All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[jetengine]

No actually if you read a presidential ticket it's the President and Vice President candidates listed together. In nearly, every cycle the VP is scrutinized because of their role as the potential replacement. Debates are hosted with the VP candidates. Famous debates historically even. Even the logos they use feature both names prominently. "Obama/Biden" "Romney/Ryan", "Clinton/Gore. It's absolutely given an abundance of tension and you are in fact voting for the Vice President. Realistically a lot of people still thing Palin was one of the biggest reasons people went away from McCain and that Biden was a strategic move by Obama to make older white voters more comfortable with him. It's a big part of the equation.

It's protected in the constitution and it's a big part of the lection and what you vote for.

You're going far out of the way and dismissing alot of history and just what actually happens to make your point.

Do they have their VPs now though ? Cause again, why nominate someone to take a shot who (if successful) could drop dead in a few months and we know nothing of their VPs.

Just the fact that we're even discussing it shows how fucked it is

[worstblogever]

It was on this day in both 2014, as well as 2015, that we published our original "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profiles of former Michigan Congressman Dan Benishek, a three term Congressman who has repeatedly come under investigation for FEC violations during his three campaigns for office. He caught plenty of heat in for trying to continue to accept his Congressional paychecks during the 2013 Government Shutdown, only caving after a week of complaints from his district, and is one of the many Republicans who voted against relief aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy. Benishek is also a prolific denier of climate change, trying to claim he was a climate change scientist, himself, because he had taken biology courses in college, and denying any peer-reviewed evidence of man-made climate change exists (in spite of 97% of peer reviews saying it does). Since Benishek reluctantly retired after promising to do so after serving three terms in Congress.

In both 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” posted profiles of Marty Knollenberg, a member of the Michigan State Senate since 2014, after he elevated himself from the Michigan House of Representatives after serving on that body from 2007 through 2013. Back in December of 2015, where a discussion was being held about educational disparities between different demographics in the state when it was noted that the date showed students who were struggling were students of color (whose predominantly minority school districts are coincidentally also provided less funding), Marty Knollenberg shrugged it off, saying "You mention why these schools districts fail, and you mention economically disadvantaged and non-white population are contributors to that. And we can’t fix that. We can’t make an African-American white. That’s just, it is what it is.” Knollenberg, after facing widespread criticism for saying something that racist, went with the typical and lazy response that his comments were taken out of context (even though there is video of his entire statement), and giving an even more pathetic defense against racism of the "I have a black friend" vein, noting that he had an African-American employee. Because, y'know, you just can't be racist if you actually pay a minority for work they actually do. Knollenberg then made headlines less than three months later when he was accused of assaulting an Oakland County clerk after a "State of the County" address, grabbing her arm and squeezing after she tried walking away from him. As a legislator, Knollenberg voted to begin drug testing welfare recipients, voted for law enforcement to conduct roadside saliva drug tests if they feel, in their judgment, a driver might be under the influence of drugs (Nevermind the Fourth Amendment implications), voted for stricter Voter ID laws in Michigan, to combat the statistically nonexistent problem of "in person voter fraud", for stricter regulations on abortion clinics that would shut down most, if not all of the abortion clinics in Michigan, and drafted legislation to handle the truly important issues, like trying to commission special license plates that say “Chose Life” on them. (Even Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed that stupid idea.) In 2018, the Blue Wave mercifully swept away the career of the younger Knollenberg, whose career seems to be over, at least for now. As such we will set aside his profile at this time to go ahead and take a look at a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 808-40, since this was established in July 2014.)

Austin Petersen

Welcome to what is the 808th original profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profile, where we’ll be discussing Austin Petersen, a 2018 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Missouri whose educational background is a degree in musical theater. Petersen got his start working on the 2008 and 2012 political campaigns of Ron Paul. In 2016, Petersen was actually running for president on the Libertarian ticket, eventually losing to all-around weirdo Gary Johnson. Like many “Libertarian wing” Republicans, Petersen’s passion for “smaller government” delves into utter lunacy. When you look at what little he has spoken about issue positions, he managed to come out in support of a 15% flat tax plan (the kind of one economists think would tank the economy), and advocated for a completely isolationist foreign policy.

