Joe Biden's choice for VP

[UKMikey]

Why not cancel the election this time around and just go for 4 more years of Orange? Saves a lot of time and money, no mass gathering at the voting stations.

Or introduce more postal voting and preserve democracy.

 

[Joey D]

Granted I have never really liked Bernie, but at least he seems to be able to keep his hands to himself and his foot out of his mouth.

That's about where I am with Sanders. I didn't like most of his ideas and policies, but as a person he seemed alright.

 

[GranTurNismo]

but as a person he seemed alright.

Now obviously I'm a big Bernie guy, but it's worth mentioning that his honesty, perseverance, and compassionate personality, as well as him never being involved in any scandals, says more than we think about him. He has the highest approval rating of any senator in the US, at roughly 70%. Even Vermont republicans and centrists, who disagree with his politics, like and respect the guy for his strength and openness.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I'll take "Jesus Christ Did He Just Say That?" for $1,000 Alex.

Or things senile politicians say

*sigh*

 

[McLaren]

I'm feeling convinced the only way Joe can grab a solid victory at this point is to nominate Michelle Obama as his VP for no other reason than to appeal to the voter base.

 

[Biggles]

I'm feeling convinced the only way Joe can grab a solid victory at this point is to nominate Michelle Obama as his VP for no other reason than to appeal to the voter base.

Your short post poses a whole slew of complicated questions. However, foremost among them is this one, simple question: out of all the possible people who could be chosen to lead the United States government, how is it that the choice appears to have come down to these two highly inappropriate individuals?

 

[Joey D]

Your short post poses a whole slew of complicated questions. However, foremost among them is this one, simple question: out of all the possible people who could be chosen to lead the United States government, how is it that the choice appears to have come down to these two highly inappropriate individuals?

The primary process is awful, that's how we end up with people that unqualified for the job. It comes down to who can pump the most money into the system while having a helping hand from the party itself to ensure the candidate the people holding the purse strings want gets the nod.

Primaries should all be held on one day sometime in the spring and whoever wins that national election gets the nomination for the party. It would greatly reduce all the BS that comes with choosing a candidate to represent a given party. As it stands now a popular candidate in states that are at the end of the primary season will probably not be around by the time the primary process gets to them. Also the fact that state A does their primaries differently than state B makes no sense. The parties in each state should run their primaries the same way, whether it's outright majority rules or a ranked voting choice.

But since we don't do it that way, we end up with people like Trump and Biden who neither are qualified to be president.

 

[Dotini]

Susan Rice is now under active consideration. This would be a safe bet, IMO.

 

[ryzno]

Anyone catch his last presser? We're screwed...

 

[Biggles]

Amy Klobuchar announces she is dropping out of consideration for the VP spot:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/biden-vice-president-amy-klobuchar/index.html

This is really turning into a tricky political dilemma for Biden IMO. It suggests to me that Susan Rice may be emerging as the leading candidate.

 

[BobK]

Amy Klobuchar announces she is dropping out of consideration for the VP spot:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/biden-vice-president-amy-klobuchar/index.html

This is really turning into a tricky political dilemma for Biden IMO. It suggests to me that Susan Rice may be emerging as the leading candidate.

She also said that qualifications such as ability are at best third on the list of requirements.

Not in so many words but that's the clear meaning.

 

[UKMikey]

She also said that qualifications such as ability are at best third on the list of requirements.

Not in so many words but that's the clear meaning.

"And there are so many incredibly qualified women, but if you want to heal this nation right now, my party ... this is sure a hell of a way to do it." Not sure how this supports your statement that ability isn't important, clearly or otherwise. Nothing about that statement suggests that she recommends they choose someone unqualified to do the job because they're a woman of colour.

It's like saying that when Bush Jr chose Condi Rice as his secretary of state over other qualified white men, her qualifications came a distant third at best to her gender and ethnicity. Do you believe this to be the case?

 

[Joey D]

Klobuchar was never going to be a good VP for Biden, she has too much of a reputation for being absolutely horrid to her staff. That would've been easy ammunition for Trump.

I really hope Biden doesn't pick someone who's black just because they're black, but because they're an actual qualified person who happens to be black. Picking someone solely on skin color seems super patronizing.

