Cont: Biden for President? Pt 2

[Stacyhs]

Only if they let him.

Frankly, there a few people I avoid and refuse to engage with because they are more interested in confrontation than good faith discussion.

 

[xjx388]

Biden has to pick a Veep with strong national presence, a lack of major issues in their political past, a commitment to the black agenda (as Al Sharpton pointed out) and the kind of charisma he lacks.

He almost has to pick a woman with African-American heritage, I think. Of the top candidates, I think Kamala Harris is the only one who has the national presence, a great record, charisma and a commitment to not only the "black agenda" but LGBTQ issues as well. She also has a record of working towards more bi-partisanship. She'd also be a great 2024/28 candidate in her own right.

So what's wrong with her? I haven't seen her mentioned in the more recent convos about VP picks.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So what's wrong with her? I haven't seen her mentioned in the more recent convos about VP picks.

Progressives put her on an ice flow because when she was a Prosecutor should made the unforgivable sin of prosecuting people.

 

[xjx388]

Progressives put her on an ice flow because when she was a Prosecutor should made the unforgivable sin of prosecuting people.

That's crazy. She could appeal to a wider demographic than someone like Abrams. I would vote without hesitation for a Biden/Harris ticket.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

God damn Joe, this ain't it.

In interview about police oversight:

Biden said "there are a lot of different things that can change" about police training. One example he said was if cops rushed by unarmed person, they could "shoot them in the leg instead of the heart is a very different thing."

Killer cops, shoot to maim unarmed people instead. Neato.

https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1267488711375228929

 

[xjx388]

God damn Joe, this ain't it.

In interview about police oversight:



Killer cops, shoot to maim unarmed people instead. Neato.

https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1267488711375228929

Wow. That's pretty boneheaded. Let's aim for a harder to hit target and perhaps hit bystanders! How about we just don't shoot unarmed people? Training should focus on better assessment and descalation, not "well if you are gonna shoot someone, shoot their legs!"

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's crazy. She could appeal to a wider demographic than someone like Abrams. I would vote without hesitation for a Biden/Harris ticket.

Most the chatter is still treating Biden/Harris as the most likely ticket.

And if I'm being a purely cynical "Moneyball, run the numbers, show me the graphs" guy about it young, female, black but not too black, Californian Kamala Harris is the perfect counter to Uncle Joe.

But Trump has broken the system so much making any prediction scares me.

 

[Pope130]

"Shotgun Joe" Rides Again

God damn Joe, this ain't it.

In interview about police oversight:



Killer cops, shoot to maim unarmed people instead. Neato.

https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1267488711375228929

From the same fella' who said that the only home defense gun you need is an old double barrel shotgun. Just step out on the balcony and fire a couple of shots in the air. If the bad guys try to break in, shoot them through the door.

 

[Dr.Sid]

God damn Joe, this ain't it.

In interview about police oversight:



Killer cops, shoot to maim unarmed people instead. Neato.

https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1267488711375228929

Well, that's the issue with Biden. He's not really bright. He really only has one good quality. He's not Trump. It's best US can offer now it seems.

 

[Paul2]

Biden has to pick a Veep with strong national presence, a lack of major issues in their political past, a commitment to the black agenda (as Al Sharpton pointed out) and the kind of charisma he lacks.

He almost has to pick a woman with African-American heritage, I think. Of the top candidates, I think Kamala Harris is the only one who has the national presence, a great record, charisma and a commitment to not only the "black agenda" but LGBTQ issues as well. She also has a record of working towards more bi-partisanship. She'd also be a great 2024/28 candidate in her own right.

So what's wrong with her? I haven't seen her mentioned in the more recent convos about VP picks.

Another downside is that she's from California, a state Biden will carry anyway, no matter what. However, it's not clear how much a VP from a state you want to take away from the other side is necessary.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, that's the issue with Biden. He's not really bright.

Fortunately ( or unfortunately), this is considered a great quality in the eyes of the typical conservative. Educated and bright people are too elite and snobby.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Fortunately ( or unfortunately), this is considered a great quality in the eyes of the typical conservative. Educated and bright people are too elite and snobby.

Hmm .. good point. Dems need people from Trump camp, and 'sleepy Joe' might do it lot better then second Obama.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's crazy.

