Politics Bernie vs Biden!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
jonnyboy said:
Biden’s history in politics directly negates the entire premise of that article and it’s headline. His current “platform” suggests a lot of things that I can assure you will never come to fruition.
Click to expand...

Yes, and we could be equally assured that Sanders platform had a lot of things that would never come to fruition.

Then he will morph back into a Republican centrist to try and snatch a few votes from Trump.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think Biden's current platform is fake, I think that's where he actually resides politically. His "history in politics" is incredibly irrelevant in determining who he is today because all politicians change based on the trends of the nation and their own constituency. His platform was less progressive than most of the other candidates and yet still reflected the leftward drift of the Democratic establishment. Hillary Clinton, another pilloried "centrist," was advocating far more progressive proposals than she was associated with in the 1990s--that's not because she "faked it" in 2016, it's because the Democratic party has moved left, and Clinton (and Biden) moved with it.

They're still not "revolutionaries" like Sanders and never will be. They're establishment through and through--but the establishment keeps moving with their base and the Democratic base is unquestionable more left than they were in the 1990s.
 
Minstrel said:
Yes, and we could be equally assured that Sanders platform had a lot of things that would never come to fruition.



We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think Biden's current platform is fake, I think that's where he actually resides politically. His "history in politics" is incredibly irrelevant in determining who he is today because all politicians change based on the trends of the nation and their own constituency. His platform was less progressive than most of the other candidates and yet still reflected the leftward drift of the Democratic establishment. Hillary Clinton, another pilloried "centrist," was advocating far more progressive proposals than she was associated with in the 1990s--that's not because she "faked it" in 2016, it's because the Democratic party has moved left, and Clinton (and Biden) moved with it.

They're still not "revolutionaries" like Sanders and never will be. They're establishment through and through--but the establishment keeps moving with their base and the Democratic base is unquestionable more left than they were in the 1990s.
Click to expand...

... I respect your opinions quite a bit for an internet person, but this seems to be one of the weirdest posts I have ever seen you make.
 
If anyone genuinely thinks Sanders is the better candidate, get off this stupid board and volunteer for his campaign.
 
crandc said:
If anyone genuinely thinks Sanders is the better candidate, get off this stupid board and volunteer for his campaign.
Click to expand...

I agree, only Biden supporters should be allowed to waste their time on stupid internet sites.
 
Minstrel said:
Hillary Clinton, another pilloried "centrist," was advocating far more progressive proposals than she was associated with in the 1990s--that's not because she "faked it" in 2016, it's because the Democratic party has moved left, and Clinton (and Biden) moved with it.
Click to expand...

Stick your finger in the wind. That's the direction Hillary runs to.
 
I 100% support Biden's promise to pick a women as his VP. There are several good candidates. However, E. Warren should not be on his list. She is NOT VP material.

Warren's behavior during the debates was arrogant. She showed contempt for the process by refusing to answer questions. Warren disrespected the voters by rambling on about what ever topic came to her mind.

During the debates, I kept thinking. If one of her university students refused to answer her questions, and talked about a completely different topic, she would fail that student. So Warren gets a failing grade from me. Warren came off looking like a dingbat, not a politician.
 
Reportedly Biden plans to pick from among women who were presidential candidates. If so that let's out Stacey Abrams, Val Demings, and governors of Michigan and New Mexico, all considered possible. I think we can say not Marianne Williamson or Tulsi Gabbard. So Senators Gillebrand, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren.
 
crandc said:
Reportedly Biden plans to pick from among women who were presidential candidates. If so that let's out Stacey Abrams, Val Demings, and governors of Michigan and New Mexico, all considered possible. I think we can say not Marianne Williamson or Tulsi Gabbard. So Senators Gillebrand, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren.
Click to expand...

My money is on Warren. It felt like strategic posturing when she started distancing herself from Sanders towards the end. She also has the most potential to pick up Sanders voters. One of Hillarys biggest mistakes was picking Kaine, that went a long way in alienating the Sanders bloc.
 
Of all the women who ran, I think Gillibrand is probably closest to him in terms of how he'd govern. But I don't think Gillibrand has the cache that he'd want. Warren would make some strategic sense if we think she'd attract disaffected Sanders fans (I think that's possible, but I'm not convinced she would--I have some friends who are incredibly passionate Sanders fans and they had little interest in Warren). Kamala Harris would make sense for the reasons that she seemed like a good fit as a Presidential candidate--her identity, style and contrast between her job (theoretically working for the state to lock people up) and her professed liberal ideals could give her credibility with a lot of disparate factions.

The strategic problem with both Harris and Warren is that they come from extremely blue regions of the country, so don't necessarily help widen the electoral map. From that perspective, Klobuchar would make the most sense as a popular Midwestern senator. Of course, the Midwest is a place Biden is supposed to already be strong and it's also highly debatable whether running mates from a region really make a huge difference in winning that region.

I'd probably also see Warren as the favorite, but I think Harris is also very likely.
 