Susan Rice would be a good fit if Biden truly wants a black VP, she's definitely qualified, worked with presidents, and has foreign relations experience. She does have some baggage with the whole "unmasking" thing, but I'm not sure it wasn't unjustified given the nature of the investigation.

 

[Biggles]

She also said that qualifications such as ability are at best third on the list of requirements.

Not in so many words but that's the clear meaning.

"Ability" is a hard quality to pin down when it comes to being President. What exactly were Trump's "abilities" for the office? It's hard to imagine a worse person. A thin-skinned-habitual liar & certifiable narcissist, with a dubious history of business "success", cheating people, cheating on taxes, racist & sexist remarks, sexual misconduct, no record of public service record or political experience & a grotesquely inflated sense of self-worth.

Klobuchar was never going to be a good VP for Biden, she has too much of a reputation for being absolutely horrid to her staff. That would've been easy ammunition for Trump.

What wouldn't represent "easy ammunition" for Trump & his cult supporters?

 

[Joey D]

What wouldn't represent "easy ammunition" for Trump & his cult supporters?

This is true, I just feel like this is a softball, but so is Rice's involvement in the Russia investigation.

I wonder how they'd deal with Val Demings who's a former chief of police. It'd be one of those things they wouldn't know if they should hate her because of BLM or love her because Blue Lives Matter. I'd like to see the mental gymnastics around that one. Tammy Duckworth would be even more interesting to see, I mean how can you be a red-blooded Republican and attack a veteran and Purple Heart recipient? Although, it's not beneath Trump to openly mock a disabled person, so I'm guessing nothing would be off-limits with her.

 

[Biggles]

This is true, I just feel like this is a softball, but so is Rice's involvement in the Russia investigation.

I wonder how they'd deal with Val Demings who's a former chief of police. It'd be one of those things they wouldn't know if they should hate her because of BLM or love her because Blue Lives Matter. I'd like to see the mental gymnastics around that one. Tammy Duckworth would be even more interesting to see, I mean how can you be a red-blooded Republican and attack a veteran and Purple Heart recipient? Although, it's not beneath Trump to openly mock a disabled person, so I'm guessing nothing would be off-limits with her.

Yup. Remember this is a man - a draft dodger - who said he "preferred people who weren't captured" & it apparently had no negative effect on his red-blooded Republican followers. It appears that there are no off-limits left in American politics.

 

[BobK]

"And there are so many incredibly qualified women, but if you want to heal this nation right now, my party ... this is sure a hell of a way to do it." Not sure how this supports your statement that ability isn't important, clearly or otherwise. Nothing about that statement suggests that she recommends they choose someone unqualified to do the job because they're a woman of colour.

I did not say that ability isn't important, I did say if you care to reread my post that it's at best the third most important. "Third most important" is hardly unimportant. I would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth.

It's like saying that when Bush Jr chose Condi Rice as his secretary of state over other qualified white men, her qualifications came a distant third at best to her gender and ethnicity. Do you believe this to be the case?

Since I don't recall anyone saying at the time that he should/must choose a black woman, I don't think the two situations are at all comparable.

 

[TexRex]

I would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth.

She also said that qualifications such as ability are at best third on the list of requirements.

Not in so many words but that's the clear meaning.

 

[BobK]

I find it unsurprising that you are unable to grasp the difference here.

Let me break it down for you and see if that helps:

She said:

"This is a historic moment, and America must seize on this moment. And I truly believe as, I actually told the vice president last night when I called him, that I think this is a moment to put a woman of color on that ticket,"

She said the candidate should be A) a woman and B) of color. Those are the first two qualifications. From that it follows logically that ability is at best the third factor to consider. Are you with me so far?

Now what @UKMikey claimed I said was a complete fabrication. To wit:

your statement that ability isn't important

That is not at all what I said. In fact I said that her statement implies that ability may be as high as the third most important qualification.

Clear enough, or do I have to dumb it down further for you?

You do understand the difference between a logically reached conclusion and an outright falsehood, don't you?

 

[TexRex]

I find it unsurprising that you are unable to grasp the difference here.

