US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[Sibdane]

Looks like the NY Attorney General is set file a lawsuit against Trump for campaign finance violations. Interested to see where this goes. 

[markjazzbassist]

everyone and their brother trying to work out a plea deal.  even manafort tried but didn't land one.  they are all squealing like little piggies.  now does that mean he will get impeached, i don't think so at this point, the repubs would stick behind him even if he killed a man, gotten that partisan sadly.  

 

sad to see mccain go, one of the few repubs who was friends with democrats and worked across the aisle.  those people are becoming few and far between.

[Sibdane]

12 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

everyone and their brother trying to work out a plea deal.  even manafort tried but didn't land one.  they are all squealing like little piggies.  now does that mean he will get impeached, i don't think so at this point, the repubs would stick behind him even if he killed a man, gotten that partisan sadly.  

 

sad to see mccain go, one of the few repubs who was friends with democrats and worked across the aisle.  those people are becoming few and far between.

I agree. He was also very clean when it came to running his campaign. I actually don't think he would have been a bad president -- just not as good as Obama though. 

[markjazzbassist]

1 minute ago, sibdane said:

I agree. He was also very clean when it came to running his campaign. I actually don't think he would have been a bad president -- just not as good as Obama though. 

had he done what he wanted to and got joe liberman (independent/democrat) to be his vice president he would have won i think.  palin was a disaster.  could you imagine that?  a mixed ticket?  that's crazy to think about now but he was pretty centrist, and i think you'er right , he woudl have been a good president.  hell i thought twice about voting for him because of his integrity and convictions, but palin was the deciding factor.

[Sibdane]

Just now, markjazzbassist said:

had he done what he wanted to and got joe liberman (independent/democrat) to be his vice president he would have won i think.  palin was a disaster.  could you imagine that?  a mixed ticket?  that's crazy to think about now but he was pretty centrist, and i think you'er right , he woudl have been a good president.  hell i thought twice about voting for him because of his integrity and convictions, but palin was the deciding factor.

100%. Once he picked Palin I jumped ship -- she was awful and willfully ignorant. 

[markjazzbassist]

3 minutes ago, sibdane said:

100%. Once he picked Palin I jumped ship -- she was awful and willfully ignorant. 

 

that was all the RNC doing, they f'd it up just like the DNC f'd up Sanders.  

[nyblue23]

McCain was the best of the worst. He was a war monger, but he could at least admit that he was wrong at times. He occasionally stood up to his principles, but usually backed down when it meant tax cuts or losing favor with his own party (see the tax bill where he gutted the ACA after previously refusing to gut the ACA).

Even the quote that keeps getting bandied about from his campaign where he defended Obama seems a little iffy. A woman said Obama was an “Arab,” to which McCain responded: “No. He’s a good man,” as if an “Arab” and “good man” were mutually exclusive.

[Sibdane]

49 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

McCain was the best of the worst. He was a war monger, but he could at least admit that he was wrong at times. He occasionally stood up to his principles, but usually backed down when it meant tax cuts or losing favor with his own party (see the tax bill where he gutted the ACA after previously refusing to gut the ACA).

Even the quote that keeps getting bandied about from his campaign where he defended Obama seems a little iffy. A woman said Obama was an “Arab,” to which McCain responded: “No. He’s a good man,” as if an “Arab” and “good man” were mutually exclusive.

He didn't mean it as mutually exclusive. The lady started off by saying she was scared of Obama and he basically cut her off. 

To me, it was more of a "No" as in "We're not doing this."

[nyblue23]

5 hours ago, sibdane said:

He didn't mean it as mutually exclusive. The lady started off by saying she was scared of Obama and he basically cut her off. 

To me, it was more of a "No" as in "We're not doing this."

Either way it was an unfortunate choice of words.

[pete0]

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2018/09/04/donald-trump-supporter-burn-nike-shoes-made-unfortunate-schoolboy-error/

[Romey 1878]

50 minutes ago, pete0 said:

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2018/09/04/donald-trump-supporter-burn-nike-shoes-made-unfortunate-schoolboy-error/

It's not real, Pete.

