Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
See now there’s an answer. I don’t necessarily agree but time will tell. 


You don’t agree that his treatment of Anita Hill in the climate of MeToo will be a problem?

You don’t agree that his close ties to the credit card/insurance/financial sector in the age of disdain for “corporate democrats” will be a problem?

You don’t agree that this history on criminal justice will be a problem?

Comprehensive Control Act: This 1984 law, spearheaded by Biden and Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), expanded drug trafficking penalties and federal "civil asset forfeiture," which allows police to seize and absorb someone's property — whether cash, cars, guns, or something else — without proving the person is guilty of a crime. Under the federal Equitable Sharing program, local and state police get up to 80 percent of the value of what they seize as funds for their departments, which critics say creates a for-profit incentive to take people's stuff.

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986: This law, sponsored and partly written by Biden, ratcheted up penalties for drug crimes. It also created a big sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine — even though both drugs are pharmacologically similar, the law made it so someone would need to possess 100 times the amount of powder cocaine to be eligible for the same mandatory minimum sentence for crack. Since crack is more commonly used by black Americans, this sentencing disparity helped fuel the disproportionate rates of imprisonment among black communities.

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988: This law, co-sponsored by Biden, strengthened prison sentences for drug possession, enhanced penalties for transporting drugs, and established the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which coordinates and leads federal anti-drug efforts.

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act: This 1994 law, partly written by Biden and signed by President Bill Clinton, imposed tougher sentences (including some mandatory minimums) and increased funding for prisons, fostering the explosive growth of the US prison population from the 1990s through the 2000s — a trend that's only begun to reverse in the past few years. Since black Americans are disproportionately likely to be incarcerated, the law helped contribute to the mass incarceration of black Americans in particular. But the law also included all sorts of other measures, including the Violence Against Women Act that helped crack down on domestic violence and rape, a 10-year ban on assault weapons, funding for firearm background checks, and grant programs for local and state police.

The RAVE Act: This 2003 law built on the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 to impose civil penalties on businesses that knowingly lease, rent, use, or profit from a space where illicit drugs are being stored, manufactured, distributed, or used. The idea was to go after raves in which drugs are widely used. But the law has been widely criticized for making rave organizers so paranoid about anti-drug crackdowns that they stopped doing anything that would implicate them in drug use, including providing medical or educational services for drug users.

In short, Biden helped write and co-sponsored two of the most important pieces of legislation in the punitive war on drugs — the 1986 and 1988 laws — and helped create the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine. And he was at least partly behind other laws that perpetuated mass incarceration and increased police powers. Not exactly the kind of record Black Lives Matter is looking for.


And I’m no Oppo Researcher - these examples I remembered of the top of my head.

Joe’s long tenure in the senate and the deep vetting that didn’t happen when he was chosen by Obama is a double edged sword.

It makes him seem on the surface to be the cure for what ails us. But also means old issues that most people assume have been hashed out and are old news will actually be new information to the voters that democrats need to be motivated - young people, women, and minorities.

And his past is going to SMELL to that troika of necessary constitutes.

But the online political junkies will have a deep vein to mine once he announces.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 


You don’t agree that his treatment of Anita Hill in the climate of MeToo will be a problem?

You don’t agree that his close ties to the credit card/insurance/financial sector in the age of disdain for “corporate democrats” will be a problem?

You don’t agree that this history on criminal justice will be a problem?



And I’m no Oppo Researcher - these examples I remembered of the top of my head.

Joe’s long tenure in the senate and the deep vetting that didn’t happen when he was chosen by Obama is a double edged sword.

It makes him seem on the surface to be the cure for what ails us. But also means old issues that most people assume have been hashed out and are old news will actually be new information to the voters that democrats need to be motivated - young people, women, and minorities.

And his past is going to SMELL to that troika of necessary constitutes.

