Redstreak Posted July 10 Posted July 10 Just now, on the line said: Seriously why aren't we talking about this or AOC introducing impeachment on him? Because none of that matters if Trump wins in 4 months 1
Blade Posted July 10 Posted July 10 need at least one more Dem Sen to come out against him running before tonight ends
ClashAndBurn Posted July 10 Posted July 10 3 minutes ago, on the line said: Be for ******* real. Nobody wants to suck Joe Biden's dick. And, Biden has won against Trump already. So it's not "impossible." You're really, really angry.... at the wrong people. Biden -barely- won by 43,000 votes across three states against Trump with four years less cognitive decline and being the most unpopular incumbent president of all time as his primary achievement. Now, two of those three states are guaranteed losses for him, and there are more blue states in play as battlegrounds. And no, I'm not angry at the wrong people, because the Dem primary voters walked us right into this mess needlessly. 2
on the line Posted July 10 Posted July 10 2 minutes ago, Redstreak said: Because none of that matters if Trump wins in 4 months I mean there's been 20 individual posts about Biden outside of this thread in the last 48 hours... we don't have time for another important topic? 1
Vermillion Posted July 10 Posted July 10 Peter Welch gave signals two days ago that he was going public with his calls for a Biden step down. Not surprising. 1
on the line Posted July 10 Posted July 10 1 minute ago, ClashAndBurn said: Biden -barely- won by 43,000 votes across three states against Trump with four years less cognitive decline and being the most unpopular incumbent president of all time as his primary achievement. Now, two of those three states are guaranteed losses for him, and there are more blue states in play as battlegrounds. And no, I'm not angry at the wrong people, because the Dem primary voters walked us right into this mess needlessly. Yes, you're right. Attacking the people who want the same result you do is the way to get said result. NOT. 2
ClashAndBurn Posted July 10 Posted July 10 4 minutes ago, Vermillion said: And this will be blow by like tumbleweeds… Let's put it this way. More moderate Democrats are calling for Joe Biden to step aside than there are ANY Democrats calling for Thomas to do the same, and their voices calling for that wouldn't even matter. And obviously, this is a nothingburger for the Republicans not named Adam "NAFO SHITPOSTER" Kinzinger 1
Bamboo Posted July 10 Posted July 10 I have never understood the point of these Harris/Whitmer/Newsom/etc vs Trump polls. Those candidates are not actively campaigning so I feel it's apples:oranges. If any of those major players was actively going around the country campaigning and running ads I think those numbers would look different. Most people barely know who those people are, even Harris as VP has not been a very public figure the last 4 years. I struggle to find any meaning in those polls except using them as a baseline. 1
Eat The Acid Posted July 10 Posted July 10 22 minutes ago, GhostBox said: I agree. I still think Biden has a better chance at winning. But I'll back Kamala 100% if she is the nominee. (Which again will depend on tomorrows press conference) You're as braindead as Biden if you truly believe that. He's a walking corpse. 2 1
ClashAndBurn Posted July 10 Posted July 10 1 minute ago, Bamboo said: I have never understood the point of these Harris/Whitmer/Newsom/etc vs Trump polls. Those candidates are not actively campaigning so I feel it's apples:oranges. If any of those major players was actively going around the country campaigning and running ads I think those numbers would look different. Most people barely know who those people are, even Harris as VP has not been a very public figure the last 4 years. I struggle to find any meaning in those polls except using them as a baseline. The point is that it reinforces to Biden that he should stay in, despite their lack of name recognition being an obvious disadvantage in a hypothetical matchup. It's one of the biggest reasons he's found incentive to ignore the donor class and embraced blind demagoguery by railing against elites as a foil. If they all had Biden's name recognition, then their polling would probably be better. For a VP, Harris has been kept in the background precisely so that she could never overshadow him as a more popular successor. 2
Redstreak Posted July 10 Posted July 10 13 minutes ago, on the line said: I mean there's been 20 individual posts about Biden outside of this thread in the last 48 hours... we don't have time for another important topic? Ok what would you like to say about it
GraceRandolph Posted July 10 Posted July 10 57 minutes ago, GhostBox said: I think the biden die hards will find it crazy we are gonna swap out the nominee who's down 3 points for another nominee who's also down 3-4 points. its not like she's doing any better. Against trump. its just some hope that she can execute the case against trump better than Biden. But we have already seen someone try that (Hillary) and people didn't care 🤷 We need someone capable of serving for another 4 years. 1
dman4life Posted July 10 Posted July 10 4 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: For a VP, Harris has been kept in the background precisely so that she could never overshadow him as a more popular successor. I seriously thought I was the only one who thought this 1
Communion Posted July 10 Posted July 10 33 minutes ago, on the line said: Absolutely will not be the same. Whatever you say to cope!
