|
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 November 19 2021 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Been watching a couple of videos of the administration making fanfare over signing the "bipartisan" infrastructure bill that was agreed upon months ago but only just signed this week. The enthusiasm definitely feels contrived in light of what the bill managed not to be, but I can forgive the Biden folks for trying to play it as a win. Notably, the comments and ratings on YouTube are abysmally unfavorable, and it's probably the reaction to things like those on sponsored content (i.e. YT-pushed news releases) that are driving the dislike button removal.
Not just "news" releases, but when Disney (for example) pays Youtube to push trailers for their new content, they probably don't like it when it has tons of downvotes visible to viewers. something something manufactured consent
Most disingenuous, though, was the fact that the Biden administration decided that this would be a good time to start parading around Kamala Harris for what seems like the first time in a year of being a VP. Had the same vibe as that time that Clinton was sending out the "what if I ran?" feelers in 2020, with the same universal response of "fuck off" from the commenters at large. Edit: Should post some examples I suppose. 1 2
I think dems are in a really tough spot with Kamala. Biden is a zombie, and his choice of Kamala for VP was complete virtue signalling. Normally that isn't that big of a deal with a VP pick, but when 2024 comes around, dems will have to either
a) run the very old Biden as the nominee,
b) if Biden doesn't want to run or cant, they run Kamala, who people basically don't like and feel she was given the role simply because she's a woman of color (Biden outright stated during the 2020 primary that he wanted to pick a woman of color, so it was as if his priorities were first pick a woman of color, then someone qualified/good for the job, rather than the other way around).
c) if they don't run Biden but choose not to run Kamala, they expose hypocrisy or racism within the dem party, depending on your point of view. This also puts dems on a path to tear themselves apart (which they're already so good at doing, they shouldn't be encouraged) trying to find a non-Kamala nominee. I don't know how large the virtue signalling bloc of the dem votership is, but I feel like it must be large enough that backtracking on Kamala as the presumptive non-Biden nominee would look really bad.
Anyway, all this is to say that IMO the dems have virtue-signalled themselves into a corner and are maybe trying to give themselves the best chance they can with option b.
|
|
|
I honestly don't know what the solution is. Biden/Harris ticket will lose in 2024. Harris is truly awful. Biden isn't sufficient. I think if they somehow manage to keep senate/house in 2022, they can win in 2024. But if they lose either of them in 2022, Biden's presidency will essentially be over other than EOs.
|
One positive to democrats polling terribly is that there’s less than a 0% chance of student loans resuming in February.
|
On November 19 2021 03:20 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2021 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Been watching a couple of videos of the administration making fanfare over signing the "bipartisan" infrastructure bill that was agreed upon months ago but only just signed this week. The enthusiasm definitely feels contrived in light of what the bill managed not to be, but I can forgive the Biden folks for trying to play it as a win. Notably, the comments and ratings on YouTube are abysmally unfavorable, and it's probably the reaction to things like those on sponsored content (i.e. YT-pushed news releases) that are driving the dislike button removal.
Not just "news" releases, but when Disney (for example) pays Youtube to push trailers for their new content, they probably don't like it when it has tons of downvotes visible to viewers. something something manufactured consentShow nested quote +Most disingenuous, though, was the fact that the Biden administration decided that this would be a good time to start parading around Kamala Harris for what seems like the first time in a year of being a VP. Had the same vibe as that time that Clinton was sending out the "what if I ran?" feelers in 2020, with the same universal response of "fuck off" from the commenters at large. Edit: Should post some examples I suppose. 1 2 I think dems are in a really tough spot with Kamala. Biden is a zombie, and his choice of Kamala for VP was complete virtue signalling. Normally that isn't that big of a deal with a VP pick, but when 2024 comes around, dems will have to either a) run the very old Biden as the nominee, b) if Biden doesn't want to run or cant, they run Kamala, who people basically don't like and feel she was given the role simply because she's a woman of color (Biden outright stated during the 2020 primary that he wanted to pick a woman of color, so it was as if his priorities were first pick a woman of color, then someone qualified/good for the job, rather than the other way around). c) if they don't run Biden but choose not to run Kamala, they expose hypocrisy or racism within the dem party, depending on your point of view. This also puts dems on a path to tear themselves apart (which they're already so good at doing, they shouldn't be encouraged) trying to find a non-Kamala nominee. I don't know how large the virtue signalling bloc of the dem votership is, but I feel like it must be large enough that backtracking on Kamala as the presumptive non-Biden nominee would look really bad. Anyway, all this is to say that IMO the dems have virtue-signalled themselves into a corner and are maybe trying to give themselves the best chance they can with option b.