My money if I had any would be on Klobuchar or Harris. Klobuchar is closest politically and from a swing state. But still leaves an all white ticket. Harris checks that box, and while California is very blue, it narrowly went for Sanders. I don't think Warren, she's from same region of the country, she's 70, and she would not win Sanders supporters who for the most part think she "took" votes from him.
 
crandc said:
Reportedly Biden plans to pick from among women who were presidential candidates. If so that let's out Stacey Abrams, Val Demings, and governors of Michigan and New Mexico, all considered possible. I think we can say not Marianne Williamson or Tulsi Gabbard. So Senators Gillebrand, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren.
Click to expand...

Harris and maybe Gillebrand, make the most sense to me, but Demings might be a smarter move as well...in addition to being an intelligent black female, she also might help Biden to flip Florida.
 
oldfisherman said:
I 100% support Biden's promise to pick a women as his VP.
Click to expand...

It's pandering. Just like mayor pete did with the food he ate.
Pick the most qualified. Who gives a shit about gender. I certainly don't. Saying you're going to pick a x gender or x race to be your VP is 100% pandering.
Warren during her campaign showed herself to be less than qualified to be president. Does that mean she'd be a unqualified VP? Don't know.
 
H.C. said:
It's pandering. Just like mayor pete did with the food he ate.
Pick the most qualified. Who gives a shit about gender. I certainly don't. Saying you're going to pick a x gender or x race to be your VP is 100% pandering.
Warren during her campaign showed herself to be less than qualified to be president. Does that mean she'd be a unqualified VP? Don't know.
Click to expand...



^^^call it pandering if you want, but getting elected is always the main goal. So Biden picking someone who can actually help the ticket is priority one. As far as being qualified, who do you see as better viable VP choices other than the females who've been mentioned?
 
Lanny said:
Why this continued infatuation with Hillary?
Click to expand...

Because, she's always hanging around. Why the Hulu documentary on the women? She's an American enigma. She's an American icon. She's, well, Hillary *shrug*
 
ABM said:
Because, she's always hanging around. Why the Hulu documentary on the women? She's an American enigma. She's an American icon. She's, well, Hillary *shrug*
Click to expand...

She's only relevant because people of your ilk are still trying to make her relevant.
 
H.C. said:
It's pandering. Just like mayor pete did with the food he ate.
Pick the most qualified. Who gives a shit about gender. I certainly don't. Saying you're going to pick a x gender or x race to be your VP is 100% pandering.
Warren during her campaign showed herself to be less than qualified to be president. Does that mean she'd be a unqualified VP? Don't know.
Click to expand...

Who is the most qualified then? What makes them the most qualified? What makes Warren unqualified? All of those questions seem to be opinions. Picking a candidate that improves your ticket and increases the vote count is strategic not pandering.
 
donkiez said:
One of Hillarys biggest mistakes was picking Kaine, that went a long way in alienating the Sanders bloc.
Click to expand...

Why? Kaine is totally bland and non-offensive. I suppose you mean because she didn't pick Bernie himself? No one would ever pick Bernie as a VP.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Why? Kaine is totally bland and non-offensive. I suppose you mean because she didn't pick Bernie himself? No one would ever pick Bernie as a VP.

barfo
Click to expand...
I think he is saying that picking someone who didnt appeal to Bernie voters was a mistake. She would have done better to have a running mate that appealed to the more progressive side of the party.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
You think he’ll drop out? Interesting. I kinda think he’s gonna draw it out, but your, version sounds better.
Click to expand...
H.C. said:
It's pandering. Just like mayor pete did with the food he ate.
Pick the most qualified. Who gives a shit about gender. I certainly don't. Saying you're going to pick a x gender or x race to be your VP is 100% pandering.
Warren during her campaign showed herself to be less than qualified to be president. Does that mean she'd be a unqualified VP? Don't know.
Click to expand...
Couldnt agree more, but its what politicians do well!
 
crandc said:
Reportedly Biden plans to pick from among women who were presidential candidates. If so that let's out Stacey Abrams, Val Demings, and governors of Michigan and New Mexico, all considered possible. I think we can say not Marianne Williamson or Tulsi Gabbard. So Senators Gillebrand, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren.
Click to expand...
My money is on Amy Klobuchar as she would help with WI, MI, Ohio, and she's more moderate and blue collar.
 
donkiez said:
My money is on Warren. It felt like strategic posturing when she started distancing herself from Sanders towards the end. She also has the most potential to pick up Sanders voters. One of Hillarys biggest mistakes was picking Kaine, that went a long way in alienating the Sanders bloc.
Click to expand...
I don't think Sanders voters will come out in big numbers.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I think he is saying that picking someone who didnt appeal to Bernie voters was a mistake. She would have done better to have a running mate that appealed to the more progressive side of the party.
Click to expand...

Does anyone appeal to Bernie voters except Bernie? Who in 2016 would have worked?

barfo
 
donkiez said:
Who is the most qualified then? What makes them the most qualified? What makes Warren unqualified? All of those questions seem to be opinions. Picking a candidate that improves your ticket and increases the vote count is strategic not pandering.
Click to expand...
Its strategically pandering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top