Cont: Biden for President? Pt 2

[Cabbage]

True; it's actually spelled "floe".

Irrelevant.

Do you have anything of actual value to contribute?

 

[theprestige]

Hmmm....that's an 'interesting' take of our conversation. Not accurate [...]

You literally said it was usual for politicians to appear on The View. Not once, but twice:

She appeared on The View in February and April as is usual for politicians.

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

This in the context of me asking what made Abrams notable; i.e., unusual.

 

[Cabbage]

Irrelevant.

Do you have anything of actual value to contribute?

...followed by....

You literally said it was usual for politicians to appear on The View. Not once, but twice:





This in the context of me asking what made Abrams notable; i.e., unusual.

Which does answer my question. More complete misrepresentation and irrelevance. Thank you for making that clear!

 

[Bob001]

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

The question is whether she prosecuted the right people in the right ways for the right reasons. She appears to have a mixed record.

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.

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

In 2005, the sharp-elbowed, ambitious district attorney of San Francisco had the opportunity to correct an all-too-common prosecutorial violation of duty that the leading expert on prosecutorial misconduct found “accounts for more miscarriages of justice than any other type of malpractice.” Rather than seize the opportunity, she did nothing.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/kamala-harris-record-district-attorney-san-francisco/

A close examination of Harris’s record shows it’s filled with contradictions. She pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent. She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/...is-president-campaign-criminal-justice-record

You find a couple innocent people that she sent to prison and kept there, and that's pretty much the end of her campaign.

 

[Stacyhs]

You literally said it was usual for politicians to appear on The View. Not once, but twice:

This in the context of me asking what made Abrams notable; i.e., unusual.

Yes, I did say that, but not in the context you are claiming. You never asked what made Abrams notable/unusual.

#298 You:

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.

I'm sure it's usual for The View to have politicans on the show, even if they don't bring on all of them.

#309 Me
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.

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

#312 You

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.

#313 You

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.

Please point out exactly where you asked what made Abrams notable/usual.

Please point out exactly where I said Abrams appearing on The View was unusual.

 

[xjx388]

I don't think that's accurate.



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



and



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

Sounds like the system working as it is designed. Hate the game, not the player. Besides, that might actually appeal to some voters. I mean if that’s the worst there is about her, it isn’t horrible, relatively speaking.

Abrams’ tax issues OTOH, might be an issue for some people, along with her relative lack of experience. Although, for the record, I’d love to see someone like her in the VP spot -I just don’t think she would attract many voters from the “I’m a conservative and I’m just looking for a reason to dump Trump,” side of the spectrum.

Klobuchar is pretty much out with her history with Chauvin (real or fabricated because it can be spun; her nomination could alienate black voters in any case). Demings has even worse issues with her LE background. Nobody else that meets the criteria I came up with really has the national clout to help the ticket much.

I can see a lot of support for a Biden/Warren ticket but I’m not sure how that would play with the black vote, which is important -I think- this election cycle.

I really wish Biden hadn’t said so early that he would nominate a woman. There are plenty of male candidates that might fit the bill. Kinda painted himself in a corner there and I think Harris is the one who can lift him out of that corner.

 

[Cabbage]

Sounds like the system working as it is designed.

It's designed to incriminate people on flimsy evidence???? OK, admittedly, you may be right, that does not imply we should condone anyone playing the game with that intention.

Hate the game, not the player.

As I just said, I strongly disagree with this. Why shouldn't I hate the player, when the player is engaging in activities that lead to imprisonment of people on flimsy evidence? When/If the game is corrupt, the only players I respect are the ones trying to change the rules to be more just. Do you disagree?

Besides, that might actually appeal to some voters. I mean if that’s the worst there is about her, it isn’t horrible, relatively speaking.

The voters that might appeal to are probably dedicated Trumpers to begin with. And while I acknowledge that the Republican party that you generally prefer has made a commitment to pandering to baser instincts (such as the one you were just referencing), I don't think that is something to strive for. I think it is something to avoid. I expect you to disagree.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yesterday, Joe Biden visited the site of the protests in Wilmington, DE.

