|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 02 2020 05:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2020 03:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is this a perfect storm in your eyes for the inevitable collapse of the system LL? Incompetent administration, financial instability teetering on collapse, and pandemic removing the veil of civil/social injustice? Very much a loaded question, but I'll bite. It's very vague what "collapse of the system" means in practical terms, so I'd rather talk to something more concrete. In this case I think said concrete concept would be "systemic failure of the US economic system" - which, yes, I'd say seems to be playing out in front of us and has seen an impressive number of things go wrong all at once. There's been a very powerful effort to bury the problem over the past decade plus on the part of the US and its most important international vassals, but the coronavirus presented a shock so severe that it becomes impossible to use finance games to bury the true depth of economic and political illness in the system. It might be a once in a lifetime event, but those do happen every lifetime, and as it just so happened the US is so badly positioned to handle the problem that disaster is inevitable. An effective response to the pandemic isn't something that just happens or doesn't; competence or lack thereof is generally a very systemic issue. While I'm not exactly certain how Obama would have handled it, the Trump response was about as American as it could be: "oh no, we have to save the economy!" The core of which has been decaying for a long time now, but which has benefited greatly from the unique advantage of being based on the dollar and has masked systemic collapse with decades of stimulus. But it's not even remotely just one person making a bad choice, it's an entire country collectively misreading the situation because their priorities were wrong. The current situation certainly gives a lot more teeth and specificity to the general feeling (largely entirely justified) over the past many years that the alleged economic triumph is largely illusory. Looking back at the situation since 2008, there has been a lot of times where it looked like things could collapse but they didn't; it's becoming clear that that's not because that was the wrong assessment of the situation, but because there's always a bailout. Now, there doesn't seem to be enough bailout to go around anymore, since everything went wrong at once. In short, I'd say a "coronavirus depression" seems quite likely, as this virus seems to be as effective at killing off economies with preexisting conditions as humans with the same.
Thank you. I'm working a long shift at the bar but I'll save this spot and follow up when I get a chance.
|
4 candidates where speculated about bidens vp pick here on tv,all women.
warren,harris,one i forgot and condoleeza rice? its susan rice and not condoleeze,my mistake.
|
On August 02 2020 08:22 pmh wrote:
4 candidates where speculated about bidens vp pick here on tv,all women.
warren,harris,one i forgot and condoleeza rice?
Not sure how they think rice was a candidate,i thought she was a republican.
Rice i think is the best candidate and best option,if she is actually democratic now or willing to switch (she was a democrat before 1982 as well). I would imagine picking Rice will send the Bernie supporters into a right frenzy.
|
On August 02 2020 08:22 pmh wrote:
4 candidates where speculated about bidens vp pick here on tv,all women.
warren,harris,one i forgot and condoleeza rice?
Not sure how they came up with rice,i thought she was a republican.
Rice i think is the strongest candidate and best option,if she is actually democratic now or willing to make the switch (she was a democrat before 1982 as well).
Are you sure you're not thinking of Susan Rice?
Picking someone associated with George W Bush for his VP would be politically idiotic. Not that I don't think they're capable of picking someone like that, but I haven't heard Condoleeza Rice brought up, whereas I have heard Susan Rice is in consideration.
|
Hmm,maybe it was susan rice lol. I just saw another list in which she was mentioned. Condoleeze rice would be impossible i guess,i had my doubts already. Poster above is right.
Warren i think is the least likely and imo also the weakest choice (not saying i wouldnt welcome warren,only saying that i think a biden/warren ticket is weak against trump).
An afro american women seems the most likely to me and imo would give the best odds in the election. I think it will be susan rice,after reading up a bit on her history.
|
|
|
Would Biden not picking a woman even matter?
|
No, his VP doesn't REALLY matter, I think the Stop Trump Train has enough momentum that he almost can't go wrong.
Id hope they'd opt for a progressive but my cynicism says we'll see a Kamala Harris pick and then she'll be pushed as the next candidate and it'll be decades before Progressivism feels viable for the Presidency. Hopefully it's successful enough in the Senate and House to wield some real influence.
|
|
|
Didn't he say he was picking a woman of color?
Edit: Googled it myself, He'd prefer a person of color, but hes committed to picking a Woman.
|
Whoever he picks as VP gets a big inroad to getting the nomination themselves in 2024, so there are some bad choices he can make. A good choice will give us a great alternative when he does little more than not be Trump, which is still the most probable outcome. I'm planning very much on making sure he's a one-term president, followed by a much better progressive vote, barring he surprises us all in that regard.
|
I am guessing Biden picks Harris as his VP...it's quite possibly the most "Biden-esque" thing he could do.
EDIT: Democrats who already love him: "Oh boy, electable!!"
Democrats who are nauseous at the prospect of having to vote for him to get Trump out of office: "...really? Especially at a time like this, a person with that track record as a DA?"
|
538 had an extensive podcast on possible vp picks. They also explained that the electoral effects of any of those picks would be very small.
https://castbox.fm/vb/291983615
|
Northern Ireland26094 Posts
On August 02 2020 09:35 JimmiC wrote:
I wish Biden had said he was picking the best possible candidate for VP, instead of that he was picking a women. Whoever he picks he has now set up as the best female candidate instead of just the best candidate. Just semantics but I think it seems weaker doing it this way.
I'm not sure if I'm saying it right, but I wish he would have picked a woman but without announcing he would only pick a woman.
All he had to do was say he was picking the best candidate, then choose a woman if it was the intent all along.
Of course there’s a degree of cynicism in the process but as you say it would send the message that the best candidate is a woman, not the best woman candidate.
That said it’s such a wonky time politically that I can’t see the VP pick being particularly impactful. The smart strategy seems to be just watching Trump fuck things up from afar and don’t put your own foot in it. This can of course change quite considerably too.
|
Well, there is a side of the argument where it's a matter of principle that a woman should be on the ticket, for the sake of inclusiveness. I hear both sides of the argument when it comes to affirmative action, but setting in stone that the couple POTUS/VP should be mixed is not absurd.
|
On August 02 2020 21:00 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2020 09:35 JimmiC wrote:
I wish Biden had said he was picking the best possible candidate for VP, instead of that he was picking a women. Whoever he picks he has now set up as the best female candidate instead of just the best candidate. Just semantics but I think it seems weaker doing it this way.
I'm not sure if I'm saying it right, but I wish he would have picked a woman but without announcing he would only pick a woman. All he had to do was say he was picking the best candidate, then choose a woman if it was the intent all along. Of course there’s a degree of cynicism in the process but as you say it would send the message that the best candidate is a woman, not the best woman candidate. That said it’s such a wonky time politically that I can’t see the VP pick being particularly impactful. The smart strategy seems to be just watching Trump fuck things up from afar and don’t put your own foot in it. This can of course change quite considerably too.
But VP isn't a techical position. It's a political one. And thus, if *any* woman as VP pick is going to bring more people out to vote than "the best man" would have brought people, then *any* woman is automatically the best candidate, right? I mean... this can obviously backfire, as Sarah Palin showed quite clearly, but none of the candidates being mentioned are anywhere near as bad a choice as Sarah Palin. They may not all have ideas I agree with, but not being a totally clueless bimbo automatically wins you that competition.
|
On August 02 2020 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, there is a side of the argument where it's a matter of principle that a woman should be on the ticket, for the sake of inclusiveness. I hear both sides of the argument when it comes to affirmative action, but setting in stone that the couple POTUS/VP should be mixed is not absurd.
I don't think principles mattered here. If I'm not mistaken Biden made the announcement before Bernie dropped out, when winning over the undecided progressives was his top priority.
|
Nooo why are the buttons next to each other
|
If you just bumped into Kamala Harris at a fundraiser she'd seem like an ideal VP pick for Biden, more so in this moment. Problem is that she's actually really unpopular.
Didn't get a lot of attention from most, but she polled abysmally, even in her home state. Harris is the opposite of Palin on the capability side, but that's also resulted in her doing a lot of things that wouldn't play well under VP scrutiny.
On August 02 2020 21:46 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2020 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, there is a side of the argument where it's a matter of principle that a woman should be on the ticket, for the sake of inclusiveness. I hear both sides of the argument when it comes to affirmative action, but setting in stone that the couple POTUS/VP should be mixed is not absurd. I don't think principles mattered here. If I'm not mistaken Biden made the announcement before Bernie dropped out, when winning over the undecided progressives was his top priority.
I can't imagine believing it wasn't cynical? But yes, that's what happened.
|
On August 02 2020 21:46 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2020 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, there is a side of the argument where it's a matter of principle that a woman should be on the ticket, for the sake of inclusiveness. I hear both sides of the argument when it comes to affirmative action, but setting in stone that the couple POTUS/VP should be mixed is not absurd. I don't think principles mattered here. If I'm not mistaken Biden made the announcement before Bernie dropped out, when winning over the undecided progressives was his top priority.
I mean, it's obvious that the VP is a tactical choice in a campaign. I don't think it matters all that much tbh.
If Biden had made the announcement after Sanders dropped out, people would have said it was cynical because he wanted Sanders to believe he would be chosen. I don't think it makes sense to read all that much into all of that really.
It's obvious that a woman should be on the ticket, there are probably pro and cons to announce it, and pros and cons to announce it early.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
