Master Index of Archived Threads


Veepstakes 2020

Stacey Abrams

2 votes

Keisha Lance Bottoms

1 votes

Val Demings

1 votes

Tammy Duckworth

3 votes

Kamala Harris

6 votes

Susan Rice

2 votes

Elizabeth Warren

3 votes

Gretchen Whitmer

0 votes

Other (specify)

1 votes

Benjamin Grimm Jun 27 2020 03:17 PM

Who would be the smartest pick for Joe Biden?

TransMonk Jun 27 2020 06:48 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Harris.

Fman99 Jun 27 2020 08:27 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

I like Duckworth for a myriad of reasons.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 27 2020 09:10 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

She's worth her weight in ducks. I voted Harris, though I think Rice is impressive and Bottoms is interesting. I don't want it to be Warren because having her give up her Senate seat could result in the GOP retaining control.

MFS62 Jun 28 2020 05:29 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

The first instinct is Harris. She has won an election. But she seems to piss some people off, including those of her own color - the people Biden would like her to attract to the voting booth. Duckworth would be a great candidate, and would get my vote for President, but would be a sitting duck (well, maybe pun intended) for Trump's divisive propaganda machine, especially about having been born outside the US. The Obama smears still ring in the ears. I voted Rice, who has ties to an Obama Presidency and foreign policy experience., but I don't think she ever campaigned or won an election. I hope this would turn out ok but my confidence wanes as I type this. Later

Johnny Lunchbucket Jun 28 2020 06:52 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Haven't really seen much of Bottoms "in action" but intriguing as she is in the right ballpark for the moment and perhaps able to win Georgia which would be big. Downside, no fed experience. Demings is also interesting, more experience, and fwiw a cop and a wife of a cop, from Florida. I have no idea what she has said on in recent weeks but there's probably an opportunity to get out a message. I like Harris but she comes off a little too icy and manufactured. That said, most experience, most vetted, California. I confess: I don't know enough to assess the relative weights of a VP who can get the Trump base to stfu vs. one that wins the most votes, in the most important places. USA sadly already knows that *anyone* can be president.

Lefty Specialist Jun 28 2020 08:46 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

I would be happy with Harris, Rice or Duckworth. Duckworth is a marvelous attack dog and has a distinguished military service record. Rice is incredibly smart and experienced in foreign policy, but she's probably on the short list for secretary of State. But I think it'll probaby be Kamala. She just seems to check the most boxes, and could do the job on Day One.

Lefty Specialist Jun 28 2020 08:48 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

.....and I don't want to see a bumper sticker that reads, 'Biden Bottoms'.

kcmets Jun 28 2020 08:52 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

I think Sleepy Joe will choose Harris. While I'd like to slip into a broom closet with her for a fantasy quickie I think deep down she's probably an ass. Abrams is the way to go, she's a better choice than Biden. Stacey has got it going on, not sure about her mom.

Lefty Specialist Jun 28 2020 11:45 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

".....Stacey can't you see, you're just not the one for me......" Not enough experience and apparently Biden's team hasn't vetted her yet, unlike most of the others.

Edgy MD Jun 28 2020 01:20 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Senator Duckworth's ability to underscore everything the president isn't (brave, honorable, humble) isn't something I see as making her easy to attack, but something that makes her hard to attack. I think she's also the first woman to give birth as a sitting senator. That said, she's still in her first term. So was President Obama, of course, but she'd have a lot to prove. I agree that Senator Harris checks the most boxes but also comes across as too studied.

Ceetar Jun 28 2020 03:06 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Harris would be a horrible choice, and telegraphs to a whole lot of people that police aren't getting reformed.

nymr83 Jun 28 2020 06:45 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Edgy MD wrote: Senator Duckworth's ability to underscore everything the president isn't (brave, honorable, humble) isn't something I see as making her easy to attack, but something that makes her hard to attack. I think she's also the first woman to give birth as a sitting senator. That said, she's still in her first term. So was President Obama, of course, but she'd have a lot to prove. I agree that Senator Harris checks the most boxes but also comes across as too studied. The most brilliant thing Obama's campaign managed to do was make the conversation about Sarah Palin's inexperience and lack of qualifications, successfully taking attention away from the fact that McCain was insanely 'more qualified' than Obama himself. Of course, given Trump's route to the presidency this isn't really a card he is going to be able to play against ANYONE. Is Duckworth eligible for the presidency though, her wiki page makes it sound like she was born in Thailand to an American father? is that something Democrats would even remotely be willing to have a court decide if Biden couldn't finish his first term and a Republican Speaker was next in line after the 2022 election?