He tweeted:

"We are a nation in pain right now, but we must not allow this pain to destroy us. As President, I will help lead this conversation — and more importantly, I will listen, just as I did today visiting the site of last night's protests in Wilmington."

What did Trump do besides hide in his bunker and then send the military against American citizens, including a peaceful protest? Why he tweets attacking mayors and governors for being "weak" and tells them they must "dominate". He says he'll send in the National Guard (which he cannot do without a request from the governors) and attack political opponents.

POTUS: Piece Of Totally Useless S****

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

My statement had nothing to do with what I care about. It was purely observational, and there was nothing in it about malfeasance either. If you think JoeMorgue is wrong, it's strange that you don't take it up directly with him.

 

[Cabbage]

My statement had nothing to do with what I care about. It was purely observational, and there was nothing in it about malfeasance either. If you think JoeMorgue is wrong, it's strange that you don't take it up directly with him.

If it was purely observational, then you are a piss poor observer, because what you observed is not at all accurate. And I did take it up with JoeMorgue--You may have noticed that I was responding to both of you...Then again, maybe you didn't actually notice this (considering the previously referenced piss poor observational skills, after all).

 

[Cabbage]

My statement had nothing to do with what I care about. It was purely observational, and there was nothing in it about malfeasance either. If you think JoeMorgue is wrong, it's strange that you don't take it up directly with him.

I also forgot to mention: Your previous statement concerning Harris is also inconsistent with what you (pretend?) to care about in the Flynn thread: Prosecutorial malfeasance. In that thread you're all uptight about (alleged) malfeasance, yet you claim that progressives holding malfeasance against Harris is (and I am quoting here): "Crazy".

Can you explain your inconsistency? Is it merely attributed to poor observational skills/ignorance of Harris' history as a prosecutor?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Abrams’ tax issues OTOH, might be an issue for some people, along with her relative lack of experience. Although, for the record, I’d love to see someone like her in the VP spot -I just don’t think she would attract many voters from the “I’m a conservative and I’m just looking for a reason to dump Trump,” side of the spectrum.

Given his age, Biden needs someone who could plausibly replace him. I don't see Abrams as that person.

Klobuchar is pretty much out with her history with Chauvin (real or fabricated because it can be spun; her nomination could alienate black voters in any case). Demings has even worse issues with her LE background. Nobody else that meets the criteria I came up with really has the national clout to help the ticket much.

She can thank the Minneapolis Police for ending her hopes.

I really wish Biden hadn’t said so early that he would nominate a woman. There are plenty of male candidates that might fit the bill. Kinda painted himself in a corner there and I think Harris is the one who can lift him out of that corner.

I don't know much about Val Demings. She would present something for more than 1 voting bloc, being both black and a former police chief.

 

[theprestige]

Please point out exactly where you asked what made Abrams notable/usual.

I didn't ask what made her usual. I asked what made her unusual. Specifically:

What did she doing the last election, to garner national news coverage?

Please point out exactly where I said Abrams appearing on The View was unusual.
[/B]

Well. First you said that appearing on The View was usual for politicians:

She appeared on The View in February and April as is usual for politicians.

Later you said that it was unusual for a state candidate to appear on The View, but also said it was usual:

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.



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

Anyway, my question was, what had she done to garner national news coverage. Your answer was that she appeared on The View.

She got on the news because of her View appearance? That doesn't make sense. It doesn't even answer the question. After going round a bit, you finally explain that she appeared on The View because of the unusual circumstances of her state political campaign. Which does make sense, and does answer the question. I'm not sure why you didn't just say that to begin with. Or just stick with "Google it".

I apologize for frustrating you. I was having a hard time following your train of thought from a politician getting news coverage to what they did to get news coverage.

Though I did get a better idea how you view Abrams, which is why I asked instead of just googling. So all's well that ends well.

 

[Ziggurat]

I also forgot to mention: Your previous statement concerning Harris is also inconsistent with what you (pretend?) to care about in the Flynn thread: Prosecutorial malfeasance. In that thread you're all uptight about (alleged) malfeasance, yet you claim that progressives holding malfeasance against Harris is (and I am quoting here): "Crazy".

