Trump/ Biden I: The Battle for the Oval Office..

SNU0821

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2013
9,782
3,501
113


They never once mentioned that it was because the majority held the house and the President was of a different party in 2016. That's just rewriting history to suit their current circumstance. You can always tweak minutiae to say that it's different this time because x. It's not a very good excuse, and it's just an easy way to cover up a lie.

You're incorrect. McConnell said it several times back in 2016 and he said it again in 2020.

And every single Democrat has now flip flopped their opinions regarding this matter as well. Doesn't that matter? And you never answered my question. Do you think the Democrats would have done ANYTHING different? You and I both know this is purely about political power. If the shoe was on the other foot, it would have gone down the exact same way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz

Jaycg15

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2008
6,094
5,670
113
Team
Illinois
You can always tweak minutiae to say that it's different this time because x. It's not a very good excuse, and it's just an easy way to cover up a lie.

So tell me again how Biden announcing he would pick a VP based on gender and color is valid again......but without the mental gymnastics you speak of above.
I think you've proven to me multiple times that you don't read what I write. If you do, you're incapable of comprehending. I'm not sure both aren't true.
 

Jaycg15

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2008
6,094
5,670
113
Team
Illinois


You're incorrect. McConnell said it several times back in 2016 and he said it again in 2020.

And every single Democrat has now flip flopped their opinions regarding this matter as well. Doesn't that matter? And you never answered my question. Do you think the Democrats would have done ANYTHING different? You and I both know this is purely about political power. If the shoe was on the other foot, it would have gone down the exact same way.
It is about political power. Just wish people would call it what it is. McConnell appears to have been consistent.

There are numerous people, cough Lindsey Graham cough, that were asked on record about it after 2018 and have flip flopped.
 

toonces11

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Mar 3, 2010
5,178
4,657
113
Team
Kansas
I think you've proven to me multiple times that you don't read what I write. If you do, you're incapable of comprehending. I'm not sure both aren't true.
You are clear as mud buddy. If you can't admit that Biden announcing he would be picking based on gender and race,,,just to pander to voters, than the convo is done. Its pretty clear you swallowed your whistle on this one b/c of politics.
 

SNU0821

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2013
9,782
3,501
113
It is about political power. Just wish people would call it what it is. McConnell appears to have been consistent.

There are numerous people, cough Lindsey Graham cough, that were asked on record about it after 2018 and have flip flopped.
Yup. Mcconnell I believe was the first one to adequately explain his position. The rest of the republicans just said not to fill it. Not news. Same with democrats. They all flipped their positions as well. Business as usual.
 

Jaycg15

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2008
6,094
5,670
113
Team
Illinois
You are clear as mud buddy. If you can't admit that Biden announcing he would be picking based on gender and race,,,just to pander to voters, than the convo is done. Its pretty clear you swallowed your whistle on this one b/c of politics.
How the fvck do you think every modern President picks their VP choice? It's about votes for every single one of them.

It's pretty clear your whistle is in your ass, and every time you talk it blows.
 

I am stupid

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2013
3,648
976
113
I guess the 2016 Republicans should have just allowed to he Garland nomination and just voted no. Would that have made it better to have the same outcome but different paths?
 

SNU0821

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2013
9,782
3,501
113
I guess the 2016 Republicans should have just allowed to he Garland nomination and just voted no. Would that have made it better to have the same outcome but different paths?
I think this is right. They should have taken a vote, which would have been no, but voted none the less. That would have been optically better for Mcconnell, IMO.
 

GhostOf301

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Mar 24, 2020
1,776
7,870
113
I think this is right. They should have taken a vote, which would have been no, but voted none the less. That would have been optically better for Mcconnell, IMO.
I disagree. It saved time and money not to hold a vote. It also saved Garland the hassle of the process.
 

GhostOf301

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Mar 24, 2020
1,776
7,870
113
How the fvck do you think every modern President picks their VP choice? It's about votes for every single one of them.

It's pretty clear your whistle is in your ass, and every time you talk it blows.
I guess it is all in your method of accumulating the votes. One could pick a running mate based on merit and how the public views their career accomplishments and how that would lead to more votes. And one could put all of that aside and pick a running mate solely based off of race and gender hoping that it would be enough pandering to accumulate votes.
 