But the online political junkies will have a deep vein to mine once he announces.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85095

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

facepalm

No

These Republicans are not decent people. They are inherently and intentionally hateful, bigoted, corrupt and have no loyalty to the US anymore. 

Fuck. That. Noise. 

Joe also campaigned for a republican in Michigan in 2018. Disqualifying.  They all fall in line eventually, they aren’t “special” 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexEx15

TexEx15 17456

Posted
Posted

Aside from the obvious goal of a candidate that can beat Trump, I don’t know if there has ever been a more interesting VP selection.  Actively campaigning not just Presedential candidate vs Trump but also VP candidate against Pence is something Dems should be actively planning for.  Not sure if previous campaigns had this dynamic or at least at this level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TexEx15 said:

Aside from the obvious goal of a candidate that can beat Trump, I don’t know if there has ever been a more interesting VP selection.  Actively campaigning not just Presedential candidate vs Trump but also VP candidate against Pence is something Dems should be actively planning for.  Not sure if previous campaigns had this dynamic or at least at this level.

Buttigieg vs. Pence

This VP debate is going to be electric!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


Very presidential looking

Admittedly, I don't know much about the guy but he's got a pretty solid looking CV.

He's got "executive experience" in a prosperous, progressive state and appears to be scandal-free. Other plusses for him in my book, in no particular order, are: strong on the environment, anti-death penalty, weed-friendly, pro-international trade, opposed Iraq, seen as a leader by his gubernatorial peers, and took on Trump's Muslim-ban.

I'd like to hear the negatives from those who know more so I can have a more rounded opinion of him.

Edited by bolverk
Also, not yet in his 70s (but close).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85095

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Admittedly, I don't know much about the guy but he's got a pretty solid looking CV.

He's got "executive experience" in a prosperous, progressive state and appears to be scandal-free. Other plusses for him in my book, in no particular order, are: strong on the environment, anti-death penalty, weed-friendly, pro-international trade, opposed Iraq, seen as a leader by his gubernatorial peers, and took on Trump's Muslim-ban.

I'd like to hear the negatives from those who know more so I can have a more rounded opinion of him.

I hope he focuses on these things and not just climate change.  I don't like candidacies that appear to be "one track wonders" - Booker and weed, for instance (because half the field has already co-opted the weed issue).

I think he has a very distinct voice in this primary - he's the only one with state-level executive experience (so far).  Of course, that advantage goes away if, for instance, Hickenlooper jumps in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I hope he focuses on these things and not just climate change.  I don't like candidacies that appear to be "one track wonders" - Booker and weed, for instance (because half the field has already co-opted the weed issue).

I think he has a very distinct voice in this primary - he's the only one with state-level executive experience (so far).  Of course, that advantage goes away if, for instance, Hickenlooper jumps in. 

We're on the same page, brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5782

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

Warren-Beto is my current dream ticket. Not very likely at this point but worth a shot. I'm also likijg Buttigieg and am hoping Yang gets some traction to bring in some new thinking. He's right about automization.

 

 

This would be the next best thing to a Warren/Buttigieg ticket, but agree on the low probability of it happening. I'd settle for a Harris/Beto ticket, and I think that's a winning ticket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85095

Posted
Posted (edited)
Just now, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

This would be the next best thing to a Warren/Buttigieg ticket, but agree on the low probability of it happening. I'd settle for a Harris/Beto ticket, and I think that's a winning ticket. 

Shut up and take my money? 

Best part would be the VP debate - Pence wouldn't be able to talk, Mother would not approve of talking to men so handsome like Beto. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Happy to see Inslee jump in.

 

But this won't go over well. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Ugh. If true, next.

Distasteful but not an out-right deal killer (yet). As the article notes, senators can transfer their existing campaign war chests to their presidential bids, which gives them a distinct financial advantage, and none have said they won't do so. Governors, apparently, don't have that built-in advantage. Is all of that pre-existing money at their disposal from individual donors? I doubt it but could very well be wrong.