Of course it is. And yet, that's still what happened.

 

[Stacyhs]

From the same fella' who said that the only home defense gun you need is an old double barrel shotgun. Just step out on the balcony and fire a couple of shots in the air. If the bad guys try to break in, shoot them through the door.

That was taken out of context which was a wider discussion about AR 15's.

From Snopes:

In December 2018, a pro-gun rights Facebook page posted a meme that showed former U.S. vice president Joe Biden advocating the use of a shotgun over a semi-automatic rifle for the purpose of self-defense.
On 18 December, “Firearms Policy Coalition” posted the meme, which contained a photograph of Biden along with the quotation: “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because if you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

This is an authentic quotation, although the meme didn’t present the full context in which Biden made those remarks. They were part of a broader argument against the usefulness and necessity of the AR-15 rifle for personal protection.
In February 2013, Biden gave an interview to Field & Stream magazine on the subject of gun violence and gun control. He was asked about the regulation of the very popular AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and its uses in hunting, self-defense, and target practice. Biden played down the use of such a weapon in hunting, saying: “If you have to go up into the Poconos and go bear hunting or deer hunting with that weapon, and you need a clip that has 30 rounds in it, then you shouldn’t be hunting. You’re a danger to yourself. If you can’t get the bear or the deer in four or five shots, you’ve got a problem.”
When the interviewer asked “What about the other uses, for self-defense and target practice?”, the Vice President responded as follows:

Well, the way in which we measure it is — I think most scholars would say — is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.” I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because [if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.

 

[Bob001]

Fortunately ( or unfortunately), this is considered a great quality in the eyes of the typical conservative. Educated and bright people are too elite and snobby.

We should never forget that numerous Trumpers were quoted as saying things like "He talks like a regular guy," and they didn't think much beyond that. A lot of Americans don't value smarts, and they vote.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ualism-poses-a-great-danger-to-democracy.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-distrust-experts-will-they-take-precautions/

I think Biden is smarter than he has appeared in some public utterances, but he's not so smugly academic that the working class will feel intimidated.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I think Biden is smarter than he has appeared in some public utterances, but he's not so smugly academic that the working class will feel intimidated.

Well certainly he only has to look smarter than Trump, to appeal to smart voters, and that's not that hard.

 

[theprestige]

Well certainly he only has to look smarter than Trump, to appeal to smart voters, and that's not that hard.

Assuming this is serious, three things:

One, the voters in question can't be that smart, if they can't tell the difference between looking smart and being smart.

Two, smart people can still disagree on the best solution. Being smart alone does not guarantee appeal.

Three, there are ideological factors to consider. For a conservative voter, a dumb conservative or even a dumb RINO is might be better than a smart progressive.

 

[Cabbage]

Progressives put her on an ice flow because when she was a Prosecutor should made the unforgivable sin of prosecuting people.

I don't think that's accurate.

Of course it is. And yet, that's still what happened.

No, that's not what happened. Or is it as I expect: You only care about (alleged) prosecutor malfeasance when a Trumpling is on the other end?

A sampling

Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent. Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.

Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.

Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed.

and

Worst of all, though, is Ms. Harris’s record in wrongful conviction cases. Consider George Gage, an electrician with no criminal record who was charged in 1999 with sexually abusing his stepdaughter, who reported the allegations years later. The case largely hinged on the stepdaughter’s testimony and Mr. Gage was convicted.


Afterward, the judge discovered that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence, including medical reports indicating that the stepdaughter had been repeatedly untruthful with law enforcement. Her mother even described her as “a pathological liar” who “lives her lies.”

In 2015, when the case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, Ms. Harris’s prosecutors defended the conviction. They pointed out that Mr. Gage, while forced to act as his own lawyer, had not properly raised the legal issue in the lower court, as the law required.

The appellate judges acknowledged this impediment and sent the case to mediation, a clear signal for Ms. Harris to dismiss the case. When she refused to budge, the court upheld the conviction on that technicality. Mr. Gage is still in prison serving a 70-year sentence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

 

[theprestige]

I don't think that's accurate.

True; it's actually spelled "floe".

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think that's accurate.

It's a caricature of progressives' position on law and order. That's all that matters.