But where Petersen really went off the rails was when he tried winning the nomination for U.S. Senate in 2018 by wooing Republican voters by showing how much he loved guns and hated any restriction on the 2nd amendment. Keep in mind, he was doing this as mass shootings were on the rise nationwide. For a brief time, Austin Peterson got banned from Facebook for using the platform to organize AR-15 giveaways to potential voters, but spun that ban into conservative martyrdom by having Fox News start whining on his behalf about how Facebook’s CEO, Sheryl Sandberg, had donated money to the campaign of Democratic Senator Claine McCaskill, and it got lifted.

As criticism over his AR-15 giveaways continued, especially because they were the weapon used only months prior in the Parkland shooting, Petersen upped the ante by announcing he would be giving away a 3D printer that was specifically designed to print untraceable “ghost guns”.

The entire stunt’s motivation was pretty clear, as Petersen acknowledged he was just trying to impress Republicans by “triggering liberals”:

“I think the new prize may trigger a few more liberals and mainstream media than it did last time. This technology has the potential to send gun control into the ash heap of history. The government’s ability to control or ban guns will be obsolete.”

Petersen’s viral fame for being a libertarian gun-humper who “triggered liberals” managed to earn him 8.3% of the vote, enough to place him third in the GOP Primary. We might not have heard the last of him, but time will tell.

[AnakinFlair]

a 2018 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Missouri whose educational background is a degree in musical theater In politics.

I want THAT degree

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Do they have their VPs now though ? Cause again, why nominate someone to take a shot who (if successful) could drop dead in a few months and we know nothing of their VPs.

Just the fact that we're even discussing it shows how fucked it is

Why?

1. Because they are likely the most experienced candidates.

2. They might have the better chance of winning.

3. They might have the better policies.

I just find age to be very shallow in the grand scheme of things especially with a built in and hand picked failsafe. We are discussing because you want to. It is completely irrelevant to how I'll consider this race. It's also entirely possible you are placing too great an importance on it. You are essentially using your argument as support for your argument. I could easily just say "well obviously it's not important because despite us talking about it, the 3 leading candidates are all over 70 and they have 2/3rds of the electorate for Democrats right now and 5th place which is not far behind Buttegieg is also over 70" so you are talking about nearly 3/4ths of Democrats vying for a 70 something"

Right now exactly 4 people have a show at the nom. 3 of them are over 70. The one who isn't.

1. Is far and away the least experienced.
2. Polls terribly with black people which is a huge chunk of the base you need to turn out to win an election.
3. Is the only one who never won a statewide election and never showed they could win outside of a small city.
4. Quite frankly doesn't have policy ideas that are popular.

So why would I prefer that because there is a possibility the other candidate migh die? It's a weaker overall hand imo.

Like I don't get your argument

[4saken1]

As for your "Applicable..." question, versus what? The strategy that we know lost former President Obama Congress going into his second term?

Ignoring the correlation/causation issue with your argument, how do we know that this was his strategy as opposed to him just facing the reality (just like Bernie would have to) that despite his wildest fantasies, much of what he wanted to get done just wasn't going to make it through both Houses of Congress without making some concessions. At any rate, the job of the President isn't to make laws so much as just sign the ones that come before them. If the Bills that come before them aren't liberal enough, they can either veto them and hope for better ones (which wasn't going to happen), or sign them into law and hope to build on them in the future.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/p...-difficulties/

The second explanation, associated with the left wing of the Democratic Party, argues that Obama failed politically, not because he was too partisan, but because he wasn’t partisan enough; not because he went too far, but because he didn’t go far enough.

For the most part, however, the critique from the left fails the test of political realism. The administration couldn’t have gotten a larger stimulus bill, even if it had pushed hard; nor could it have passed health reform with a public option, let alone the liberal beau ideal, a single-payer system. The reason is the same in both cases: not only were Republicans unanimously opposed, but so were many Democrats. What the liberals overlook is that unlike the Republican Party, Democrats are a diverse ideological coalition, split roughly 40/40/20 among liberals, moderates, and conservatives at the grassroots level. In the country as a whole, moreover, liberals constitute only one fifth of the electorate and cannot hope to succeed outside a coalition with Americans to their right. What sells in Marin County won’t in South Carolina, or even in most parts of the Midwest. Democrats representing more moderate or even conservative districts know that if they go beyond the limits that their constituents can accept, they will pay a high political price. And so it proved in 2010, with Democratic losses concentrated in the South and Midwest. Liberals in the House of Representatives will now painfully relearn the lesson that Rahm Emanuel patiently taught them in the past decade: by themselves, they do not constitute a majority and won’t, for the foreseeable future.