Edit: The article also states that none of the other Democratic hopefuls have said they'd refuse Super Pac money in the general.

Edited by bolverk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45491

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

This would be the next best thing to a Warren/Buttigieg ticket, but agree on the low probability of it happening. I'd settle for a Harris/Beto ticket, and I think that's a winning ticket. 

I still don't get the appeal of Harris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I still don't get the appeal of Harris.

She objectively checks the most boxes for a successful bid for the Democratic nomination.

1.  She’s a person of color which gives her an advantage in the southern states where the minority demographic carries serious weight.

2.  She’s a woman which is also an asset among Democratic primary voters.

3.  She’s not old. 

4. She has a career of public service.

5. She’s from California which gives her another huge advantage when it comes to winning that state in the primary.

 

However, when it comes to real substance and ideas that separates her from the pack, there’s not a lot there yet.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85095

Posted
Posted (edited)

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of real substance with Obama either.  "Yes we can" and "hope we can believe in" wasn't really a policy platform.  "Speaking truth" isn't either. 

The candidacies are a lot alike.  And not just because they're both black.  They're both inspirational stories and the face of changing demographics in America and totally 180s from Bush/Trump.

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Edit: The article also states that none of the other Democratic hopefuls have said they'd refuse Super Pac money in the genera

It would be insane to do that in the general election. Cool, but insane.

In the primary, however, anyone who uses a SuperPAC is playing dirty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of real substance with Obama either.  "Yes we can" and "hope we can believe in" wasn't really a policy platform.  "Speaking truth" isn't either. 

The candidacies are a lot alike.  And not just because they're both black.  They're both inspirational stories and the face of changing demographics in America and totally 180s from Bush/Trump.

Obama had plenty of policy. The biggest thing being health insurance.   Hope and change was about tone and vision.  It wasn't his platform. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Scorpio

Hank Scorpio 17721

Posted
Posted

I'm going to change my name to Super PAC and start donating money to Democratic candidates and tank their campaigns. Oh really Ms. Harris, you don't accept Super PAC money? Well how do you explain this: (I ride in on a motorized scooter waiving tiny American flags with a t-shirt that says SUPER PAC and start throwing money on the stage). 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of real substance with Obama either.  "Yes we can" and "hope we can believe in" wasn't really a policy platform.  "Speaking truth" isn't either. 

The candidacies are a lot alike.  And not just because they're both black.  They're both inspirational stories and the face of changing demographics in America and totally 180s from Bush/Trump.

tenor.gif?itemid=7301050

giphy.gif

Danny-Glover-No.gif

kim-kardashian-no-gif.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of real substance with Obama either.  "Yes we can" and "hope we can believe in" wasn't really a policy platform.  "Speaking truth" isn't either. 

Like Obama, I consider her lack of substance an asset politically because her detractors can’t pin her down on any specific policy position.  

She’s campaigning on giving people the feels which sadly works better than the policy wonks. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It would be insane to do that in the general election. Cool, but insane.

In the primary, however, anyone who uses a SuperPAC is playing dirty.

If you can assure me that none of the other candidates have no SuperPAC money in their existing senate campaign war chests, then I'd agree. And, honestly, I really have no idea if they do or don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45491

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like Obama, I consider her lack of substance an asset politically because her detractors can’t pin her down on any specific policy position.  

She campaigning on giving people the feels which sadly works better than the policy wonks. 

It may work better to get elected.  Not so much on the actual governing front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Js1 said:

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of real substance with Obama either.  "Yes we can" and "hope we can believe in" wasn't really a policy platform.  "Speaking truth" isn't either. 

The candidacies are a lot alike.  And not just because they're both black.  They're both inspirational stories and the face of changing demographics in America and totally 180s from Bush/Trump.

The sweet spot for the media and for the party is someone with charm who will mouth the words but isn't a threat to actually do anything once in power.  

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...