Let's be honest, there's no chance Biden is the nominee in 2024. No reasonable person thinks Biden can be doing this for 7 more years. The bigger concern should be whether he can even make it another 3 years before the mental decline catches up to him. The best scenario for Dems is that Biden finishes his first term and then chooses not to run again. There's nothing that says Harris should be the nominee just because she's the VP. Biden wasn't the nominee when Obama's terms ended. The bigger concern is that Biden doesn't make it to the finish line and then Harris takes over as President. Then they have to run Harris or primary the first female President which is a lose-lose situation.
|
On November 19 2021 09:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2021 03:20 Dromar wrote:On November 19 2021 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Been watching a couple of videos of the administration making fanfare over signing the "bipartisan" infrastructure bill that was agreed upon months ago but only just signed this week. The enthusiasm definitely feels contrived in light of what the bill managed not to be, but I can forgive the Biden folks for trying to play it as a win. Notably, the comments and ratings on YouTube are abysmally unfavorable, and it's probably the reaction to things like those on sponsored content (i.e. YT-pushed news releases) that are driving the dislike button removal.
Not just "news" releases, but when Disney (for example) pays Youtube to push trailers for their new content, they probably don't like it when it has tons of downvotes visible to viewers. something something manufactured consentMost disingenuous, though, was the fact that the Biden administration decided that this would be a good time to start parading around Kamala Harris for what seems like the first time in a year of being a VP. Had the same vibe as that time that Clinton was sending out the "what if I ran?" feelers in 2020, with the same universal response of "fuck off" from the commenters at large. Edit: Should post some examples I suppose. 1 2I think dems are in a really tough spot with Kamala. Biden is a zombie, and his choice of Kamala for VP was complete virtue signalling. Normally that isn't that big of a deal with a VP pick, but when 2024 comes around, dems will have to either a) run the very old Biden as the nominee, b) if Biden doesn't want to run or cant, they run Kamala, who people basically don't like and feel she was given the role simply because she's a woman of color (Biden outright stated during the 2020 primary that he wanted to pick a woman of color, so it was as if his priorities were first pick a woman of color, then someone qualified/good for the job, rather than the other way around). c) if they don't run Biden but choose not to run Kamala, they expose hypocrisy or racism within the dem party, depending on your point of view. This also puts dems on a path to tear themselves apart (which they're already so good at doing, they shouldn't be encouraged) trying to find a non-Kamala nominee. I don't know how large the virtue signalling bloc of the dem votership is, but I feel like it must be large enough that backtracking on Kamala as the presumptive non-Biden nominee would look really bad. Anyway, all this is to say that IMO the dems have virtue-signalled themselves into a corner and are maybe trying to give themselves the best chance they can with option b. Let's be honest, there's no chance Biden is the nominee in 2024. No reasonable person thinks Biden can be doing this for 7 more years. The bigger concern should be whether he can even make it another 3 years before the mental decline catches up to him. The best scenario for Dems is that Biden finishes his first term and then chooses not to run again. There's nothing that says Harris should be the nominee just because she's the VP. Biden wasn't the nominee when Obama's terms ended. The bigger concern is that Biden doesn't make it to the finish line and then Harris takes over as President. Then they have to run Harris or primary the first female President which is a lose-lose situation.