Johnny Lunchbucket Jun 28 2020 07:17 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 28 2020 10:10 PM

Even if Palin had lots of experience she was still outrageously underqualified, she was and still is a proudly ignorant fucking idiot who foretold and helped to pave the way for other dangerously underqualified R nominees. Pointing that out is no sleight of hand, it was important. Obama lacked experience but he wasn't an idiot. Big difference

kcmets Jun 28 2020 07:51 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: ".....Stacey can't you see, you're just not the one for me......" Not enough experience and apparently Biden's team hasn't vetted her yet, unlike most of the others. Many here are more tuned into the this stuff than me. I've seen several interviews with her and she's the cat's meow, pajamas and then some. Maybe in 2024. [YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKVf6ey64DI[/YOUTUBE]

LWFS Jun 28 2020 09:36 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

GOD, would Abrams have made a better Georgian governor throughout the last half-year than the aw-shucksin' MFer we've got in there now. But, yeah, in the national eye, Not Enough Experience. It's nettlesome that so many want to poach Senators for this gig. People with elected executive or even community-organizing experience-- building a team around a vision and executing-- are much more prepared to help in a WH-adjacent position. I'll be honest-- as a Warren believer and supporter... the way that the Warren campaign ultimately ran its course kinda worries me. She surrounded herself with people who did her disservice after disservice.

Edgy MD Jun 29 2020 06:53 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

=nymr83 post_id=39456 time=1593391523 user_id=54]The most brilliant thing Obama's campaign managed to do was make the conversation about Sarah Palin's inexperience and lack of qualifications, successfully taking attention away from the fact that McCain was insanely 'more qualified' than Obama himself.

I feel confident writing that Governor Palin sank herself.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 29 2020 06:55 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Yeah, McCain really shot himself in the foot on that one.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 29 2020 06:57 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Those who voted for Warren in this poll... are you not at all concerned that having her elected Vice President will flip a Senate seat to the Republicans, since it's a Republican governor (Charlie Baker) who would appoint her replacement?

Ceetar Jun 29 2020 07:01 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Is Duckworth eligible for the presidency though, her wiki page makes it sound like she was born in Thailand to an American father? is that something Democrats would even remotely be willing to have a court decide if Biden couldn't finish his first term and a Republican Speaker was next in line after the 2022 election? there were minor party VP candidates that didn't fit the bill in the past, and maybe just no ones cares and puts them on the ballot as a joke, but I thought the VP rule was you had to be able/eligible to do the whole president thing too, and being foreign-born (Something we need to ditch,at the very least from an emergency promotion type deal) or underage and not qualified to be president feels like you should've be allowed to be the VP either. Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those who voted for Warren in this poll... are you not at all concerned that having her elected Vice President will flip a Senate seat to the Republicans, since it's a Republican governor (Charlie Baker) who would appoint her replacement? I don't think of things as a democrat/republican fight because I'm neither, so I picked the person I'd most (only?) want to actually see have power*.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 29 2020 07:05 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

The Constitution says that to be eligible to be Vice President you have to be eligible to be President. So you have to be 35 or older and a natural-born citizen. Being born on foreign soil doesn't stop you from being a natural-born citizen. Even if he had been born in Kenya, Barack Obama would still have been eligible to be President, as would George Romney (Mexico) and Ted Cruz (Canada). I'm not a Republican or a Democrat either, but I don't want to see the Senate continue to be in Republican hands. (I'm an anti-Republican, if I'm anything.) So I don't want Biden to choose Warren.

Ceetar Jun 29 2020 07:12 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

will picking Biden to begin with pretty means the chances we make any significant progress is pretty slim, so whatever with Congress.

