Cont: Biden for President? Pt 2

[theprestige]

I'm in Canada, and get my US news in YouTube clips and this Forum. Yet I heard and saw all kinds of stuff about Stacey Abrams. I followed the shenanigans she was up against in her race with Kemp. And she impressed me with her intelligence and passion. The better person, by furlongs, lost there.

Noted. I guess we'll have to see if Biden is similarly impressed by her intelligence and passion.

Actually this brings up an interesting question. I'm not sure if it has an answer, though: What kinds of plans do presidential candidates make, about how to use the power of the vice presidency? I imagine some of them are just looking for a nondescript placeholder. Someone who will satisfy the constitutional requirement to have an ass in that particular seat. Someone who can be trusted to vote the right way on Senate tie-breakers. Someone who will otherwise do pretty much nothing. And I imagine others have big plans that require more heads and hands than the president and their cabinet alone can provide. In that case, someone with intelligence and passion for those plans could come in handy. I even imagine that still others want a specialist for some special task. Someone who knows how to do one important thing really well, and gets the job so they can get it done.

I wonder what kind of job Biden has in mind, for his VP.

 

[theprestige]

Wow. Seriously? In the last semi-major election (2018), she ran for governor of Georgia in a quite well known and hotly contested election.

So now you know.

Yes, seriously. I generally ignore gubernatorial elections outside my own state.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My main concern with Abrams is that she doesn't have a long history of high profile electoral success.

Yes, she served in her state's legislature, but she has never served at the federal level, and she lost the election for governor. (Granted it was an election in a rather backwards state, and the Republicans did crank up the dirty tricks, like voter suppression... Still, it limits her visibility and experience.)

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

That is hardly going to matter here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If the quote is accurate, then are we to parse it as, "Make America Great Again love black people?" Well, I guess we're to take it that MAGA is no longer a call to action, but instead is now the homogenized, corporeal conglomeration of the many millions of Drumpf's rabble. And that this blended basket of deplorables is sympatico with the non-MAGA people of color who are in opposition to the prime MAGAite. Yeah, makes sense.

That would require a colon. You know, one of these things: :::::::.

Watch for yourself, the long version is worse.

And yes, the lack of an 's' on loves was a typo. Watching the video again I see I also left out "the". "MAGA loves the black people." Probably harder to tell given Trump uses MAGA as a noun there.

That dude is so racist and he has no clue; or maybe he does and he thinks this rot makes him look not racist.

 

[Stacyhs]

You're really desperate for a seat in the Abrams bandwagon, aren't you?

Wow.
I was responding to your statement that "holding a state legislative office is just not the same in terms of the issues dealt with as the national government," by giving examples of past presidents who had never held a national government position.
Resorting to an ad hominem doesn't show my desperation.

Eisenhower and Grant led the armies that saved civilization, in Eisenhower's case, and only the Union, in Grant's. I count that as experience in government.

In that case, you might also consider holding a job as dog catcher as experience in government. Military experience is not even close to political experience.

Taft had been governor of the Phillppines when it was a U.S. territory and U.S. Secretary of War.

I stand corrected on that.

All of the others had been state governors, usually for more than one term.

But that was not the point I was addressing, was it?

Running a state government is just not comparable to sitting in the legislature.

Again, not the point I was addressing which was:

"holding a state legislative office is just not the same in terms of the issues dealt with as the national government,"

I think a successful big-state governor is well-qualified to serve in the White House. Somebody in the State House? Not so much.

I agree. But again, not the point I was addressing. The issues a governor deals with are not necessarily the issues dealt with by the President of the US either. But definitely closer than a legislator.

It's not a knock on Abrams to simply observe that many other prospects are better qualified and more likely to appeal to a national electorate.

No, it isn't and I didn't say it was. I've given my reasons why I think picking Warren, as much as I like her, could backfire in the Senate and why I think Klobuchar and Harris are not viable due to their LE background. I truly do not understand your first paragraph above.

 

[Cabbage]

Yes, seriously. I generally ignore gubernatorial elections outside my own state.

Would that be Hong Kong?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If Harris and Demings are ruled out due to LE background, and Abrams is in play despite thin resume, then maybe Keisha Lance Bottoms, mayor of Atlanta, is also in play.

She was great yesterday, wasn't she.

Abrams is known for almost winning governorship of a red state had it not been for GOP control of the voting machine. Obviously Georgians thought she was qualified for a significant office.

I'd also like to see Susan Rice considered along with these others. I think I said that before.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wait. Are you saying the Georgia House of Representatives is "a minor part-time state legislature"? In what way is it either?

Abrams was a state rep. for 10 years and was also the minority leader from 2011 to 2017. I'd call that government experience. It's not federal but it is government experience.

There you go!

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't think it's a big deal, and I'm not trying to bust your balls over this. I do think it's an interesting way to phrase it, though:

Absolutely it's usual for politicians to appear on The View during election season.

That doesn't seem right. It's true that The View has about 217 episodes per year, which is probably enough to have most politicians on for at least one segment. But is that what actually happens? I'd be surprised if it was indeed usual for every candidate in every state-level election going on in the country to make an appearance on The View.