Harris getting primaried is probably actually the best case scenario. The pandering of offering her the VP spot didn't really do much. There was just a lot of racial stuff going on in the time (I think this was during the Floyd stuff right?) and Biden's hands were tied.
Ideally, in around 2023, Biden begins to show clear signs of not being suited for the job, Harris ends up pres for a year, she gets primaried so hard people forget she existed, we move on.
I think Democrats rejecting Biden and Harris gives them a good shot at 2024. Either Biden or Harris is game over for democrats.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 19 2021 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:
One positive to democrats polling terribly is that there’s less than a 0% chance of student loans resuming in February.
I've sure received a bunch of "January is the final, final, for-realsies last, extension" emails lately. Including one today. Would be a hoot if it really does move out.
|
|
|
On November 19 2021 09:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2021 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:
One positive to democrats polling terribly is that there’s less than a 0% chance of student loans resuming in February. I've sure received a bunch of "January is the final, final, for-realsies last, extension" emails lately. Including one today. Would be a hoot if it really does move out.
Yeah it’s kind of amazing to watch. I think they are still in the delusional stages. You plain and simply can’t ask people to pay hundreds of dollars a month when they haven’t been for about 2 years now. Democrats easily lose both chambers and then the presidency in 2024 if Biden asks people to start budgeting for hundreds of dollars vanishing into the void.
|
Northern Ireland23839 Posts
On November 19 2021 03:20 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2021 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Been watching a couple of videos of the administration making fanfare over signing the "bipartisan" infrastructure bill that was agreed upon months ago but only just signed this week. The enthusiasm definitely feels contrived in light of what the bill managed not to be, but I can forgive the Biden folks for trying to play it as a win. Notably, the comments and ratings on YouTube are abysmally unfavorable, and it's probably the reaction to things like those on sponsored content (i.e. YT-pushed news releases) that are driving the dislike button removal.
Not just "news" releases, but when Disney (for example) pays Youtube to push trailers for their new content, they probably don't like it when it has tons of downvotes visible to viewers. something something manufactured consentShow nested quote +Most disingenuous, though, was the fact that the Biden administration decided that this would be a good time to start parading around Kamala Harris for what seems like the first time in a year of being a VP. Had the same vibe as that time that Clinton was sending out the "what if I ran?" feelers in 2020, with the same universal response of "fuck off" from the commenters at large. Edit: Should post some examples I suppose. 1 2 I think dems are in a really tough spot with Kamala. Biden is a zombie, and his choice of Kamala for VP was complete virtue signalling. Normally that isn't that big of a deal with a VP pick, but when 2024 comes around, dems will have to either a) run the very old Biden as the nominee, b) if Biden doesn't want to run or cant, they run Kamala, who people basically don't like and feel she was given the role simply because she's a woman of color (Biden outright stated during the 2020 primary that he wanted to pick a woman of color, so it was as if his priorities were first pick a woman of color, then someone qualified/good for the job, rather than the other way around). c) if they don't run Biden but choose not to run Kamala, they expose hypocrisy or racism within the dem party, depending on your point of view. This also puts dems on a path to tear themselves apart (which they're already so good at doing, they shouldn't be encouraged) trying to find a non-Kamala nominee. I don't know how large the virtue signalling bloc of the dem votership is, but I feel like it must be large enough that backtracking on Kamala as the presumptive non-Biden nominee would look really bad. Anyway, all this is to say that IMO the dems have virtue-signalled themselves into a corner and are maybe trying to give themselves the best chance they can with option b.
Aside from your post yet reinforcing my hope that the term ‘virtue signalling’ gets retired from being endlessly overused, yes. Along with ‘narrative’ and ‘elites’
Amongst other issues, the problem with Harris is that the demographic she’s ostensibly meant to reach via ‘virtue signalling’, she doesn’t, at all because she’s a cop. To boot she’s not especially charismatic, likeable, etc etc
She doesn’t really, occupy any particular niche as VP. Hell Biden did the everyman shtick for Obama, even Dick Cheney had a public conception of being the brains behind things and being the ruthless, hardassed foil to Dubya
At this point what the fuck is Harris?