You clearly aren't quoting, because neither I nor Joe said anything about malfeasance. And given that I just pointed that out in the very post you quoted, repeating the claim makes this a lie.

 

[Cabbage]

You clearly aren't quoting, because neither I nor Joe said anything about malfeasance. And given that I just pointed that out in the very post you quoted, repeating the claim makes this a lie.

Ahem:

In responding to JoeMorgue's post:

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

xjx responded:

That's crazy.

and you concurred:

Of course it is.

QED

Perhaps what you really should be doing is retracting this part of your response:

And yet, that's still what happened.

(referring to JoeMorgue's original mischaracterization).

Yes, I agree that, were JoeMorgue's characterization accurate, the progressive response would indeed be crazy. I'll try and be fair here: If you were honestly ignorant of Harris's history as a prosecutor, I'll give you a pass on calling Joe's characterization "Crazy".

Now that you are aware of the mischaracterization, do you retract your claim of "Crazy"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ahem:

In responding to JoeMorgue's post:





xjx responded:




and you concurred:




QED

Do you not understand the difference between insanity on the part of progressives and prosecutorial malfeasance on the part of Harris?

QED indeed.

 

[Suddenly]

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

Triangulation has gotten out of control.

I'm not sure that one can be topped.

 

[Cabbage]

Do you not understand the difference between insanity on the part of progressives and prosecutorial malfeasance on the part of Harris?

QED indeed.

Did you miss the addendum I added in edit?

I await clarification of whatever point you seem to think you've made.

 

[Stacyhs]

I didn't ask what made her usual. I asked what made her unusual. Specifically:

Oh, for God's sake. I forgot the "UN" in front of usual at the bottom. Even you could figure out that was a typo from the rest of my post.

Well. First you said that appearing on The View was usual for politicians:

Yes, I did because it's true.

Later you said that it was unusual for a state candidate to appear on The View, but also said it was usual:

This is where you go wrong. I never said it was unusual for a state candidate to appear:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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.

You are conflating an "interesting/unusual state race" with it being unusual for a state candidate to appear. Something being 'usual' does not make anything else 'unusual': it just means it happens more frequently. An 'unusual' race doesn't mean it's rare or infrequent. It just means there is something about it out of the ordinary or something that makes it different which makes it interesting to the nation, just not the state. There could be several within an election period and then they may appear on The View. Nowhere did I say that a state politician being on The View is unusual.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Anyway, my question was, what had she done to garner national news coverage. Your answer was that she appeared on The View.
She got on the news because of her View appearance? That doesn't make sense. It doesn't even answer the question.

Apparently I need to remind you that you didn't actually ask "what had she done to garner national news coverage". Your wording was very unclear so we had this exchange:

Your question wasn't really clear that it was the last election you were asking about:

Quote:
Originally Posted by theprestige
Guilty as charged. What did she doing the last election, to garner national news coverage?

I inferred you were really asking "What did she do since the last election..."

Which is why I first answered your question with this:

She appeared on The View in February and April as is usual for politicians. She appeared alongside Biden on a televised townhall on May 14.
She addressed the Reade allegations on Seat At the Table on May 12. She was very recently interviewed by TIME magazine. Would you like more?

(#291)

After going round a bit, you finally explain that she appeared on The View because of the unusual circumstances of her state political campaign. Which does make sense, and does answer the question. I'm not sure why you didn't just say that to begin with. Or just stick with "Google it".

We "went round a bit" because your question wasn't clear and we had to work that out as shown above. I "finally answered it ", as you put it, once we had worked out YOUR confusingly worded question. I would have answered it "to begin with" if you had asked a clear question to begin with.

I apologize for frustrating you. I was having a hard time following your train of thought from a politician getting news coverage to what they did to get news coverage.

Which is due to
1) Your poor wording of the question to begin with
2) Not understanding that one thing being 'usual' does not mean another
thing is 'unusual'.

I hope this clears things up. Let's move on now because I bet this has become as boring for others as it has for me.

 

[dudalb]

The events of the past week show that the Bernie Bros who still think Biden is no better then Trump are morons.