Jaycg15

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2008
6,094
5,670
113
Team
Illinois
I guess it is all in your method of accumulating the votes. One could pick a running mate based on merit and how the public views their career accomplishments and how that would lead to more votes. And one could put all of that aside and pick a running mate solely based off of race and gender hoping that it would be enough pandering to accumulate votes.
I think you're making an assumption that Kamala Harris is unqualified or less qualified and she only got the position because of her gender and race. That's bs.
 

toonces11

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Mar 3, 2010
5,178
4,657
113
Team
Kansas
How the fvck do you think every modern President picks their VP choice? It's about votes for every single one of them.

It's pretty clear your whistle is in your ass, and every time you talk it blows.
I thought they picked the person best fit to run the country in case of their incapacitation? At least your last response showed you do in fact acknowledge that Biden was wrong by excluding many good running mates based on their gender and race and that is okay bc that how you think everyone does it.
 

SNU0821

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2013
9,782
3,501
113
I think you're making an assumption that Kamala Harris is unqualified or less qualified and she only got the position because of her gender and race. That's bs.
I don't think that's what anyone is doing. What we're saying is Biden flat out said it would be a woman and of color. He didn't say that was a big factor in his decision making process. He flat out eliminated anyone not in those two groups.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
It's about votes for every single one of them.
It would make sense to pick someone who could pick up a few more votes for you. That is logical.

However, if that is the case, what additional votes would Kamala Harris actually bring? California is already locked up. Females have a liberal-lean. The black vote is a huge liberal-lean. What am I missing?

To be fair, Pence is the exact same for the GOP. He doesn't bring any additional votes for Trump.
 

TheDude1

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2010
4,776
4,359
113
I guess the 2016 Republicans should have just allowed to he Garland nomination and just voted no. Would that have made it better to have the same outcome but different paths?
Yes, without question. The path is ESSENTIAL. It's like if someone becomes president, and the path is either being elected, or a military coup. Obviously the path there is pretty key:)

And I am not sure he would have been voted down. Likely, maybe, but not for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I am stupid

TheDude1

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2010
4,776
4,359
113
It would make sense to pick someone who could pick up a few more votes for you. That is logical.

However, if that is the case, what additional votes would Kamala Harris actually bring? California is already locked up. Females have a liberal-lean. The black vote is a huge liberal-lean. What am I missing?

To be fair, Pence is the exact same for the GOP. He doesn't bring any additional votes for Trump.
Both bring SOME votes. Pence was picked in part because of his state and because of his pull with evangelicals.

But for Harris, I go back to the idea that she helps create a government of the people, by the people, for the people that better represents the people. We've had a government that is completely dominated by the white male experience for centuries, and I am happy that they picked someone for the position that is from a different background with different experiences. I mean, the fact that we've never had a woman president or vice president is NUTS, and not at all reflective of our country.
 

TheDude1

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2010
4,776
4,359
113
BTW, it would be f'ing crazy if the first woman president was Harris, taking over if something happened to Biden. Would be a shame, too, bc there would always be an * next to her place in history.
 

SNU0821

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2013
9,782
3,501
113
BTW, it would be f'ing crazy if the first woman president was Harris, taking over if something happened to Biden. Would be a shame, too, bc there would always be an * next to her place in history.
This idiot is throwing this out there like it's not the plan. What a disingenuous douchebag. But, pretty sure everyone knew that already...
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84

Jaycg15

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2008
6,094
5,670
113
Team
Illinois
It would make sense to pick someone who could pick up a few more votes for you. That is logical.

However, if that is the case, what additional votes would Kamala Harris actually bring? California is already locked up. Females have a liberal-lean. The black vote is a huge liberal-lean. What am I missing?

To be fair, Pence is the exact same for the GOP. He doesn't bring any additional votes for Trump.
I think the Dems played the middle this time around knowing that everyone to the left of them would likely fall in line too. Harris appeals to those who are concerned about Biden's health. A person of color also appeals to the Hispanic community which, in places like Florida, isn't as left-leaning as many think. At the very least, she solidifies some votes.

On top of that, I think if you went with a guy like Bernie, you're chasing away people. In this election, sides are pretty rigid alreadym, so no pick is going to capture a substantial chunk of the electorate. Ensuring that you're not going to lose any was the safe play.

I guess a question to ask is what part of the population is up for grabs in this election?
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
Both bring SOME votes. Pence was picked in part because of his state and because of his pull with evangelicals.