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 19 2021 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2021 09:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2021 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:
One positive to democrats polling terribly is that there’s less than a 0% chance of student loans resuming in February. I've sure received a bunch of "January is the final, final, for-realsies last, extension" emails lately. Including one today. Would be a hoot if it really does move out. Yeah it’s kind of amazing to watch. I think they are still in the delusional stages. You plain and simply can’t ask people to pay hundreds of dollars a month when they haven’t been for about 2 years now. Democrats easily lose both chambers and then the presidency in 2024 if Biden asks people to start budgeting for hundreds of dollars vanishing into the void.
I wouldn't be surprised if they went through with it out of some stubborn need to "keep their word and not set a bad precedent" then be forced to backpedal the moment it becomes clear that it's causing an economic meltdown. And $1.7T of debt suddenly becoming payable will cause a meltdown within months.
|
On November 19 2021 11:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2021 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:On November 19 2021 09:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2021 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:
One positive to democrats polling terribly is that there’s less than a 0% chance of student loans resuming in February. I've sure received a bunch of "January is the final, final, for-realsies last, extension" emails lately. Including one today. Would be a hoot if it really does move out. Yeah it’s kind of amazing to watch. I think they are still in the delusional stages. You plain and simply can’t ask people to pay hundreds of dollars a month when they haven’t been for about 2 years now. Democrats easily lose both chambers and then the presidency in 2024 if Biden asks people to start budgeting for hundreds of dollars vanishing into the void. I wouldn't be surprised if they went through with it out of some stubborn need to "keep their word and not set a bad precedent" then be forced to backpedal the moment it becomes clear that it's causing an economic meltdown. And $1.7T of debt suddenly becoming payable will cause a meltdown within months.
I'd say maybe 30% chance they just go through with it and let the train crash. But I also agree they will backpeddle. I think its entirely likely folks like AOC will encourage borrowers to refuse to pay. If ~20% of people just kinda were like "no", it would be incredibly empowering to the borrowing class. Imagine the government just being told "no" and they are like "well ok then lol...not sure what to do here".
If even 10% of people didn't pay, it would basically cause the system to implode. I'd love it if AOC yelled at the top of her lungs all over the place telling folks to just refuse to pay.
|
On November 19 2021 10:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2021 03:20 Dromar wrote:On November 19 2021 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Been watching a couple of videos of the administration making fanfare over signing the "bipartisan" infrastructure bill that was agreed upon months ago but only just signed this week. The enthusiasm definitely feels contrived in light of what the bill managed not to be, but I can forgive the Biden folks for trying to play it as a win. Notably, the comments and ratings on YouTube are abysmally unfavorable, and it's probably the reaction to things like those on sponsored content (i.e. YT-pushed news releases) that are driving the dislike button removal.