Vermillion Posted July 10 Posted July 10 8 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: For a VP, Harris has been kept in the background precisely so that she could never overshadow him as a more popular successor. ****with an impossible issue portfolio reduced to parody by most outlets**** 1
bunnyeyes Posted July 11 Posted July 11 I think I can find common ground with @GhostBox on this election. We both want trump to lose we just disagree on which candidate is strongest against him. also, yeah it's pretty obvious the Biden campaign has probably done everything to sideline Kamala and they don't **** with each other. Feel bad for her to be honest. The ego…. 1 1
Communion Posted July 11 Posted July 11 (edited) 20 minutes ago, bunnyeyes said: also, yeah it's pretty obvious the Biden campaign has probably done everything to sideline Kamala and they don't **** with each other. Does anyone remember who was on the shortlist? I feel like he probably personally wanted Tammy Duckworth and Kamala was a PR crisis moment when the shortlist came out and there was a negative response to so many non-black women being on it after it being assumed he would have naturally chosen a black woman given SC carrying him. If he always wanted Kamala, he would have likely committed first to selecting a black woman but he only said he'd have a female VP at the debate (which felt like a tactic to steal any coverage after Bernie was slowly going harder on him + put Bernie in an odd position as the natural female VP selection for Bernie could have been Warren to appease her base but the two were still warring over the gossip Warren spread). Edited July 11 by Communion
ClashAndBurn Posted July 11 Posted July 11 9 minutes ago, bunnyeyes said: I think I can find common ground with @GhostBox on this election. We both want trump to lose we just disagree on which candidate is strongest against him. also, yeah it's pretty obvious the Biden campaign has probably done everything to sideline Kamala and they don't **** with each other. Feel bad for her to be honest. The ego…. Well, it's also because they had to find a way to punish her for calling him a segregationist in a debate 5 years ago, but without it being apparent to anyone who's not aware how petty and spiteful Biden and his orbiters are. It's obvious to political junkies, but not to normies who only tune in every four years starting in September. 1
bunnyeyes Posted July 11 Posted July 11 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Communion said: Does anyone remember who was on the shortlist? I feel like he probably personally wanted Tammy Duckworth and Kamala was a PR crisis moment when the shortlist came out and there was a negative response to so many non-black women being on it after it being assumed he would have naturally chosen a black woman given SC carrying him. If he always wanted Kamala, he would have likely committed first to selecting a black women but he only said he'd have a female VP at the debate (which felt like a tactic to steal any coverage after Bernie was slowly going harder on him + put Bernie in an odd position as the natural female VP selection for Bernie could have been Warren to appease her base but the two were still warring over the gossip Warren spread). 21 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: Well, it's also because they had to find a way to punish her for calling him a segregationist in a debate 5 years ago, but without it being apparent to anyone who's not aware how petty and spiteful Biden and his orbiters are. It's obvious to political junkies, but not to normies who only tune in every four years starting in September. Yeah, it's pretty obvious he doesn't like Kamala especially after she almost destroyed his campaign and calculated that he could keep her at bay from outshining him in exchange for a 2028 endorsement. I'm honestly glad he was pressured to select a woman with black heritage because he probably wouldn't have done so otherwise and there are so many capable Black women in this country. He set up Kamala by not letting her get any notable projects and then putting her on immigration when she spoke out to punish her knowing it was a no-win for anyone. Literally a veep plotpoint. I also think Tammy D. would do well in an executive role. Edited July 11 by bunnyeyes 1
Recommended Posts