[MikeO]

10 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

It's not real, Pete.

Funny though.

[Romey 1878]

2 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Funny though.

That it is.

If only American's could get so riled up when someone shoots up a school and kills innocent people, eh?

[Sibdane]

3 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

That it is.

If only American's could get so riled up when someone shoots up a school and kills innocent people, eh?

Shocking, isn'tt it?

[Romey 1878]

1 hour ago, sibdane said:

Shocking, isn'ttt it?

It should be, but sadly it isn’t. 

[Ghoat]

On 31/08/2018 at 12:37, markjazzbassist said:

 

that was all the RNC doing, they f'd it up just like the DNC f'd up Sanders.  

Seems to be the norm really. If a moderate candidate is nominated, the DNC/RNC is going to push hard for a further left.right candidate to appease that wing of "the base", for better or worse. I mean i "get it", but also don't. I mean if you are a way left dem, and your party doesn't put someone on the ticket that's extreme enough you arent going to vote gop because of it - or ditto a far right winger isn'tt going to got dem because his ticket.

Generally speaking, I think most of the country is more moderate than far left or far right, and that's how the want to be governed. Like MJB mentioned, the dems had super majority, the white house, the senate...and at some point the country will push it back to the other side - especially with a 2-term president. Same with W. GOP held everything, and during his terms, the house started to swing back Dem, then senate, then WH. The far left and far right make all the noise, but it's my opinion the majority of Americans want balance and moderation. Neither party holds power over the branches, especially all three at a time before it swings the other way.

 

So here is something I've wondered before - assuming a "moderate" is the presidential nominee, what if the party put another moderate as the running mate? I'm not sure they ever will, besides a 2nd term election of a popular opposition president when they have no real chance. But, if one party ran two moderates, what do you think would happen? I mean if there were on gop ticket, the left would paint them as bible thumping right wingers, and if the were dems, the right would paint them as liberal socialist - no matter how moderate they actually were.....But I think they would likely win convincingly, assuming bother were at least decent candidates. Thoughts? Would either party do it? Would it be successful, total flop etc? What might it do to the house/senate in the following election cycle?

[nyblue23]

5 hours ago, Ghoat said:

Seems to be the norm really. If a moderate candidate is nominated, the DNC/RNC is going to push hard for a further left.right candidate to appease that wing of "the base", for better or worse. I mean i "get it", but also don't. I mean if you are a way left dem, and your party doesn't put someone on the ticket that's extreme enough you arent going to vote gop because of it - or ditto a far right winger isn'tttt going to got dem because his ticket.

Generally speaking, I think most of the country is more moderate than far left or far right, and that's how the want to be governed. Like MJB mentioned, the dems had super majority, the white house, the senate...and at some point the country will push it back to the other side - especially with a 2-term president. Same with W. GOP held everything, and during his terms, the house started to swing back Dem, then senate, then WH. The far left and far right make all the noise, but it's my opinion the majority of Americans want balance and moderation. Neither party holds power over the branches, especially all three at a time before it swings the other way.

 

So here is something I've wondered before - assuming a "moderate" is the presidential nominee, what if the party put another moderate as the running mate? I'm not sure they ever will, besides a 2nd term election of a popular opposition president when they have no real chance. But, if one party ran two moderates, what do you think would happen? I mean if there were on gop ticket, the left would paint them as bible thumping right wingers, and if the were dems, the right would paint them as liberal socialist - no matter how moderate they actually were.....But I think they would likely win convincingly, assuming bother were at least decent candidates. Thoughts? Would either party do it? Would it be successful, total flop etc? What might it do to the house/senate in the following election cycle?

That’s certainly not what happened this last election. The RNC nominated an extreme candidate more or less against their will while the DNC colluded to nominate a moderate one at the expense of a far left one (Sanders), and the extremist candidate won the general election.

Regardless, I find a lot of the talk of left/right/moderate kind of hollow in our government. They’re all neoliberals on either side, with the exception of a few like Sanders. The differences come down to a few social issues (LGBTQ rights, abortion) and what to do with taxes (give breaks to wealthy or middle class; spend on military or social services). Fundamentally, the differences between Clinton and someone like John McCain in the last election were trivial.