Not just "news" releases, but when Disney (for example) pays Youtube to push trailers for their new content, they probably don't like it when it has tons of downvotes visible to viewers. something something manufactured consentMost disingenuous, though, was the fact that the Biden administration decided that this would be a good time to start parading around Kamala Harris for what seems like the first time in a year of being a VP. Had the same vibe as that time that Clinton was sending out the "what if I ran?" feelers in 2020, with the same universal response of "fuck off" from the commenters at large. Edit: Should post some examples I suppose. 1 2I think dems are in a really tough spot with Kamala. Biden is a zombie, and his choice of Kamala for VP was complete virtue signalling. Normally that isn't that big of a deal with a VP pick, but when 2024 comes around, dems will have to either a) run the very old Biden as the nominee, b) if Biden doesn't want to run or cant, they run Kamala, who people basically don't like and feel she was given the role simply because she's a woman of color (Biden outright stated during the 2020 primary that he wanted to pick a woman of color, so it was as if his priorities were first pick a woman of color, then someone qualified/good for the job, rather than the other way around). c) if they don't run Biden but choose not to run Kamala, they expose hypocrisy or racism within the dem party, depending on your point of view. This also puts dems on a path to tear themselves apart (which they're already so good at doing, they shouldn't be encouraged) trying to find a non-Kamala nominee. I don't know how large the virtue signalling bloc of the dem votership is, but I feel like it must be large enough that backtracking on Kamala as the presumptive non-Biden nominee would look really bad. Anyway, all this is to say that IMO the dems have virtue-signalled themselves into a corner and are maybe trying to give themselves the best chance they can with option b. Aside from your post yet reinforcing my hope that the term ‘virtue signalling’ gets retired from being endlessly overused, yes. Along with ‘narrative’ and ‘elites’ Amongst other issues, the problem with Harris is that the demographic she’s ostensibly meant to reach via ‘virtue signalling’, she doesn’t, at all because she’s a cop. To boot she’s not especially charismatic, likeable, etc etc She doesn’t really, occupy any particular niche as VP. Hell Biden did the everyman shtick for Obama, even Dick Cheney had a public conception of being the brains behind things and being the ruthless, hardassed foil to Dubya At this point what the fuck is Harris?
Harris is the worst debater the Democrats had on stage last year, surpassed by maybe only Bloomberg. She's uncharismatic and doesn't know how to connect with her own demographic, much less a broad spectrum of people. If Biden has to step down and Harris ends up being the Democratic nominee going into the 2024 general election, the Democrats will lose and I think every Democrat knows it. She just sucks. I would take Pete Buttigieg doing his worst Obama impersonation every time he talks over Kamala Harris any day of the week, and I can't stand Pete Buttigieg.
|
Yeah I'll take dumpster Pete over Harris. Honestly I'd love to just roll the dice on AOC. She'll be barely 35.
Let's assume for a moment we get to choose someone other than Harris/Biden, who do you guys choose to run as the D candidate?
|
On November 19 2021 14:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah I'll take dumpster Pete over Harris. Honestly I'd love to just roll the dice on AOC. She'll be barely 35.
Let's assume for a moment we get to choose someone other than Harris/Biden, who do you guys choose to run as the D candidate?
I'm not a Dem, but I'd prefer people who satisfy the following reqs:
Under 60
Governor>Other
Longstanding marriage with children
Top Contenders would be:
John Bell Edwards (LA)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM)
Andy Beshear (KY)
Tim Walz (MI)
Others that would have been admissible but I reject out of hand:
JB Pritzker/Gretchen Whitmer: Mishandling of Covid and other crises of which I have personal knowledge.
Newsom (Divorce)
Polis (Did not get married with 1-2 years of it being legal, while also adopting children, if they had right after Obergfell I'd waive my long-standing marriage preference)
|
On November 19 2021 14:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah I'll take dumpster Pete over Harris. Honestly I'd love to just roll the dice on AOC. She'll be barely 35.
Let's assume for a moment we get to choose someone other than Harris/Biden, who do you guys choose to run as the D candidate?
I would like to give AOC a chance as well, but I fear she would almost certainly be assassinated. I liked Warren in the primaries but we could use some youth really after back to back geriatric.
|
I'm not a Democrat and don't have much affinity for AOC, but hard to think of someone better from the party to run. I think Sanders-AOC is the best possible ticket Democrats can probably muster but Sanders is old (even if more acute and healthy than Trump by far).
Unfortunately Democrats smothered anyone left of "third way Democrats" for decades so there isn't much in between Sanders and AOC agewise in the party. It'd be nice if Clinton and Biden were the end of that but it seems pretty clear that the "New Democrats" would rather drag the party down into irrelevance than disappoint their corporate sponsors.
|
On November 19 2021 14:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah I'll take dumpster Pete over Harris. Honestly I'd love to just roll the dice on AOC. She'll be barely 35.
Let's assume for a moment we get to choose someone other than Harris/Biden, who do you guys choose to run as the D candidate?