If Bernie did end up becoming President somehow, I fucking guarantee you that he wouldn't come out of his first term the white knight that all of his followers want him to be, because he's either going to have to sell the farm to get Republicans to agree to give him anything that he's proposing or (more likely) he'll just end up spending 4 years talking about what he would like to get done if Republicans would just let him.

[jetengine]

Why?

1. Because they are likely the most experienced candidates.

2. They might have the better chance of winning.

3. They might have the better policies.

I just find age to be very shallow in the grand scheme of things especially with a built in and hand picked failsafe. We are discussing because you want to. It is completely irrelevant to how I'll consider this race. It's also entirely possible you are placing too great an importance on it. You are essentially using your argument as support for your argument. I could easily just say "well obviously it's not important because despite us talking about it, the 3 leading candidates are all over 70 and they have 2/3rds of the electorate for Democrats right now and 5th place which is not far behind Buttegieg is also over 70" so you are talking about nearly 3/4ths of Democrats vying for a 70 something"

Right now exactly 4 people have a show at the nom. 3 of them are over 70. The one who isn't.

1. Is far and away the least experienced.
2. Polls terribly with black people which is a huge chunk of the base you need to turn out to win an election.
3. Is the only one who never won a statewide election and never showed they could win outside of a small city.
4. Quite frankly doesn't have policy ideas that are popular.

So why would I prefer that because there is a possibility the other candidate migh die? It's a weaker overall hand imo.

Like I don't get your argument

My argument is that the age prevailing thought will tank them. Policy doesn't matter, average voters dont give a **** or care to understand. Personally I dislike both for many reasons but feel that their age will hinder them more then those such as the "Whos got more **** done" argument occurring earlier.

We'll just have to see though.

[Theleviathan]

If Bernie did end up becoming President somehow, I fucking guarantee you that he wouldn't come out of his first term the white knight that all of his followers want him to be, because he's either going to have to sell the farm to get Republicans to agree to give him anything that he's proposing or (more likely) he'll just end up spending 4 years talking about what he would like to get done if Republicans would just let him.

Yeah, but did you see the videos about being the mayor of Burlington in 1981 and the miracles he performed? Totally true and totally translates to 2020 Presidency.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

My argument is that the age prevailing thought will tank them. Policy doesn't matter, average voters dont give a **** or care to understand. Personally I dislike both for many reasons but feel that their age will hinder them more then those such as the "Whos got more **** done" argument occurring earlier.

We'll just have to see though.

Roughly 75% of the Democrat electorate is going for someone over 70 right now. I don’t see that idea translating in practice

[Malvolio]

Roughly 75% of the Democrat electorate is going for someone over 70 right now. I don’t see that idea translating in practice

The guy that nominee will be up against is over 70 as well. I don't see it being as much of a factor as some people think.

[Mister Mets]

I don't care about that because it's the whole reason we have a Vice President. I trust either of them far more than Buttegieg whose biggest accomplishment was being a Mayor of a small city (and he can't even get that right) who never won anything by more than an 8000 votes or Booker who is bought and payed for by special interests. People act like there aren't a million failsafes in place. The President literally gets to pick his immediate replacement, they have a cabinet full of accomplished policy makers that get to vote on their competence, and the Constitution has a succession plan that is incredibly elaborate and has never gotten beyond second level.

Also it's the President, you have no idea what is going to happen. JFK and Lincoln both got killed so their youth didn't matter much.

I wrote about this in response to you on this question about an year and a half ago.

While the sudden death of a man in his 80s wouldn't be shocking, that's not the only potential problem.

The line of succession works in clear-cut cases, such as resignation or death. It doesn't address the gray areas, such as when someone is considering whether to resign for health reasons, or when people who haven't been elected abuse their access to the President's ear.

What happens if a President Sanders' mental faculties start declining, and he doesn't realize it? Or what happens if he's physically not able to do his job? What if unelected advisers take advantage of either situation?

These scenarios would also be complicated by the ways in which Sanders is different from the rest of the Democratic party. If he gets a standard Democrat as a running mate, a decision to step down for health reasons would have major policy implications that wouldn't be the case with a President Joe Biden. If President Joe Biden at 82 realizes that he's slipping, his Vice President would be a generic Democrat with very similar policies. A big part of Biden's appeal is his potential strength as a candidate, and the belief that he can communicate better with the rust belt, so the change in leadership wouldn't be that big a deal in terms of the policies that get implemented.

