decline to bed. The idea that Trump is in a better mental state than Biden is utterly ludicrous.

Don't worry, Democrats are just 'putting out the fire'.

Jokers.

https://twitter.com/JordanChariton/status/1293689370969616392