[markjazzbassist]

1 hour ago, nyblue23 said:

That’s certainly not what happened this last election. The RNC nominated an extreme candidate more or less against their will while the DNC colluded to nominate a moderate one at the expense of a far left one (Sanders), and the extremist candidate won the general election.

Regardless, I find a lot of the talk of left/right/moderate kind of hollow in our government. They’re all neoliberals on either side, with the exception of a few like Sanders. The differences come down to a few social issues (LGBTQ rights, abortion) and what to do with taxes (give breaks to wealthy or middle class; spend on military or social services). Fundamentally, the differences between Clinton and someone like John McCain in the last election were trivial.

exactly.  our 2 party system is flawed, i like the parlimentary system in europe where they HAVE to form a coalition to work with the other parties.  in the UK there are 5-6 parties.  Everything from far left to far right and in between.  That seems like a system of the people, we have 1 versus the other, that's just stupid.

[Matt]

7 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

exactly.  our 2 party system is flawed, i like the parlimentary system in europe where they HAVE to form a coalition to work with the other parties.  in the UK there are 5-6 parties.  Everything from far left to far right and in between.  That seems like a system of the people, we have 1 versus the other, that's just stupid.

There are at least 4 in the US too mate. Out of the 5-6 (there are many more actually) in the UK, only 2 are relevant also. 

The coalition only comes into play if one party is just short of taking overall control. It’s not mandatory at all. 

[Cornish Steve]

16 hours ago, Matt said:

There are at least 4 in the US too mate. Out of the 5-6 (there are many more actually) in the UK, only 2 are relevant also. 

The coalition only comes into play if one party is just short of taking overall control. It’s not mandatory at all. 

It doesn't matter that there are four parties in the US. Without proportional representation, two of those parties will never elect a single representative. There are no prizes for coming a close second in all districts. The system is rigged for the two main parties.

Add to that the gerrymandering that goes on, often with ridiculous boundaries established to ensure the party in power can not be replaced, and the US is stuck with what it has for the foreseeable future.

[Matt]

3 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

It doesn't matter that there are four parties in the US. Without proportional representation, two of those parties will never elect a single representative. There are no prizes for coming a close second in all districts. The system is rigged for the two main parties.

Add to that the gerrymandering that goes on, often with ridiculous boundaries established to ensure the party in power can not be replaced, and the US is stuck with what it has for the foreseeable future.

Oh I know, just being pedantic 

[markjazzbassist]

6 hours ago, Matt said:

Oh I know, just being pedantic 

Which everyone always loves and appreciates.........or not

[Matt]

1 hour ago, markjazzbassist said:

Which everyone always loves and appreciates.........or not

Nothing wrong with being accurate dude  

[markjazzbassist]

49 minutes ago, Matt said:

Nothing wrong with being accurate dude  

i get that your pedantic so you can't see how annoying it is, but trust me for those of us who don't care about righting every wrong ever made, it is annoying.  

[Matt]

8 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

i get that your pedantic so you can't see how annoying it is, but trust me for those of us who don't care about righting every wrong ever made, it is annoying.  

*You’re

 

seriously though, getting the number of parties correct (even if circumstances make the rest irrelevant) is important information, as is explaining that coalition is not mandatory. That’s all I was getting at 

[MikeO]

Good this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45611403

[johnh]

29 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Good this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45611403

Mike, you are ON HOLIDAY.  Let international politics take care of themselves for a couple of weeks.

[MikeO]

2 minutes ago, johnh said:

Mike, you are ON HOLIDAY.  Let international politics take care of themselves for a couple of weeks.

John it's after 11.00 here and the wife is asleep so I can...

a) catch up on the news

b) nip to the local bar

Sadly yesterday (in the same circumstances) I chose b and woke up with a proper bad hangover and many brownie points lost. Once bitten twice shy.

[Cornish Steve]

5 hours ago, MikeO said:

Good this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45611403

This one's better.

 

[Chach]