Let the Betting Begin - Biden's VP

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by SteveFoerster, Mar 5, 2020.

Loading...
  1. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Too early to predict. It largely depends on what Warren does and whether or not he has to make a deal with one of the other candidates with delegates. If not, he's got a choice: someone who can help him win a hard-to-get state (not Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Harris, Warren, Buttigieg, or Bloomberg). Or he can choose someone to shore up the ticket. That could be Warren (female and progressive), Klobuchar (female and smart), Harris (female and a Trump-killer like Klobuchar), or even Pete (young and smart). Another possibility is Stacy Abrams.

    But first he has to see what Warren does, then whether or not he still needs help getting the nomination.
     
  3. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    While I'm a conservative if one asked me about Dem's candidates this would be my recommendation.

    Possibly (KM) Sen Bernie Sanders is not going to be on any ticket. Most likely his last run due to his age and health condition.
    I think Joe Biden should offer the VP spot to Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
    The Minnesota moderate looked to work across the aisle and win back fellow working-class Midwesterners.
    This will be a very interesting ticket.
     
  4. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    This may have been the reason she dropped out before Super Tuesday, and why she explicitly endorsed Biden.
     
  5. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

    Warren is probably too contrary on policy issues. Amy or Pete would be the more similar and both offer the potential of reach into the mid-west. Stacy Abrams might be a stretch, she's certainly viable and I would love to see her back in political office, but Georgia has voted Republican during the last few presidential elections. Depending on demographic changes, it may be doubtful she could flip Georgia and questions of being able to carry your home-state make viability concerns. Shrugs. Obviously the best answer, is Tulsi, Trump wouldn't know what to do!
     
  6. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Active Member

    I like the Amy idea. I had the same thought as Kizmet. Actually any of the possibilities mentioned by Rich would be good. I hope he would chose a female.
     
  7. Tireman 44444

    Tireman 44444 Well-Known Member


    I would give my eye tooth for Harris ( I was going to support her, but she dropped out before Texas was going to go to the polls)...I really like her
     
  8. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    God, why? Kamala Harris shouldn't be allowed anywhere near power over others.

     
  9. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Active Member

    Tulsi Gabbard was misrepresenting Kamala Harris and her record.

    Kamala Harris was good for minorities and improving the criminal justice system in California.

    My view is that Tulsi Gabbard is the problem.
     
  10. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    Given that Harris's poll numbers tanked after that exchange, it would seem more people agree with me about Harris.

    (Then again, given Gabbard's poll numbers, you might reasonably respond that more people agree with you about Gabbard.)
     
  11. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    So you agree with Gabbard because other people agree with Gabbard? Terrific. This is how mainstream media covers politics: instead of "X is right for the job" they say "voters have favorable opinion of X". Yes, but is it warranted?

    I think you can spin these allegations for anyone who was a high-ranked prosecutor. It helps if you can get Red Tulsi repeat these on live TV.

    Personally - either Abrams or Harris would be fine by me. Warren would be better, but it'll not happen.
     
  12. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    Let's count:
    Straw man, that's one.

    Red herring, that's two.

    Tu quoque, that's three.

    And ad hominem, that's four.

    Four logical fallacies in a post that short? That's truly spectacular!
     
  13. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Dude, you brought "the polls show" into a discussion of someone's record. Pointing out a non sequitur is not a straw man.
     
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    It's a straw man because I didn't say that I agree with Gabbard because other people agree with Gabbard. I agree with Gabbard about Harris because what she said about Harris is true.
     
  15. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    And polls are relevant, how?
    I believe what Gabbard says, Gabbard misinterprets - as with many things. If I was so inclined, I could point out that Harris was elected to Senate, and therefore California voters agree with me. You know, your argument.
    And BTW, information sources matter; for example, I would not use RT even for a weather forecast, even though they probably steal it from the National Weather Service like other networks.
     
  16. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    Are you really just too proud to type, "You're right, that's not the argument you were making"? Do you really have to double down on insisting that I was saying something that I wasn't?

    I mean, you want whoever the Democrats nominate to beat Trump in November, right? Shouldn't you want them to not put someone with baggage like that on the ticket?

    Kamala Harris's record is publicly available. There's a reason she couldn't come back and say to Gabbard, "That's not true!"

    But I guess I get it that given your inexplicable support for someone with Harris's record that you'd rather distract with "shoot the messenger" complaints about Gabbard.
     
  17. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    You said, and I quote, "Given that Harris's poll numbers tanked after that exchange, it would seem more people agree with me about Harris". Which is a non-sequitur. It just is.

    She is accused of "not being progressive enough" and "deferring to status quo" while being a career elected prosecutor. I do not think these criticisms are fair, that's it. It looks like she did achieve some progress while arguably - arguably! - succumbing at times to fears of appearing "soft" (as a woman) or of antagonizing the rank and file. Basically, she's accused of "being a cop", playing within the system. There are reasons for that, but do we really want to leave these positions to the Right?

    I'm wary of any messages that come from certain sources (like RT), and I'd argue there is a good reason for this. Why are they telling this, why now? While Gabbard is not RT, there are enough things about her that make me wary of her in this way. Besides, that was a political attack, and as such left out a LOT of contexts. Harris actually defended her record many times, personally and through allies.

    If Biden was to choose Harris, I'd be happy with this choice, as she's a strong woman of color. I'd also be happy with Abrams, Warren, or Klobuchar, and in fact would love to see all of them in his administration in some capacity. BTW what's your pick?
     
  18. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    It will be Biden and Klobuchar. She already tipped it.
     
  19. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    Having read this 45 minutes after you posted it, Rich, I checked in with "the usual suspects" - ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and even NPR. And none of them have "tipped it."

    So what is the source of your conclusion?
     
  20. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I found it in 10 seconds.
     

Share This Page