I think Pete might have a reasonably good chance:
-Pretty moderate, appealing to the popular Dem base;
-Good orator;
-Veteran;
-Younger and represents a fresher generation;
-Much more common household name than he was during the last primary (where he still did okay);
-Dems will vote for him regardless of his sexual orientation (who cares about anti-gay conservatives who weren't going to vote for Dems anyway)
I can't think of many other realistic options, but I could see Pete winning the primary against a bunch of Dems who are either too old or too out-there, and I could see him doing decently well during the general election too, which will always be a coin flip anyway. And if Trump or another nutjob wins the Republican primary, I think that Buttigieg's demeanor and level-headedness will come off pretty well.
He's not progressive enough for my personal tastes, but I think he's a pretty all-around good fit for the general Democratic party. His runningmate can fill any gaps too.
Step 1: He calls his supporters "The Pete Fleet".
Step 2: He puts literally any speech he's ever made over Aaron Sorkin music.
Step 3: He becomes president.
It's as simple as that.
|
On November 19 2021 10:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2021 03:20 Dromar wrote:On November 19 2021 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Been watching a couple of videos of the administration making fanfare over signing the "bipartisan" infrastructure bill that was agreed upon months ago but only just signed this week. The enthusiasm definitely feels contrived in light of what the bill managed not to be, but I can forgive the Biden folks for trying to play it as a win. Notably, the comments and ratings on YouTube are abysmally unfavorable, and it's probably the reaction to things like those on sponsored content (i.e. YT-pushed news releases) that are driving the dislike button removal.
Not just "news" releases, but when Disney (for example) pays Youtube to push trailers for their new content, they probably don't like it when it has tons of downvotes visible to viewers. something something manufactured consentMost disingenuous, though, was the fact that the Biden administration decided that this would be a good time to start parading around Kamala Harris for what seems like the first time in a year of being a VP. Had the same vibe as that time that Clinton was sending out the "what if I ran?" feelers in 2020, with the same universal response of "fuck off" from the commenters at large. Edit: Should post some examples I suppose. 1 2I think dems are in a really tough spot with Kamala. Biden is a zombie, and his choice of Kamala for VP was complete virtue signalling. Normally that isn't that big of a deal with a VP pick, but when 2024 comes around, dems will have to either a) run the very old Biden as the nominee, b) if Biden doesn't want to run or cant, they run Kamala, who people basically don't like and feel she was given the role simply because she's a woman of color (Biden outright stated during the 2020 primary that he wanted to pick a woman of color, so it was as if his priorities were first pick a woman of color, then someone qualified/good for the job, rather than the other way around). c) if they don't run Biden but choose not to run Kamala, they expose hypocrisy or racism within the dem party, depending on your point of view. This also puts dems on a path to tear themselves apart (which they're already so good at doing, they shouldn't be encouraged) trying to find a non-Kamala nominee. I don't know how large the virtue signalling bloc of the dem votership is, but I feel like it must be large enough that backtracking on Kamala as the presumptive non-Biden nominee would look really bad. Anyway, all this is to say that IMO the dems have virtue-signalled themselves into a corner and are maybe trying to give themselves the best chance they can with option b. Aside from your post yet reinforcing my hope that the term ‘virtue signalling’ gets retired from being endlessly overused, yes. Along with ‘narrative’ and ‘elites’ Amongst other issues, the problem with Harris is that the demographic she’s ostensibly meant to reach via ‘virtue signalling’, she doesn’t, at all because she’s a cop. To boot she’s not especially charismatic, likeable, etc etc
I hate it too. I even hated it when I wrote the post, and rephrased it so I only used it 3 times instead of 4. But it accurately describes the pretense, so that's what I was stuck with.
She doesn’t really, occupy any particular niche as VP. Hell Biden did the everyman shtick for Obama, even Dick Cheney had a public conception of being the brains behind things and being the ruthless, hardassed foil to Dubya
At this point what the fuck is Harris?
This is a good point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