It would be impossible to bring ALL politicians onto the show and usually the candidates for the higher national positions appear. But if an interesting/unusual state race is occurring, candidates can appear, too.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet avatars that only notable politicians appear on the show, and that they are a minority and therefore unusual.

How you see that as unusual, I don't understand. People aren't interested in hearing what Joe Blow from Wyoming has to say. Except people in Wyoming
.

Also, Abrams seems to think going public improves her chances. Do you think she's got a point? Or is she making a mistake, in your opinion?

I really have no opinion on that. Time will tell if she was right or wrong.

 

[Stacyhs]

Would that be Hong Kong?

Speaking of Hong Kong, is it just me or does anyone else think the way Trump says "Hong Kong" is weird? I can't explain it like we can with "Jy-ina" but it's just the weird way he kind of draws each word out.

 

[Craig4]

If Harris and Demings are ruled out due to LE background, and Abrams is in play despite thin resume, then maybe Keisha Lance Bottoms, mayor of Atlanta, is also in play.

I hadn't even thought about her but she owned the new cycle and more importantly, she owned Trump for a few hours today. I don't know much about her but a mayor of a major, American city with who battled Covid 19, police brutality and Trump, sounds like VP material to me.

 

[theprestige]

It would be impossible to bring ALL politicians onto the show and usually the candidates for the higher national positions appear. But if an interesting/unusual state race is occurring, candidates can appear, too.

That makes sense. Kind of what I expected, actually.

How you see that as unusual, I don't understand. People aren't interested in hearing what Joe Blow from Wyoming has to say. Except people in Wyoming

I think it's perfectly usual for a TV show to bring on politicians who are unusually interesting in that election season. I just wouldn't describe it as being usual for politicians to appear on the show.

 

[theprestige]

LOL. I just realized:

ME: What makes Abrams unusual?

STACY: She appeared on The View, which isn't unusual.

ME: Really? It seems like it would be unusual.

STACY: Actually it is unusual.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Eisenhower, Taft, and Grant had no political experience at any level.

The following had only state government experience, no federal:

Theodore Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Calvin Coolidge
Franklin Roosevelt
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush

FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy from 1913-20.

 

[Pope130]

Eisenhower, Taft, and Grant had no political experience at any level.

The following had only state government experience, no federal:

Theodore Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Calvin Coolidge
Franklin Roosevelt
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush

As noted above, Eisenhower and Grant were supreme commanders so had to deal with national politics. Eisenhower lead a coalition of 27 different national armies, so had great experience of politics.

Of the rest of the list; Teddy Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan and Bush were military officers who dealt with both service politics, and national issues. Reagan and Carter were assigned to intensely political units. Reagan with the Battle of Hollywood, producing media for public influence, and Carter to the Nuclear Submarine program back when it was controversial both within the service, and with Congress.

 

[Cabbage]

LOL. I just realized:

ME: What makes Abrams unusual?

STACY: She appeared on The View, which isn't unusual.

ME: Really? It seems like it would be unusual.

STACY: Actually it is unusual.

Complete misrepresentation.

 

[Stacyhs]

LOL. I just realized:

ME: What makes Abrams unusual?

STACY: She appeared on The View, which isn't unusual.

ME: Really? It seems like it would be unusual.

STACY: Actually it is unusual.

Hmmm....that's an 'interesting' take of our conversation. Not accurate, but interesting in the same way that Barr and Trump interpreted Mueller's report as a "complete exoneration" of Trump when Mueller said it did not exonerate him. I think I see why people go round and round with you.

 

[Stacyhs]

FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy from 1913-20.

Thank you. My source obviously had a couple of errors. But the rest of the list is accurate which still proves my point.

 

[Stacyhs]

As noted above, Eisenhower and Grant were supreme commanders so had to deal with national politics. Eisenhower lead a coalition of 27 different national armies, so had great experience of politics.

That is stretching "experience in politics" to the breaking point. They were not involved in anything but military matters. They were not involved during the wars in instituting policy, making laws, etc. They never voted in Congress for anything.

Of the rest of the list; Teddy Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan and Bush were military officers who dealt with both service politics, and national issues. Reagan and Carter were assigned to intensely political units. Reagan with the Battle of Hollywood, producing media for public influence, and Carter to the Nuclear Submarine program back when it was controversial both within the service, and with Congress.Abrams' record fighting gerrymandering and voter suppression in Georgia is impressive.

Again, you are conflating military service and politics. Reagan was making war propaganda films (Battle of Hollywood?!) and Carter left the service as a mere lieutenant. Carter had nothing to do with the politics of nuclear submarines. He merely followed orders and he never even made it onto a nuclear sub. Hell, my husband spent more time on a nuclear sub than Carter.

Sorry, but you argument that military service is akin to political experience is weaker than tea made from the sixth soaking of a tea bag.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hmmm....that's an 'interesting' take of our conversation. Not accurate, but interesting in the same way that Barr and Trump interpreted Mueller's report as a "complete exoneration" of Trump when Mueller said it did not exonerate him. I think I see why people go round and round with you.

Only if they let him.