But for Harris, I go back to the idea that she helps create a government of the people, by the people, for the people that better represents the people. We've had a government that is completely dominated by the white male experience for centuries, and I am happy that they picked someone for the position that is from a different background with different experiences. I mean, the fact that we've never had a woman president or vice president is NUTS, and not at all reflective of our country.
lol seriously? Indiana is not a swing state. Hillary got 37% of the votes. Evangelicals are voting for a Republican, regardless. They weren't crazy about Romney's religion, but evangelicals still voted for him.

That's fine if Kamala is picked on merit. Nobody is arguing that. But if we're going to be championing equal opportunity, you can't instantly dismiss a significant number of quality candidates. There were 29 major candidates for the DNC nomination. Only two fit the bill for a woman of color - Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard. So, Joe effectively eliminated more than 90% of his pool with those two qualifying factors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNU0821

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
I think the Dems played the middle this time around knowing that everyone to the left of them would likely fall in line too. Harris appeals to those who are concerned about Biden's health. A person of color also appeals to the Hispanic community which, in places like Florida, isn't as left-leaning as many think. At the very least, she solidifies some votes.

On top of that, I think if you went with a guy like Bernie, you're chasing away people. In this election, sides are pretty rigid alreadym, so no pick is going to capture a substantial chunk of the electorate. Ensuring that you're not going to lose any was the safe play.

I guess a question to ask is what part of the population is up for grabs in this election?
Mostly swing-states. I think a decent amount of Latinos are still up for grabs, too.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
Don't forget this qualified person.
Stacey Abrams? Right. Of course his candidates weren't solely those that put their name in the running for the DNC nominee. I was using that as an example to illustrate how narrow of a pool he has to work with when he requires two specific immutable features. Still, the number of Democrats in the Senate and the House that meet those two requirements is pretty low.
 

brooky03

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2012
2,551
1,953
113
lol seriously? Indiana is not a swing state. Hillary got 37% of the votes. Evangelicals are voting for a Republican, regardless. They weren't crazy about Romney's religion, but evangelicals still voted for him.

That's fine if Kamala is picked on merit. Nobody is arguing that. But if we're going to be championing equal opportunity, you can't instantly dismiss a significant number of quality candidates. There were 29 major candidates for the DNC nomination. Only two fit the bill for a woman of color - Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard. So, Joe effectively eliminated more than 90% of his pool with those two qualifying factors.
But this isn’t like hiring for a job. He’s picking a running mate. If picking somebody with blue eyes meant he’d secure 3% more voters than the alternatives, then picking from a group of blue eyed people would be the smart move.

If your goal is to be elected and running with a person of color gives you the best chance of being elected, why would you pick somebody else?

If you’re an NBA GM and a PG would give you the best shot at winning in the Finals, why would you sign a PF instead?
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
But this isn’t like hiring for a job. He’s picking a running mate. If picking somebody with blue eyes meant he’d secure 3% more voters than the alternatives, then picking from a group of blue eyed people would be the smart move.

If your goal is to be elected and running with a person of color gives you the best chance of being elected, why would you pick somebody else?

If you’re an NBA GM and a PG would give you the best shot at winning in the Finals, why would you sign a PF instead?
If you want to pick up additional votes, why not get someone from a swing state? The black vote is secure. California is secure. Maybe she could help bring in more female voters? I suppose that's possible. So, possibly a female in a swing state like Amy Kloubachar or Gretchen Whitmer? I'm not going to lose sleep over it, either way. If he feels that's in his best interest, fine. I just don't like the idea of not giving a chance to 80-90% of possible candidates. This also dismisses a person of color like Cory Booker or Julian Castro. It also dismisses females like Kirsten Gillibrand and Marianne Williamson.
 

brooky03

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2012
2,551
1,953
113
If you want to pick up additional votes, why not get someone from a swing state? The black vote is secure. California is secure. Maybe she could help bring in more female voters? I suppose that's possible. So, possibly a female in a swing state like Amy Kloubachar or Gretchen Whitmer? I'm not going to lose sleep over it, either way. If he feels that's in his best interest, fine. I just don't like the idea of not giving a chance to 80-90% of possible candidates. This also dismisses a person of color like Cory Booker or Julian Castro. It also dismisses females like Kirsten Gillibrand and Marianne Williamson.
Voter turnout. It’s one thing to have the Black vote or the female vote. It’s another to increase turnout from those voters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaycg15

TheDude1

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2010
4,776
4,359
113
lol seriously? Indiana is not a swing state. Hillary got 37% of the votes. Evangelicals are voting for a Republican, regardless. They weren't crazy about Romney's religion, but evangelicals still voted for him.

That's fine if Kamala is picked on merit. Nobody is arguing that. But if we're going to be championing equal opportunity, you can't instantly dismiss a significant number of quality candidates. There were 29 major candidates for the DNC nomination. Only two fit the bill for a woman of color - Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard. So, Joe effectively eliminated more than 90% of his pool with those two qualifying factors.
Sure. People are picked for many reasons. Pence's religious ties were important for sure. It has nothing to do with evangelicals voting DEMOCRAT... many people weren't sure if evangelicals would stay home or not. Pence was a part of making sure they came out. There are other reasons he was picked, of course, including his experience in the legislative branch.

And I think you aren't addressing the subtleties of it all. It is like with quota systems in college admissions. People look at it and say "Wait, if you want everyone to be equal, then we should treat everyone equally! Nobody should get an advantage because of skin color!"

Well, no, it doesn't work that way. For centuries kids of certain backgrounds didn't get as much of a chance at the education that would make you a potential candidate for being accepted at a good college, even if they had the natural smarts to fit in. Even if we said "Hey colleges, now you have to accept everyone equally!" they still wouldn't accept many kids of that background, bc they simply don't have the academic foundation to qualify. So we introduce quotas, which take kids who wouldn't normally make it and bring them in, where they can succeed and then pass on those benefits to others. Your AIM, of course, is to eventually get everyone to the point where you can do away with that. And it can be messy and shitty, especially when you get down to the micro, personal anecdote level. But it's a very "big picture" way of approaching things. Its not perfect, its not flawless, but nothing is.

I'd wager that looking at more than two centuries of Presidents and Vice-Presidents, and seeing only a single black person and no women, is a good indication that maybe we haven't quite reached the point where we can completely ignore race or gender when picking the potential representatives of our people.

While it might make for a catchy slogan or poster, this stuff isn't as simple as boiling everything down to a single catch phrase, like "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL!" The world is too messy for that, even if we can all aspire to it.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
Voter turnout. It’s one thing to have the Black vote or the female vote. It’s another to increase turnout from those voters.
That could help, certainly.

But, I'd say there's higher room for growth with Asians and Latinos than Blacks.



I'd wager that looking at more than two centuries of Presidents and Vice-Presidents, and seeing only a single black person and no women, is a good indication that maybe we haven't quite reached the point where we can completely ignore race or gender when picking the potential representatives of our people.
Yikes. Presentism is calling you.
 

hailtoyourvictor

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2012
25,543
12,391
113
BTW, it would be f'ing crazy if the first woman president was Harris, taking over if something happened to Biden. Would be a shame, too, bc there would always be an * next to her place in history.
So crazy! It would be soooo unexpected.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SNU0821

brooky03

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2012
2,551
1,953
113
That could help, certainly.

But, I'd say there's higher room for growth with Asians and Latinos than Blacks.





Yikes. Presentism is calling you.
Looks like White, Asian, and Hispanic voters are at the level they’re usually at. The argument could be made that the ‘16 election was lost due to diminished Black voter turnout. If it were me, my focus would be on getting that 5% of the Black vote back.
 

SNU0821

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2013
9,782
3,501
113
Looks like White, Asian, and Hispanic voters are at the level they’re usually at. The argument could be made that the ‘16 election was lost due to diminished Black voter turnout. If it were me, my focus would be on getting that 5% of the Black vote back.
You buying the increased support for Trump in the black community? Feels like a long shot to get anything meaningful, which wouldn't take much, but still unlikely.
 

brooky03

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2012
2,551
1,953
113
You buying the increased support for Trump in the black community? Feels like a long shot to get anything meaningful, which wouldn't take much, but still unlikely.
Seems unlikely. His policies aren’t particularly Black friendly and his personal beliefs, if not racist, are not Black friendly.

I don’t think his criminal reform legislation did as much as he was hoping it would do to help with the minority vote.
 

SNU0821

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2013
9,782
3,501
113
Seems unlikely. His policies aren’t particularly Black friendly and his personal beliefs, if not racist, are not Black friendly.

I don’t think his criminal reform legislation did as much as he was hoping it would do to help with the minority vote.
Don't disagree. I'm assuming it's gonna get him some boost however big or small for actually doing justice reform. That along with the record low unemployment for the black community has to at least make some people think about voting for him. With how consistent the black community is for democrats, it's hard to think it's going to just change on a dime for Trump. However, if he does get a few percentage point more than in 2016, that could be a big help for him.