I find it humorous that you'd endeavor to rebuke my allegation of hypocrisy by actually supporting it.

Let's look again at what I quoted you as having said, shall we?

I would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth.

She also said that qualifications such as ability are at best third on the list of requirements.

Not in so many words but that's the clear meaning.

Of particular interest is the idiom you've employed (and subsequently contradicted) here.

The idiom "in so many words" means 'exactly'; 'explicitly'; 'in plain, clear language'. As such "not in so many words" indicates the opposite; that the citation that preceded or followed does not represent actual remarks.

In employing that idiom, you acknowledged that you were putting words into another's mouth.

Let me break it down for you and see if that helps:

She said:

"This is a historic moment, and America must seize on this moment. And I truly believe as, I actually told the vice president last night when I called him, that I think this is a moment to put a woman of color on that ticket,"

She said the candidate should be A) a woman and B) of color. Those are the first two qualifications. From that it follows logically that ability is at best the third factor to consider. Are you with me so far?

So, yeah...the actual citation above isn't actually what you said she said. You've indeed put words into her mouth.

The mistake you've made is to interpret "a woman of color" as a qualification (specifically two separate qualifications) when "a woman of color" (a singular descriptor comprised of two characteristics) is merely what she would like to see on that ticket.

It bears noting that a woman of color and someone who has ability are not mutually exclusive qualities.

But I don't share Klobuchar's interest here. I wouldn't object at all to a woman of color, but someone who is capable of fulfilling the duties of VP (and president, in the event that it becomes necessary) without contempt for the U.S. Constitution as we have now is of utmost importance to me. Beyond that, I would like to see someone (take special note that this isn't presented as a qualification) who can temper Biden's stupidity as Pence was ostensibly to temper Trump's, except he's not even punching in the same weight class. I legitimately could not care about any other details, though I'd kind of like to see someone of Mexican ancestry if only to watch certain people absolutely lose it.

Now what @UKMikey claimed I said was a complete fabrication. To wit:
That is not at all what I said. In fact I said that her statement implies that ability may be as high as the third most important qualification.

Clear enough, or do I have to dumb it down further for you?

You do understand the difference between a logically reached conclusion and an outright falsehood, don't you?

No disrespect to @UKMikey,
but I couldn't give the furry crack of a rat's ass regarding what he said to you beyond the portion of your response to it that I cited.

You put words into another's mouth and subsequently told someone else you didn't want to have words put into your mouth. This, of course, follows a recent exchange during which you attempted to put words into my mouth.

Trumpism, man.

 

[Biggles]

She said the candidate should be A) a woman and B) of color. Those are the first two qualifications. From that it follows logically that ability is at best the third factor to consider. Are you with me so far?

You are disingenuously, or erroneously, mixing up terms which have different meanings. Trump was patently not particularly qualified to be President - he had no prior experience in public service, foreign affairs, domestic affairs, political negotiations, military experience or any of the other common qualifying life experiences generally considered relevant to the Presidency. Since assuming office he has amply demonstrated a complete lack of ability in handling the responsibilities of the Presidency. Nevertheless, he WAS elected President. Thats because the President is primarily a political figure & Trump showed some political skill at persuading a portion of the American electorate to vote for him.

With a long career in public service & politics Biden clearly has more qualifications when it comes to the Presidency than Trump did. Whether he has more ability remains to be seen. Regardless, Biden's choice of a VP is a first & foremost a political decision, just as in the case of every previous VP choice, from LBJ to Sarah Palin to Mike Pence. Biden has made the political calculation that the timing is right for him to choose a woman & possibly a woman of colour (although that has not been explicitly stated) as his VP. There are plenty of women with the qualifications & presumed ability to handle the role. It's hard to see how any of them are likely to make a bigger hash of it that Trump has of his Presidency.

 

[BobK]

You are disingenuously, or erroneously, mixing up terms which have different meanings. Trump was patently not particularly qualified to be President - he had no prior experience in public service, foreign affairs, domestic affairs, political negotiations, military experience or any of the other common qualifying life experiences generally considered relevant to the Presidency. Since assuming office he has amply demonstrated a complete lack of ability in handling the responsibilities of the Presidency. Nevertheless, he WAS elected President. Thats because the President is primarily a political figure & Trump showed some political skill at persuading a portion of the American electorate to vote for him.

With a long career in public service & politics Biden clearly has more qualifications when it comes to the Presidency than Trump did. Whether he has more ability remains to be seen. Regardless, Biden's choice of a VP is a first & foremost a political decision, just as in the case of every previous VP choice, from LBJ to Sarah Palin to Mike Pence. Biden has made the political calculation that the timing is right for him to choose a woman & possibly a woman of colour (although that has not been explicitly stated) as his VP. There are plenty of women with the qualifications & presumed ability to handle the role. It's hard to see how any of them are likely to make a bigger hash of it that Trump has of his Presidency.

I could be erroneously mixing up terms but it's certainly not disingenuous. I'm using "qualifications" to mean "required attributes" and "ability" to mean capability of doing the job and do confess to having used the wrong terms at times.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with Trump. No argument from me about his (lack of) ability or qualifications. I think ability should be an important factor this time around in particular, given the likelihood that Biden should he win the election will be unable to complete his term.

Imagine the hue and outcry if someone were to say the VP candidate should be a male and/or not a person of color.

 

[TexRex]

Imagine the hue and outcry if someone were to say the VP candidate should be a male and/or not a person of color.

Imagine the outcry if the candidate ends up being a person of color. It would be Birtherism, the sequel.

 

[Biggles]

I could be erroneously mixing up terms but it's certainly not disingenuous. I'm using "qualifications" to mean "required attributes" and "ability" to mean capability of doing the job and do confess to having used the wrong terms at times.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with Trump. No argument from me about his (lack of) ability or qualifications. I think ability should be an important factor this time around in particular, given the likelihood that Biden should he win the election will be unable to complete his term.

Imagine the hue and outcry if someone were to say the VP candidate should be a male and/or not a person of color.

I think it's erroneous to believe that qualifications & ability are ever the only, or even the primary, qualities determining who is elected President. Just to take the 2016 election as an example: Clinton clearly had far more in the way of qualifications. Trump was supported largely because he didn't have qualifications ... ie. because he was a political "outsider". His ability was that of a (perceived) great businessman. Pretty questionable given his business history. What he was, unquestionably, was a great self-promoter & his major "qualification" was that he was the star of a reality TV show in which he played a great business leader.

Other qualities that generally come into play are things like "character". Trump clearly was a person of highly questionable character ... but then he was up against Clinton, who was also perceived as having a highly questionable character, so they cancelled each other out.

But the other thing that is important, is timing. In the end, I believe Trump won (partly) because being a "political outsider" counted for more (at that time) than "being a woman". I think going into this election, being a woman ... & possibly a woman of colour ... may count as a positive overall, although only the results will be the judge of that. The choice of Biden also, sort of, makes sense as a "safe" reaction to the crazy over-reach of electing an ego-maniacal "outsider".

 

[BobK]

I think it's erroneous to believe that qualifications & ability are ever the only, or even the primary, qualities determining who is elected President. Just to take the 2016 election as an example: Clinton clearly had far more in the way of qualifications. Trump was supported largely because he didn't have qualifications ... ie. because he was a political "outsider". His ability was that of a (perceived) great businessman. Pretty questionable given his business history. What he was, unquestionably, was a great self-promoter & his major "qualification" was that he was the star of a reality TV show in which he played a great business leader.

In an ideal world, ability should be the most important factor and we then look at what race/gender/whatever only when ability is approximately the same.

Which goes to show how broken our system is, IMO neither candidate should have been nominated much less won the election

Other qualities that generally come into play are things like "character". Trump clearly was a person of highly questionable character ... but then he was up against Clinton, who was also perceived as having a highly questionable character, so they cancelled each other out.

But the other thing that is important, is timing. In the end, I believe Trump won (partly) because being a "political outsider" counted for more (at that time) than "being a woman". I think going into this election, being a woman ... & possibly a woman of colour ... may count as a positive overall, although only the results will be the judge of that. The choice of Biden also, sort of, makes sense as a "safe" reaction to the crazy over-reach of electing an ego-maniacal "outsider".