Lefty Specialist Jun 29 2020 07:29 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The Constitution says that to be eligible to be Vice President you have to be eligible to be President. So you have to be 35 or older and a natural-born citizen. Being born on foreign soil doesn't stop you from being a natural-born citizen. Even if he had been born in Kenya, Barack Obama would still have been eligible to be President, as would George Romney (Mexico) and Ted Cruz (Canada). I'm not a Republican or a Democrat either, but I don't want to see the Senate continue to be in Republican hands. (I'm an anti-Republican, if I'm anything.) So I don't want Biden to choose Warren. Massachusetts Democrats have a veto-proof majority, so they can change the rules any way they want to minimize the time a Republican would hold that seat. But Warren isn't my choice, even though I supported her in the primaries. She's not that much younger than Joe, and Republican voters are a sleeping dog that would get woken up big time by Warren. That's a fight I was willing to have if she was #1, but not if she's #2. Duckworth would qualify as her father was American.

Ceetar Jun 29 2020 07:35 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Also while we're ditching the natural-born citizen thing, lower the age too. even just 5 years, if not eliminate it entirely. If a 25 year old can convincingly reason and argue and campaign, why shouldn't she?

batmagadanleadoff Jun 29 2020 09:06 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those who voted for Warren in this poll... are you not at all concerned that having her elected Vice President will flip a Senate seat to the Republicans, since it's a Republican governor (Charlie Baker) who would appoint her replacement? I love Warren but would not vote for her here for the very same reasons you cite. It's not worth the risk of losing a Senate seat to the GOP. And though Massachusetts is very liberal, its Governor is a Republican as is Scott Brown, the former US Senator whom Warren ousted to first win her own Senate seat. So it's been demonstrated that Republicans can win major statewide elections in that state. (And doesn't all this beg the question of just how liberal Massachusetts really is?)

nymr83 Jun 29 2020 09:49 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those who voted for Warren in this poll... are you not at all concerned that having her elected Vice President will flip a Senate seat to the Republicans, since it's a Republican governor (Charlie Baker) who would appoint her replacement? I love Warren but would not vote for her here for the very same reasons you cite. It's not worth the risk of losing a Senate seat to the GOP. And though Massachusetts is very liberal, its Governor is a Republican as is Scott Brown, the former US Senator whom Warren ousted to first win her own Senate seat. So it's been demonstrated that Republicans can win major statewide elections in that state. (And doesn't all this beg the question of just how liberal Massachusetts really is?) well, it might just be the one state where the old "NorthEast Republicans" are still alive? There aren't a lot of Mitt Romneys (as governor) and George Patakis anymore as BOTH parties have moved further away from the center since the 90's

Edgy MD Jun 29 2020 10:24 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

=Ceetar post_id=39485 time=1593437734 user_id=102] Also while we're ditching the natural-born citizen thing, lower the age too. even just 5 years, if not eliminate it entirely. If a 25 year old can convincingly reason and argue and campaign, why shouldn't she?

We're ditching the natural-born citizen thing?

Ceetar Jun 29 2020 10:24 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

please?

Edgy MD Jun 29 2020 11:18 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

I'm not going to be able to change the Constitution for you, but I'm all for calling a convention, and having the delegates meet somewhere isolated in Alaska.

Frayed Knot Jun 29 2020 01:16 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 29 2020 07:44 PM

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=39492 time=1593443184 user_id=68](And doesn't all this beg the question of just how liberal Massachusetts really is?)

Without looking up the exact figures, they've had something like two or three Republican Reps and Senators since the '70s ... so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the question of the state's liberalness

is pretty much established.





on edit: Since 1975, 34 of the last 36 House Reps from Mass have been Democrats. There were two Repubs in the '90s, both of whom served two terms.

iow, there have been as many Republican Reps from Mass in that time as there have been Reps named Joseph P. Kennedy

On the Senate side, since Ed Brooke was defeated in his try for a third term in 1978, the only Republican Senator was the half term served by Scott Brown

So the ratio of D/R in Senators is 7/1. In years served it's 81 to 3

Overall the scorecard reads three Republicans vs three Kennedys plus 38 other Democrats.

nymr83 Jun 29 2020 02:58 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Where does that rank though? They have had multiple Republican governors.

Frayed Knot Jun 29 2020 03:25 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Not sure exactly how you'd go about 'ranking' them. Cuba has probably had fewer Republicans but I can't think of too many others who can top an 81-3 ratio I didn't do the same for Reps because the math becomes more time consuming since Mass has lost House seats in each of the last few censuses so the number of seats varies. But still, with Republicans having just eight 'seat-years' [two guys, two two-year terms each] since before Joe Torre was the NYM manager, the ratio is bound to be similar. And, yeah, Governor chairs seem to be less one-party dominant even in those states where the Congressional Reps are. The D/R ratio in the Mass state house over roughly the same time period is 24 years to 21

Edgy MD Jun 29 2020 07:30 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

=nymr83 post_id=39549 time=1593464325 user_id=54] Where does that rank though? They have had multiple Republican governors.

