Cont: Biden for President? Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the way to predict who the VP will be is to predict what votes Biden thinks he needs to court to win. If he thinks he needs the Bernie Bros to turn out, it'll be one person, probably. If he thinks he needs black Democrats, it'll be another. If he thinks he needs white moderates, it'll be someone else. Etc.

The game for the next few weeks is going to be guessing who he needs, and which veep choice best fits that need.
 
theprestige said:
I think the way to predict who the VP will be is to predict what votes Biden thinks he needs to court to win. If he thinks he needs the Bernie Bros to turn out, it'll be one person, probably. If he thinks he needs black Democrats, it'll be another. If he thinks he needs white moderates, it'll be someone else. Etc.

The game for the next few weeks is going to be guessing who he needs, and which veep choice best fits that need.
Click to expand...

It also benefits Biden to dangle this VP slot. So long as there's the chance of being selected, multiple viable candidates are going to bend over backwards attempting to curry favor. That incentive disappears the moment he makes a selection.
 
Despite his last gaff, Biden doesn't need a VP of color. He doesn't even need a women, but it wouldn't do to go back on that particular promise - or make sense, given the tremendous pool of highly qualified female democrats.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The best VP Biden could pick would be a someone who could credibly run on their own in 2024.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I don't put much stock in the idea that is repeated that Biden's VP would be running the ship, but i could see the situation where he has to step down or chooses not to run in 2024 because of his advanced age.

The VP is obviously the person best positioned to win such an election, so selecting someone who is politically mature enough for the position is probably important.

Selecting a more junior politician could be a real error here.
 
Mumbles said:
Well, I said it was a joke because...it was.
Click to expand...
Here you go, Skeptic Ginger. Maybe you guys can hash that out?


Again, it's rather popular to slap black republicans, though it's generally more "Man, can't you see they don't respect you?" than ""you're a coon." among the more serious types. When Michael Steele became RNC Chair, the GOP put an incredible number of restrictions on what he could do, what he could spend, etc. without the approval of Moscow Mitch and the like - and when he raised a record sum of money for campaigns anyway, they immediately kicked him out.
Click to expand...
OK, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Biden. Because Republicans treat black people badly, it's OK for Biden?

Then wre have clowns and grifters like Candace Owens, who just a couple of weeks ago all but stated outright that Ahmaud Arbery deserved to be murdered, now trying to make something out of this - these folks tend to attract the outright insults, mostly because they happily tell white audiences about how lazy/stupid/violent/docile the vast majority of black people are, for money. It's not really Biden's place to say that these folks aren't really black...but on the other hand, I doubt they're respected in any major black community.
Click to expand...
And is respect in major black communities a major determinant of what makes a person black? Interesting . . .
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
That's a good point. I don't put much stock in the idea that is repeated that Biden's VP would be running the ship, but i could see the situation where he has to step down or chooses not to run in 2024 because of his advanced age.
Click to expand...

It might be an issue if everyone else on the table as an option; be it Trump or any of other front running Democrat Candidates weren't just as old.

If Trump was some spry 45 year old Biden's age would be a concern but since everyone in the race is "Statistically Already Dead" years old I don't think it is in this situation.

The VP is obviously the person best positioned to win such an election, so selecting someone who is politically mature enough for the position is probably important.

Selecting a more junior politician could be a real error here.
Click to expand...

Again everyone on the table now or really at any point in this election cycle who were treated as viable candidates are... oldy oldie old. Not just old but elderly basically.

We don't have to jump straight from 70+ down to still has the umbilical cord attached, but yeah it would be nice to see some people in their 40-50s for a change.

There's a difference between wanting mature, seasoned, experienced people and treating age like a dump stat.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It might be an issue if everyone else on the table as an option; be it Trump or any of other front running Democrat Candidates weren't just as old.

If Trump was some spry 45 year old Biden's age would be a concern but since everyone in the race is "Statistically Already Dead" years old I don't think it is in this situation.



Again everyone on the table now or really at any point in this election cycle who were treated as viable candidates are... oldy oldie old. Not just old but elderly basically.

We don't have to jump straight from 70+ down to still has the umbilical cord attached, but yeah it would be nice to see some people in their 40-50s for a change.

There's a difference between wanting mature, seasoned, experienced people and treating age like a dump stat.
Click to expand...

There's a general problem of the lack of young talent in the Democratic Party. It doesn't help that there is open strife between the old guard, headed by Pelosi, and younger politicians that are becoming popular.