Given that Trump's primary "qualification" is that he had no real political qualifications again shows just how broken our system is.

 

[UKMikey]

In an ideal world, ability should be the most important factor and we then look at what race/gender/whatever only when ability is approximately the same.

Which goes to show how broken our system is, IMO neither candidate should have been nominated much less won the election

Is there any question regarding Clinton's ability to do the job? It seems like her character was the disqualifying factor, not her gender. I doubt Obama's selection was a completely colourblind decision.

 

[Biggles]

How do you define "ability" though? Generally speaking, until someone has served as President it's pretty much impossible to accurately assess their likely ability in that role. It doesn't seem unreasonable within the US system to elect an "unqualified" candidate - ie. someone without a lot of prior political experience. Theoretically, Trump could have been a decent President ... but in practice he has proven to be grotesquely unfit for the office. That could have been expected based on knowledge of his character & prior conduct, but was ignored ... & is STILL ignored by a significant chunk of the American population.

I think the consequence of this experience will be to reduce the likelihood for some time that another non-political figure will be elected . What people are looking for now is a non-controversial, non-polarizing figure who will allow the "Deep State" - AKA competent, career civil servants to do their job. I tend to think that Trump will lose in a "landslide", which in the present context means he will lose all, or most, of the swing states.

However ... 5 months is still a long time in politics.

 

[TexRex]

In an ideal world, ability should be the most important factor and we then look at what race/gender/whatever only when ability is approximately the same.

What? Why? If one possesses the ability to fulfill the duties of the Office of the President, why should literally anything else be considered?

Given that Trump's primary "qualification" is that he had no real political qualifications again shows just how broken our system is.

But the Democrats wanted him gone from the beginning.

Is there any question regarding Clinton's ability to do the job?

BENGHAZI!!!

I doubt Obama's selection was a completely colourblind decision.

Opposition as well.

 

[BobK]

Is there any question regarding Clinton's ability to do the job? It seems like her character was the disqualifying factor, not her gender. I doubt Obama's selection was a completely colourblind decision.

Actually yes I think there were serious questions as to her ability. I'd agree though that her character was the major disqualifying factor (personally offhand I can't think of a more loathesome creature I've ever seen running for public office). I' sure her gender was a disqualifying factor to some, but on the other hand was the reason or a major part of the reasons others voted for her.

How do you define "ability" though? Generally speaking, until someone has served as President it's pretty much impossible to accurately assess their likely ability in that role. It doesn't seem unreasonable within the US system to elect an "unqualified" candidate - ie. someone without a lot of prior political experience. Theoretically, Trump could have been a decent President ... but in practice he has proven to be grotesquely unfit for the office. That could have been expected based on knowledge of his character & prior conduct, but was ignored ... & is STILL ignored by a significant chunk of the American population.

I think the consequence of this experience will be to reduce the likelihood for some time that another non-political figure will be elected . What people are looking for now is a non-controversial, non-polarizing figure who will allow the "Deep State" - AKA competent, career civil servants to do their job. I tend to think that Trump will lose in a "landslide", which in the present context means he will lose all, or most, of the swing states.

However ... 5 months is still a long time in politics.

The more I think of it, the more I believe that "ability" is a pretty slippery thing to pin down. Also, there might be someone who unquestionably could do a good job if so inclined but the fact that they're a serial molester or pervert or some such would definitely disqualify them for office.

To further muddy the waters, you'll find voters who will say "I voted for him because I like his hair style" or something equally inane. Yes, I've heard people say exactly that, and I'd be surprised if you haven't heard similar.. To such people ability doesn't matter in the slightest.

Still and all I feel there should be some minimal level of competence, however hard to pin down.

 

[UKMikey]

But the Democrats wanted him gone from the beginning.

Good spotting. Really good spotting.

BENGHAZI!!!

Ouch. I guess you could count the emails as well. But I think that her gender was irrelevant in comparison, or at all.

Opposition as well.

As a mixed race half African I'm probably biased but to me that went without saying. I mean, tan suits and poupon are one thing but the birther thing was simply insane. A complete fabrication, if you will.