Republican governors who've governed from the middle.

nymr83 Jun 29 2020 09:06 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: Not sure exactly how you'd go about 'ranking' them. Cuba has probably had fewer Republicans but I can't think of too many others who can top an 81-3 ratio I didn't do the same for Reps because the math becomes more time consuming since Mass has lost House seats in each of the last few censuses so the number of seats varies. But still, with Republicans having just eight 'seat-years' [two guys, two two-year terms each] since before Joe Torre was the NYM manager, the ratio is bound to be similar. And, yeah, Governor chairs seem to be less one-party dominant even in those states where the Congressional Reps are. The D/R ratio in the Mass state house over roughly the same time period is 24 years to 21 yeah I wasn't looking at Reps because I was talking about statewide offices. For what it is worth, the Cook Political Report calls it the 5th most liberal state. The second and fourth most liberal states ALSO have Republican governors and the 3rd most liberal state had AHRNOLD recently. Which I guess just proves the governorship generally has NOT become as 'nationalized' as I'd have thought

batmagadanleadoff Jun 30 2020 02:31 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=39492 time=1593443184 user_id=68](And doesn't all this beg the question of just how liberal Massachusetts really is?) Without looking up the exact figures, they've had something like two or three Republican Reps and Senators since the '70s ... so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the question of the state's liberalness is pretty much established. on edit: Since 1975, 34 of the last 36 House Reps from Mass have been Democrats. There were two Repubs in the '90s, both of whom served two terms. iow, there have been as many Republican Reps from Mass in that time as there have been Reps named Joseph P. Kennedy On the Senate side, since Ed Brooke was defeated in his try for a third term in 1978, the only Republican Senator was the half term served by Scott Brown So the ratio of D/R in Senators is 7/1. In years served it's 81 to 3 Overall the scorecard reads three Republicans vs three Kennedys plus 38 other Democrats.

Five out of the last six Massachusetts Governors were Republicans.

LWFS Jun 30 2020 04:08 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=39492 time=1593443184 user_id=68](And doesn't all this beg the question of just how liberal Massachusetts really is?) Without looking up the exact figures, they've had something like two or three Republican Reps and Senators since the '70s ... so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the question of the state's liberalness is pretty much established. on edit: Since 1975, 34 of the last 36 House Reps from Mass have been Democrats. There were two Repubs in the '90s, both of whom served two terms. iow, there have been as many Republican Reps from Mass in that time as there have been Reps named Joseph P. Kennedy On the Senate side, since Ed Brooke was defeated in his try for a third term in 1978, the only Republican Senator was the half term served by Scott Brown So the ratio of D/R in Senators is 7/1. In years served it's 81 to 3 Overall the scorecard reads three Republicans vs three Kennedys plus 38 other Democrats. Five out of the last six Massachusetts Governors were Republicans.

Yabbut, like, Romney/Pataki Rs. Do those exist anymore?

Benjamin Grimm Jun 30 2020 04:37 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

There's a Senator in Utah who reminds me a lot of Mitt Romney.

Lefty Specialist Jun 30 2020 04:37 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Larry Hogan, governor of Maryland. But they're a rare species. Charlie Baker may harbor dreams of being a 'centrist' alternative to a far right-winger in the 2024 Republican field. Stranger things have happened, and there may be a lot of people who are just exhausted by the Trump years and don't want another taste of them in the form of Don Jr or Tom Cotton. So he might pick someone rational, or maybe even a conservative Democrat. But I don't think Joe will pick Warren in any case.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 30 2020 04:58 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=39492 time=1593443184 user_id=68](And doesn't all this beg the question of just how liberal Massachusetts really is?) Without looking up the exact figures, they've had something like two or three Republican Reps and Senators since the '70s ... so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the question of the state's liberalness is pretty much established. on edit: Since 1975, 34 of the last 36 House Reps from Mass have been Democrats. There were two Repubs in the '90s, both of whom served two terms. iow, there have been as many Republican Reps from Mass in that time as there have been Reps named Joseph P. Kennedy On the Senate side, since Ed Brooke was defeated in his try for a third term in 1978, the only Republican Senator was the half term served by Scott Brown So the ratio of D/R in Senators is 7/1. In years served it's 81 to 3 Overall the scorecard reads three Republicans vs three Kennedys plus 38 other Democrats. Five out of the last six Massachusetts Governors were Republicans. Yabbut, like, Romney/Pataki Rs. Do those exist anymore?

I wasn't really trying to knock Massachusetts' liberal bona fides, but those five out of six Governors were still Republicans. Moderate, centrist, whatever. They won. And they weren't as liberal as their Democratic opponents.

TransMonk Jul 22 2020 04:31 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Bump.

kcmets Jul 22 2020 04:38 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

This may not be the most popular post here but to me today's news that it's been narrowed down to four African-American women seems a little vacant or something to me. Just pick someone already, Sleepy Joe, tick tock tick tock...

Ceetar Jul 22 2020 04:42 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

no rush. nothing matters. this country is bad.

kcmets Jul 22 2020 05:06 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Of course it matters, pick someone and let him/her start campaigning. The black women dig me crap is stupid. Black women dig me too. bbbyyy

Ceetar Jul 22 2020 05:21 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

i have no idea what you're talking about. Biden isn't really campaigning anyway right? It's about antifa and attempting to keep our country from dissolving, and thanks to our system, he's the only option.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 22 2020 05:28 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

=kcmets post_id=41205 time=1595457527 user_id=53] This may not be the most popular post here but to me today's news that it's been narrowed down to four African-American women seems a little vacant or something to me. Just pick someone already, Sleepy Joe, tick tock tick tock...

I think he said that there are four black women still being considered, but not necessarily that they're the Final Four. There still may be other contenders with lighter skin.

whippoorwill Jul 22 2020 06:09 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

He needs a real candidate not a token or we're toast

whippoorwill Jul 22 2020 06:11 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Our editorial page has ‘BidenForPlaceholder2020'

Ceetar Jul 22 2020 06:15 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

he is a token. He represents "well, that guy is legitimately fascist, so you got me or you'll never have another election in this country" and as such, his VP doesn't matter. It'd be nice if it wasn't a pro-cop person like Kamala, for real change, but who's hopeful of that?

kcmets Jul 22 2020 06:47 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think he said that there are four black women still being considered, but not necessarily that they're the Final Four. I saw today it was the final four, but news certainly varies station to station and platform to platform. I just feel it would be best to make an early decision, stop sitting on his hands, and start saying whatever they have to say. Snoozin' because some polls seem in his favor is a bad strategy imho.

kcmets Jul 22 2020 06:52 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

=Ceetar post_id=41212 time=1595460077 user_id=102]i have no idea what you're talking about

Of course, you don't. You disagree with virtually everything. Rinse, repeat.

Edgy MD Jul 22 2020 07:01 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

=Ceetar post_id=41206 time=1595457737 user_id=102]no rush. nothing matters. this country is bad.

My life and, by extension, everybody else's is meaningless!

Chad ochoseis Jul 22 2020 08:44 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Duckworth's my preference. I never used to value military experience, but that's changed. At the very least, it says that you've served. You've given more to your country than you've gotten out of it, even if you didn't actually lose your legs in the process as Duckworth did. And Duckworth is smart, personable, and quick on her (figurative) feet. She's a US citizen by birth, so the fact that she wasn't born here isn't an issue. I think even a non natural-born citizen can theoretically be VP, though she'd be out of the line of succession - if the president couldn't serve for whatever reason, the Speaker of the House would become president. This would, of course, defeat the purpose of having a VP. I strongly suspect that Biden's intention is to step aside on January 21, 2023 after spending two years training his VP to take over. A VP who becomes president by succession and serves less than two years of the president's term is then eligible to serve two additional terms.

nymr83 Jul 22 2020 09:29 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Chad ochoseis wrote: I strongly suspect that Biden's intention is to step aside on January 21, 2023 after spending two years training his VP to take over. A VP who becomes president by succession and serves less than two years of the president's term is then eligible to serve two additional terms. that is an interesting hypothesis. Why would he go through all the trouble of winning the primary just to step aside? Only two reasons I can think of: #1 He didn't really want to serve at this point but party leadership felt he had the best chance to beat Trump which was the most important thing and he was 'drafted' to do so or #2, same thing but replace 'Trump' with 'Bernie'.