The party's attempts to quash the younger, more progressive wing of the party is incredibly short sighted and does not bode well for the future.

So we had a primary of the geriatrics. A battle of the geezers, and there's really no one under the age of 60 that's ready for the limelight. This can't be a good sign.
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
It’s so much of a stretch that it’s actually inadmissible to introduce prior bad acts to impeach a witness.
Click to expand...
You are confusing introducing prior bad acts as evidence against the defendant. Of course you can impeach the witness for past acts.
"You lied before, how do we know you aren't lying now?"​

Reade is the accuser, not the defendant.


xjx388 said:
If it’s material to the crime. You missed that part. An expunged record of a bad check, horse charity shenanigans, some guy who felt manipulated...these things are not material to the crime.

A prior false allegation of rape is material.

You also missed the part in your second citation where it said “when evidence of a person’s character...is admissible.” Guess when it’s admissible...
Click to expand...

Again you are conflating witness and defendant.


xjx388 said:
...

I understand that. I just think it's wrong.
Click to expand...
Nope, you are because your underlying premise is wrong.

There is a special case of not trashing a #metoo accuser, but we are well past that with Reade
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I think the way to predict who the VP will be is to predict what votes Biden thinks he needs to court to win. If he thinks he needs the Bernie Bros to turn out, it'll be one person, probably. If he thinks he needs black Democrats, it'll be another. If he thinks he needs white moderates, it'll be someone else. Etc.

The game for the next few weeks is going to be guessing who he needs, and which veep choice best fits that need.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I predict that he does not need the black vote or the youth vote. The youth vote didn't turn out for Bernie and the black vote is already on his team.

He will try to go moderate to try to erode some of Trump's support. Not his die-hard supporters, but the people who are afraid of liberals and the liberal agenda. A lot of them would rather not vote for Trump again, but they sure as hell aren't voting for some far left liberal to sit in line waiting for Ole' Joe to kick the bucket.

A lot of the people who are done with Trump are not down with M4A. Those are the people Biden will be courting.

Now I should go look at Stacey Abrams's positions to see if there is any chance in hell she fits in that description.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You are confusing introducing prior bad acts as evidence against the defendant. Of course you can impeach the witness for past acts.
"You lied before, how do we know you aren't lying now?"​

Reade is the accuser, not the defendant.
Click to expand...
Completely wrong. But I guess there is no harm in you continuing to belive this since there's no danger of you prosecuting/defending an actual case...


There is a special case of not trashing a #metoo accuser, but we are well past that with Reade
Click to expand...
What's the difference between a #metoo accuser and a regular accuser?
 
xjx388 said:
...

What's the difference between a #metoo accuser and a regular accuser?
Click to expand...
History.

A long consistent history of trashing the accusers in these specific cases.

Perhaps children as witnesses to abuse also fall into that category but in a little different way. Kids simply aren't believed.

You can't say that for people who make other accusations, not consistently in any single group.


I don't understand what you don't get about the difference between discrediting witnesses and not being able to prejudice a jury by bringing up past crimes of the defendants. You were even shown citations had you chosen to look at them.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Here you go:
https://www.ontheissues.org/Stacey_Abrams.htm
Click to expand...

I hope Biden is wise enough not to choose a member of the Senate unless it is a safe seat to be replaced by a Democrat.

Much as it would be great to see him choose Warren, who would get her Senate seat? And I hate to be an ageist, but he needs someone younger in case he dies in office. We don't need two septuagenarians in that office.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
History.

A long consistent history of trashing the accusers in these specific cases.

Perhaps children as witnesses to abuse also fall into that category but in a little different way. Kids simply aren't believed.

You can't say that for people who make other accusations, not consistently in any single group.


I don't understand what you don't get about the difference between discrediting witnesses and not being able to prejudice a jury by bringing up past crimes of the defendants. You were even shown citations had you chosen to look at them.
Click to expand...
Look . . . I don't want to belabor this point in this thread. But there is obviously a huge misunderstanding about what's allowed in court. You couldn't call the Horse Charity owner to the stand to relate a story about alleged theft. You couldn't show a snapshot of an expunged bad check record. You couldn't call the guy who says she manipulated him. You couldn't ask to pull her transcript.

Maybe a lawyer can clarify what you can and can't do. But the rules linked to before seem very clear to me and people seem to be cherry-picking certain phrases that seem to support their ideas. Read all the rules, not just the little part of the commentary that makes you think you can call some dude who alleges an alleged rape victim manipulated him that one time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom