EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2786
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46532 Posts
On October 26 2020 11:06 plasmidghost wrote: Oops lol, I meant to put 2028. I'm not sure if Biden would decide to run again in 2024, in all honesty. If he does let Harris run, that would be a super interesting race. Agreed. And yeah, I was working under the premise that Biden only runs for one term, and then uses his successful presidency to leverage very strong support for Harris running in 2024. I don't think that Biden is going to completely last eight years tbh. If he does run two strong terms though, then Harris would be set up nicely in 2028 anyway. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On October 26 2020 10:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: If Biden's single term is able to cleanly end - and then start a successful recovery from - Trump's coronavirus failure, I think Harris could have some great momentum going into 2024. I wonder what other candidates - particularly more progressive ones - would step up to challenge her, since Sanders is surely done. We'll probably see Yang again and he'll get more air time since by the time 4 years go by, COVID is finally dealt with, and the generational wheel keeps turning, the things he talks about will have become more palatable in the same way Bernie was in this previous primary. Very, very outside chance for AOC, but I only mention her because she'll be able to - but I think she would know that it wouldn't be her time, if that was something she was looking towards in the future. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
On October 25 2020 21:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: Can you please stop responding to things where you have absolutely no clue whatsoever? McConnell blocking everything is the reason. He has repeatedly bragged about this. There was never a conscious choice by democrats to not confirm judges because they expected Hillary to win. Some republican even stated that he would have made his best effort to block Hillary from nominating anyone during her entire 4 year term, if she had ended up winning. This is what her own daughter stated... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/magazine/ginsburg-successor-obama.html “I think that Mother, like many others, expected that Hillary Clinton would win the nomination and the presidency, and she wanted the first female president to name her successor,” Jane Ginsburg emailed me on Sunday. Ginsberg thought Clinton would follow Obama and her successor would be appointed by Hillary Clinton, the natural choice of next president.Many, many calls for her to retire even before Republicans retook control of senate. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On October 26 2020 10:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: If Biden's single term is able to cleanly end - and then start a successful recovery from - Trump's coronavirus failure, I think Harris could have some great momentum going into 2024. I wonder what other candidates - particularly more progressive ones - would step up to challenge her, since Sanders is surely done. Probably Nina Turner or Elizabeth Warren. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28911 Posts
On October 26 2020 11:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: This is what her own daughter stated... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/magazine/ginsburg-successor-obama.html Ginsberg thought Clinton would follow Obama and her successor would be appointed by Hillary Clinton, the natural choice of next president.Many, many calls for her to retire even before Republicans retook control of senate. Ok if Ginsburg had retired during Obama's first term, so 8+ years ago, it'd have been fine. Otherwise the nomination would have been blocked. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22663 Posts
On October 26 2020 18:29 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yeah, it would have had to be in the first 2 years of his first term so 2009-2010.Ok if Ginsburg had retired during Obama's first term, so 8+ years ago, it'd have been fine. Otherwise the nomination would have been blocked. Feels like a lifetime ago considering how the political landscape in the US seems to have changed since then. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 26 2020 19:20 Gorsameth wrote: Yeah, it would have had to be in the first 2 years of his first term so 2009-2010. Feels like a lifetime ago considering how the political landscape in the US seems to have changed since then. Seeing how McConnell seems to visibly get off on the fact that he's refused to let any Democratic nominations go through for years, I'm struggling to find the version of US history that nettles is working with. It literally doesn't matter what the Democrats and judges did. The Republicans said no to everything in advance. It takes an interesting understanding of cause and effect to get around that. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8202 Posts
On October 27 2020 00:01 Mohdoo wrote: I really don’t like Biden spending time in Georgia. He needs to get his ass back to the Midwest and firm that up. Or spend that entire week in Pennsylvania. But not Georgia. He doesn’t need Georgia this just feels so dumb I might be wrong but I think Georgia is super important for the control of the senate, so Biden might be killing two birds with one stone. Biden had a super ambitious agenda when it comes to topic like the environment. It's not really worth being elected if the republican are going to stonewall the hell out of everything. And they will, given the chance. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9069 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 27 2020 00:46 Biff The Understudy wrote: I might be wrong but I think Georgia is super important for the control of the senate, so Biden might be killing two birds with one stone. Biden had a super ambitious agenda when it comes to topic like the environment. It's not really worth being elected if the republican are going to stonewall the hell out of everything. And they will, given the chance. I just can't help but feel like step 1 of being president needs to be at 120% before doing things like this | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24391 Posts
On October 26 2020 19:20 Gorsameth wrote: Yeah, it would have had to be in the first 2 years of his first term so 2009-2010. Feels like a lifetime ago considering how the political landscape in the US seems to have changed since then. She got her 2nd cancer diagnosis and was in her mid-late 70's. Would have been much wiser for her to retire then, or when Obama pointed out to her specifically that losing the senate was a real possibility and she might get replaced by a Republican. Democrats didn't lose control of the Senate until 2015 btw. She rebuffed every attempt and it turns out it was a terrible strategy that looks incredibly selfish in hindsight. That doesn't excuse McConnell for his cynical obstructionism, but that was a known quantity considering he opened with his top priority being to make Obama a 1 term president. On October 27 2020 00:48 plasmidghost wrote: That's a great point. Both Senate races have a very real possibility of going Dem and if Biden can win those for the Dems, then they'd be able to handily afford a couple of defections "handily afford a couple defections" how? They won't have more than 60 and I haven't seen 50+1 Democrats that support getting rid of the filibuster? | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12033 Posts
On October 27 2020 01:32 Mohdoo wrote: I just can't help but feel like step 1 of being president needs to be at 120% before doing things like this I am not certain about that. The republican controlled senate has been horrific for the last decade or so. It is basically what enabled McConnell to do all the bullshit obstructionism in the first place. I think the senate might be more important than the presidency. A democrat president with a McConnell majority republican senate will not do anything. We have seen how bad that situation is during six out of 8 of the years of Obamas presidency. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24391 Posts
On October 27 2020 01:50 Simberto wrote: I am not certain about that. The republican controlled senate has been horrific for the last decade or so. It is basically what enabled McConnell to do all the bullshit obstructionism in the first place. I think the senate might be more important than the presidency. A democrat president with a McConnell majority republican senate will not do anything. We have seen how bad that situation is during six out of 8 of the years of Obamas presidency. Obama/Democrats didn't lose the senate until the second half of his second term. | ||
| ||
