Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
I don't get this Michelle Obama obsession.

She's not stupid. She can see the situation as well as you can. It's pretty obvious that she's looked at the situation and decided to nope out.

I can't imagine any way to draft her against her obvious desire to avoid the job, that wouldn't be extremely uncomfortable for her and for the people doing the drafting.

How would the drafting even work? Browbeat her into embracing a "for the good of the nation!" argument she clearly doesn't agree with? Threaten her children if she doesn't take the job? Ridiculous amounts of bribery? Kidnap her and start cutting off toes until she agrees to announce her candidacy, and all the rest of it?
Click to expand...

Party leaders should open up communications with her pronto. I wouldn't be surprised if some people haven't already broached the subject to her. Though your last suggestion sure would put some spice into the election.
 
shemp said:
Well, with Trump's record with women, it's not going to be so easy for them to go after him on this. However, unlike the Republiscum who will vote for the man who claims he will give them everything they want regardless of his conduct, some Democrats do care about these kinds of allegations.

Frankly, unless the Dems can slam-dunk this one right into the toilet, I'd feel more comfortable if they'd draft Michelle Obama.
Click to expand...

Michelle Obama has never held elected office. She seems like a swell lady, but it's absurd to consider her a presidential candidate just because she's the wife of a popular politician. Even HRC made her bones as a Senator before gunning for the big chair, and she was way more involved in Bill's cabinet than Michelle was in Obama's.

I don't see how the party can even claim any legitimacy if they go with a candidate that didn't even bother to run in the primary. The Bernie bros have a pretty compelling case that the 2nd place candidate should get the nod over someone plucked from nowhere by party elites.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
So what does socialism mean to you?
Click to expand...
An economic system where the means of production is socially owned.
theprestige said:
Because to me, "capitalism with some percentage of profit skimmed off the top to pay for a social safety net" just sounds like capitalism to me.
Click to expand...
It is capitalist, however Right wing “news” outlets typically call this socialism, even though it isn’t.
Considering it a dipole is wrong because it implies you are jumping to conclusions without ever looking at the actual market under consideration. A much better model is to consider every product and/or market individually.

theprestige said:
I'm a big fan of the second dipole.
Click to expand...
I’m a big fan of doing whatever results in the highest overall level economic efficacy. This with the caveat that fairness as well as long term thinking/planning often need to be considered as well.
theprestige said:
If Bernie is a big fan of the first dipole, and wants to start by assuming the government should control everything, then he's... Well, "socialist" seems to be too confusing a term these days. How about a totalitarian statist?
Click to expand...

That hasn’t been demonstrated. Compared to the number of things a truly socialist country would put under social control, his list is actually rather modest quite small. His model is better described as Capitalist with a few socialist elements.
theprestige said:
I guess that would make me an anarcho-libertarian, at least in principle. In practice, of course, neither Bernie nor I are such extremists.
Click to expand...
Anarcho-libertarians are at least as far from mainstream economics full on Socialists. This would place you farther away from mainstream economics than someone like Sanders, who wants capitalism to integrate some additional socialist elements.
 
shemp said:
Party leaders should open up communications with her pronto. I wouldn't be surprised if some people haven't already broached the subject to her. Though your last suggestion sure would put some spice into the election.
Click to expand...
Little kills my enthusiasm for voting more than having the relative of a former (or current) politician on the ballot.
I can't get myself past those stupid "social studies" classes in grammar school and their nonsense about "the people". I can think of little that is more antithetical to that then asserting that out of 350,000,000 Americans the best choice would ever be the relative of someone who has already had the priveledge of serving.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Michelle Obama has never held elected office. She seems like a swell lady, but it's absurd to consider her a presidential candidate just because she's the wife of a popular politician. Even HRC made her bones as a Senator before gunning for the big chair, and she was way more involved in Bill's cabinet than Michelle was in Obama's.

I don't see how the party can even claim any legitimacy if they go with a candidate that didn't even bother to run in the primary. The Bernie bros have a pretty compelling case that the 2nd place candidate should get the nod over someone plucked from nowhere by party elites.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Could you please remind us of the qualifications of the present officeholder prior to his election?

Trump proved that all you need is to be popular. Hell, Brad Pitt could beat him right now!
 
Last edited:
The Michelle Obama you're describing is too ignorant, or too stupid, for the job.

shemp said:
Party leaders should open up communications with her pronto.
Click to expand...
And say what? "Please be our nominee"? Do you think this course of action hasn't already occurred to her? If she's that ignorant, why do you want to draft her?

I wouldn't be surprised if some people haven't already broached the subject to her.
Click to expand...

If they have, then it's clear she's said no instead of yes.

And you still haven't said what you think they could offer her, to convince her to change her mind about this.

Do you think it's a question of changing her mind? Do you think she's already made her mind up, and needs some sort of inducement to consider changing it?

Or do you think maybe she hasn't really considered the problem yet, and what's necessary is for the party leaders to sit down with her and Demsplain the situation?
 