Chad ochoseis Jul 22 2020 09:40 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

#1 is pretty much what I think.

Lefty Specialist Jul 23 2020 05:14 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Biden wanted to run in '16 but his son Beau died and he just couldn't pull himself together for what would have been (and is) a marathon undertaking. Once he said no the way was clear for Hillary. The desire was always there. He knew that he could run as the third term of Obama much as George HW ran as Reagan's third term. Party leadership was probably less important. Biden's a known quantity to voters across the country; it's what's helping him now, and it's what helped him once the primaries got out of the micromanaged caucuses and small white states that helped Bernie. People want an end to the constant turmoil. In '16 a lot of people wanted to shake things up. Now they just want them to calm down. In 1920 Warren Harding ran on a campaign slogan of a 'Return to Normalcy'. 100 years later, Biden's running on the same thing.

ashie62 Jul 23 2020 05:29 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Keep it safe!!! I know Stacy Abrams is brilliant, but please pick Kamala Harris

Lefty Specialist Jul 23 2020 06:12 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

It's also important that the VP not outshine the presidential candidate. Mike Pence couldn't outshine a 15-watt bulb. Kamala will stay in her lane in a way that Abrams might not. Moot point, really. Abrams is not being considered.

Ceetar Jul 23 2020 06:54 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Edgy MD wrote: =Ceetar post_id=41206 time=1595457737 user_id=102]no rush. nothing matters. this country is bad. My life and, by extension, everybody else's is meaningless!

I mean, correct, but not my point.



This country, even without 45, is a capitalist nightmare. It's bad. it's a rich people play thing with a heavy dose of fan fiction about what this country is and how it was founded.



Biden's VP is barely going to move the needle. It's absurd to think we even have any confidence in the difference of one VP pick over another, hell Biden was a bad choice but again, we live in a garbage country and actual legitimate change or a candidate that is actually 'liberal' or 'progressive' is lucky to even get attention.



If Kamala wants to apologize and take responsibility for her role in the Black Lives Matter anger, fine, but it doesn't seem like that's where she's going. But she dunks on trump nice, which isn't really a qualification for public service.



It's hard to believe there's anyone out there that needs to hear what Biden/whoever needs to say. (and obviously saying nothing and taking your time to name a VP gives the media cycle less time to really dig in and bash them) None of it matters, just get to election day and see if the Putin's party has cheated enough to deal this country the death blow, or if we'll flounder for another four years before facing the next blow.

Edgy MD Jul 23 2020 07:23 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Edgy MD wrote: =Ceetar post_id=41206 time=1595457737 user_id=102]no rush. nothing matters. this country is bad. My life and, by extension, everybody else's is meaningless! I mean, correct, but not my point.

You lose me here.

Lefty Specialist Jul 24 2020 10:00 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

The VP pick is a lot more important this time because whoever he picks will be the de facto candidate for 2024. And Biden being 77-78 and a pandemic running around the country raises the stakes by more than a little bit.

Ceetar Jul 24 2020 10:15 AM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: The VP pick is a lot more important this time because whoever he picks will be the de facto candidate for 2024. And Biden being 77-78 and a pandemic running around the country raises the stakes by more than a little bit. shouldn't be. And there's not real evidence that that is true, not like Biden has said it. And if it IS true, it's just more of the problematic establishment picking the candidate and ignoring the very real desires of the younger and actually liberal demographics.

Edgy MD Aug 11 2020 02:27 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Senator Kamala Harris it is. Probably the most tenable of the finalists.

Johnny Lunchbucket Aug 11 2020 02:33 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Most sensible and safest choice but some of the Bermiemagas on my timeline won;t be happy

Benjamin Grimm Aug 11 2020 02:35 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Here we go!

nymr83 Aug 11 2020 02:44 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

Since Biden wants to win the election - which means winning more votes in PA, FL, etc and not NYC - this was the smart choice.

MFS62 Aug 11 2020 02:54 PM Re: Veepstakes 2020

From my friend, a Mets fan in Germany: Well, it was the most obvious choice. Hope it works for the sake of a safer and better world Later