The cabinet does get to invoke the 25th amendment, but that would be a very painful vote, and one likely to outrage voters who preferred Sanders to the typical Democrat.

[AnakinFlair]

What happens if a President Sanders' mental faculties start declining, and he doesn't realize it? Or what happens if he's physically not able to do his job? What if unelected advisers take advantage of either situation?

Wasn't all of this addressed, perhaps behind the scenes, during Reagan's second term? That was when his mental faculties started declining, even if they tried to hide it.

[Jack Dracula]

If Bernie did end up becoming President somehow, I fucking guarantee you that he wouldn't come out of his first term the white knight that all of his followers want him to be, because he's either going to have to sell the farm to get Republicans to agree to give him anything that he's proposing or (more likely) he'll just end up spending 4 years talking about what he would like to get done if Republicans would just let him.

This is the reality the Democratic party is facing. If a Democrat is elected President, the Republican strategy will be a repeat of the first four years of the Obama administration: challenge and obstruct everything, no matter if it's good for the country, and lie, cheat and steal to regain a majority in Congress at the next mid-terms.
Unless moderate Republican voters are willing to stand up and reign in the radical, obstructionist elements in their party's leadership, our country will be stuck in this quagmire. Unfortunately those moderate Republicans all seem to be a bunch of feckless cowards.

Unrelated: You know, it's fun to see you guys arguing about who's better than who in the current herd of Democratic hope-fulls, but let's remember that there are children still in cages who aren't likely to see their families again, so sitting home this time around isn't an option. Just a reminder.

[kidfresh512]

This is the reality the Democratic party is facing. If a Democrat is elected President, the Republican strategy will be a repeat of the first four years of the Obama administration: challenge and obstruct everything, no matter if it's good for the country, and lie, cheat and steal to regain a majority in Congress at the next mid-terms.
Unless moderate Republican voters are willing to stand up and reign in the radical, obstructionist elements in their party's leadership, our country will be stuck in this quagmire. Unfortunately those moderate Republicans all seem to be a bunch of feckless cowards.

Unrelated: You know, it's fun to see you guys arguing about who's better than who in the current herd of Democratic hope-fulls, but let's remember that there are children still in cages who aren't likely to see their families again, so sitting home this time around isn't an option. Just a reminder.

The reality the Democratic party is facing is consistently getting out to vote as well. We failed Obama in his midterms and allowed Mitch McConnell to be in the position to obstruct. Its the same as now. We can argue over Bernie/Biden all we want. But, again ANY Democratic nominee is going to be more closely aligned with policies, progressive and more centrist than another trump term.

We are screwed in alot of ways for generations because we whine about candidates not being progressive enough or sitting out elections and letting GOP ram judges left and right onto all these benches.

3 Supreme court nominees? Are any of the people whining about who isnt progressive enough seriously thinking that allowing Mitch and Trump to have 3 fucking Supreme Court nominees seriously in any of our interests? How in the world will that move progressive principles in our lifetimes?

It takes a sobering reality check that even though there are many more people who are against the deep seeded hate and bigotry of the GOP base. They are solid on getting out to vote. EVERY election.

[JackDaw]

The reality the Democratic party is facing is consistently getting out to vote as well. We failed Obama in his midterms and allowed Mitch McConnell to be in the position to obstruct. Its the same as now. We can argue over Bernie/Biden all we want. But, again ANY Democratic nominee is going to be more closely aligned with policies, progressive and more centrist than another trump term.

We are screwed in alot of ways for generations because we whine about candidates not being progressive enough or sitting out elections and letting GOP ram judges left and right onto all these benches.

3 Supreme court nominees? Are any of the people whining about who isnt progressive enough seriously thinking that allowing Mitch and Trump to have 3 fucking Supreme Court nominees seriously in any of our interests? How in the world will that move progressive principles in our lifetimes?

It takes a sobering reality check that even though there are many more people who are against the deep seeded hate and bigotry of the GOP base. They are solid on getting out to vote. EVERY election.

Is there any really compelling evidence to prove that Republicans get a LOT bigger percentage of their natural support out to vote than the Democrats?

[BeastieRunner]

Is there any really compelling evidence to prove that Republicans get a LOT bigger percentage of their natural support out to vote than the Democrats?

Historically, conservative voters nearly every election, no matter what since the 1930s. Liberal voters tend to vote in waves.