As an observer, I find it frankly incredible that a country of over 300 million people can't produce better presidential candidates than the two currently on offer.
 
shemp said:
Wait a minute. Could you please remind us of the qualifications of the present officeholder prior to his election?

Trump proved that all you need is to be popular. Hell, Brad Pitt could beat him right now!
Click to expand...

Trump at least ran in a primary. What you're describing is that some backroom deal comes together and just hands it to Mrs. Obama.
 
Meadmaker said:
Ok, so we are not saying the same thing. I have just as much money as I had too months ago, but I'm spending a lot less because I can't travel, I can't go to restaurants, I already had Netflix so I can't spend on entertainment. I don't need more money. Thanks for the 1200 bucks, but what did I do with it? Paid down debt. What else would I do with it? Outback Steakhouse isn't open. I don't even need gas money because I haven't needed to fill my tank for the last six weeks. I didn't need the money and it didn't do any good.

For people who are unemployed, they need money. If I lose my job, which will happen if this lockout goes on much longer, I'll need money. For now, the rest of us, those with jobs, don't need money and it was foolish to throw that money around all over the place. And (steering back toward the topic) Joe Biden thinks we should spend "a hell of a lot more" money on...…..I'm not sure if he has given any specifics.
Click to expand...

There is less demand, but there is also fewer goods/services because people are at home and not producing any. Eg, in the current climate which one of these is more accurate?
1) I have money but there is nothing to buy
2) there are things to buy but I have no money to spend.

If it’s the former, monetary stimulus or cash handouts does nothing but create inflation, of it’s the latter monetary stimulus of fiscal stimulus that puts cash in peoples hands could be very effective.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Michelle Obama has never held elected office. She seems like a swell lady, but it's absurd to consider her a presidential candidate just because she's the wife of a popular politician. Even HRC made her bones as a Senator before gunning for the big chair, and she was way more involved in Bill's cabinet than Michelle was in Obama's.

I don't see how the party can even claim any legitimacy if they go with a candidate that didn't even bother to run in the primary. The Bernie bros have a pretty compelling case that the 2nd place candidate should get the nod over someone plucked from nowhere by party elites.
Click to expand...

Agreed, especially one who has never run in any primary.

If there were an established party leader who was popular and had some legitimacy based on prior governmental experience, I wouldn't automatically disqualify them on the basis that they didn't enter the primary this year, but it would definitely be a plus, and someone who has never held any elective office would definitely be a minus.
 
lomiller said:
There is less demand, but there is also fewer goods/services because people are at home and not producing any. Eg, in the current climate which one of these is more accurate?
1) I have money but there is nothing to buy
2) there are things to buy but I have no money to spend.

If it’s the former, monetary stimulus or cash handouts does nothing but create inflation, of it’s the latter monetary stimulus of fiscal stimulus that puts cash in peoples hands could be very effective.
Click to expand...

Number 1 is much more accurate for me.

For people for whom number 2 is more accurate, I have no problem giving them money, within reason.

Even better would be to go back to work, however, the risk/reward calculation is still favoring the don't go back to work option, at least in the opinion of the decision makers.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Trump at least ran in a primary. What you're describing is that some backroom deal comes together and just hands it to Mrs. Obama.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the way it was done until the 70s.

If Biden collapses because of this, do you think the party leaders are just going to let delegates vote their conscience. Of course there's going to be a deal! They'd be idiots to hold an open convention without a deal in place!

I voted for Bernie in February. There is no ******* way he is going to be the nominee. Period. And all the others who ran can easily be portrayed as second-rate losers. Think outside the box! Choose someone who is more popular than any of them! Popularity wins elections not experience!
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
Yay, we're going to spend our way out of a virus!?
Click to expand...

Why not?

Let's start by taking back all the tax cuts for the rich starting with GW Bush's. That will put a dent in the deficit caused by the needless war Bush started and this natural disaster that the federal government needs to address.

Tell people to stay home, they should be compensated the same way you compensate someone you took their land/home for a highway. (Marco Rubio idea, if you can believe that.)
 
RE the distraction the GOP and bots/trolls right wingers/Trump minions are continuing to amplify and use to stop anyone looking at the national disaster that is Trump: They got nothing else. They will try to keep the assault allegation in the news for as long as they can.

If it did not happen what it Biden supposed to do?

I say ignore it, it's a trap and Biden need not take the bait.
 
shemp said:
That's pretty much the way it was done until the 70s.

If Biden collapses because of this, do you think the party leaders are just going to let delegates vote their conscience. Of course there's going to be a deal! They'd be idiots to hold an open convention without a deal in place!

I voted for Bernie in February. There is no ******* way he is going to be the nominee. Period. And all the others who ran can easily be portrayed as second-rate losers. Think outside the box! Choose someone who is more popular than any of them! Popularity wins elections not experience!
Click to expand...

I have no idea how such a move would be interpreted, but the progressive wing would be 100% justified in rejecting such a thing and defecting from the party. There's no way back to 1970's machine politics that leaves the party unified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom