Someone Has To Do It: US Elections 2020

[Bruno]

"Fallacious" amounts to hair-splitting here unfortunately. Biden's brain appears to be a liability, just like Dan Quayle's was (in its own way).

[San Bernardhinault]

The point about Hunter Biden's "corruption" and the equivalence with Trump's extended grift and graft, blackmail and bribery, is fallacious. Unless you're having trouble reading, you'll know that's the point I was getting at.

The fact that his son's addiction is being used as a cudgel against him is clearly a fallacious argument. The fact that his son getting offered a job implicated Joe Biden is clearly a fallacious argument. These are arguments you would never use in any other context.

Do you think that your parents shouldn't get jobs because of your choices?

[San Bernardhinault]

And before anyone has a go: I am not saying Biden is a good candidate. He is clearly one of the worst potential candidates from the Democratic field. But we were guaranteed the most "neutral",
"safe", and "familiar" candidate once Sanders was the alternative.

And now he is going to be the candidate, people on the left shouldn't be reinforcing the Republicans' lies about him (the way some of them did while pointing out all the flaws in 2016's candidate, only some of which were based in substance).

[Freestyling buck wilding Stijn Stijnen]

The way he speaks today is markedly different from five years ago, and seems to be getting worse. This isn't a blip. His admonishment of his personal advisor today matching the 1:1 ratio of Biden being in public and acting in a questionable manner.
Sanders is attending rallies every day, Biden has barely been seen in the interim.
I also don't recall an election in the US or UK where parties weren't flinging shit at one another.
Trump just flings his via trebuchet.
And a whole generation of reality TV watching vote A or B or red or blue members of American society lap that shit right up.
Reality TV is reality to them.
And Trump is king of that reality.

[Bruno]

You quibbled about "sound mind" so I guess I was misreading you. I agree that the Hunter Biden attacks are bogus.

[Satchmo Distel]

Clearly Sanders is less of a liability for the simple reason that his faculties are still functioning so he's not going to crumble into incoherence then anger on TV every time he's under pressure, and he's also not going to miss any open goals that Trump gives him during a debate. Just watch the TV debates that have already taken place and compare them.

Sanders will also get an enthusiastic turnout whereas people will be holding their noses while voting for Biden (or just staying home), as they did with HRC.

Policy coherence also matters, although sadly not as much as it should.

[San Bernardhinault]

Sanders will also get an enthusiastic turnout whereas people will be holding their noses while voting for Biden (or just staying home), as they did with HRC.

This is oft stated. Evidence from the primaries thus far suggests that Sanders driving up turnout is a talking point which the data doesn't back up. (I'm sure some Democrats will have to hold their nose voting for Biden, as would some voting for Sanders if he was the nominee.)

[Nefertiti2]

Joe Biden's corrupt deals with credit card companies from his home state is what brought Elzabeth Warren into politics. They called him Senator MBNA

[Incandenza]

[URL]https://twitter.com/tylerpager/status/1237470608495120396[/URL]

[Nefertiti2]

From the Guardian

When an earlier version of the bill was in front of Congress, a respected law professor at Harvard law school was so incensed by its terms that in 2002 she wrote an entire paper decrying Biden’s forceful support of it. The author – Elizabeth Warren – said the changes would be to the detriment of one group above all others: women.

“Senator Biden supports legislation that will fall hardest on women,” she wrote. “Why? The answer will have to come from him … He is a zealous advocate on behalf of one of his biggest contributors – the financial services industry.

Warren, whose decision to enter politics was inspired in no small part by her experiences of fighting Congress over bankruptcy laws, goes on to note in her essay that Biden’s “energetic work on behalf of the credit card companies has earned him the affection of the banking industry and protected him from any well-funded challengers for his Senate seat”.

Warren’s suspicion that Biden’s enthusiasm for toughening bankruptcy laws came from his close ties to the credit card companies persists to this day. Professor Jacoby said: “I don’t know how else to explain his stance on bankruptcy policy for financially distressed families other than his relationship with the consumer credit industry. There really isn’t another plausible explanation.”

As a US senator from Delaware, a state that hosts many of the largest financial corporations in the country, that relationship came naturally. So friendly were his links with the Delaware-incorporated MBNA, a major credit card company since taken over by Bank of America, that back in 1999 he felt it necessary to declare: “I’m not the senator from MBNA.”

Campaign finance watchdogs underline the point. In the 2003-2008 senatorial election cycle, Biden received more than $500,000 in help from credit card companies, financial services and banks, the Open Secrets database shows.

[ad hoc]

I'm not convinced by the argument that you appear to be at least flirting with SB, that the left is the reason that the centre have given us a crap candidate. Like if it weren't for the pesky left that we could have had a clean run off of sensibles and chosen an excellent one.

[Freestyling buck wilding Stijn Stijnen]

This is oft stated. Evidence from the primaries thus far suggests that Sanders driving up turnout is a talking point which the data doesn't back up. (I'm sure some Democrats will have to hold their nose voting for Biden, as would some voting for Sanders if he was the nominee.)

Wasn't the fact that he received the largest amount of donations - in total amount and also in largest number of individual donations - the reason for such thinking? In addition to the initial results?

[San Bernardhinault]

I'm not convinced by the argument that you appear to be at least flirting with SB, that the left is the reason that the centre have given us a crap candidate. Like if it weren't for the pesky left that we could have had a clean run off of sensibles and chosen an excellent one.

It's clear that when the alternative was Sanders vs Party Member, everyone fell in line to make sure it wasn't Sanders. It's possible that this would have happened with Klobuchar or Booker rather than Biden if they'd still been the last one standing, but I'm not convinced.

And if the main progressive option had not been so divisive - if it had been Warren, or if the progressive wing had any other viable candidates - there may not have been such a dramatic movement to make sure their candidacy didn't happen.

[San Bernardhinault]

Wasn't the fact that he received the largest amount of donations - in total amount and also in largest number of individual donations - the reason for such thinking? In addition to the initial results?

The donation stats show that the people motivated by Sanders are very motivated. But so far the turnout data has shown increases in turnout in areas where Sanders isn't doing well, and no matching increase in areas where he is performing well; and so far he's underperformed his 2016 numbers, too (although that's at least in part because of the split field).

As I've said before, I fear that the turnout myth that Corbyn's supporters pushed in Britain, that the youth were energised and going to vote, is being repeated here. The data doesn't back it up.

[Nefertiti2]

The donation stats show that the people motivated by Sanders are very motivated. But so far the turnout data has shown increases in turnout in areas where Sanders isn't doing well, and no matching increase in areas where he is performing well; and so far he's underperformed his 2016 numbers, too (although that's at least in part because of the split field).

As I've said before, I fear that the turnout myth that Corbyn's supporters pushed in Britain, that the youth were energised and going to vote, is being repeated here. The data doesn't back it up.

...in the primaries.

We don't know what might happen when Trump faced Bernie.

[Nefertiti2]

but we're probably about to find out what happens when Biden does

https://twitter.com/franklinleonard/status/1237490705682984960?s=20

What you're doing there SB is the sunk cost fallacy, it might have been better if Warren faced Trump.

That didn't happen, there's only two choices now.

[Nefertiti2]

anyway halsey has 12 million followers. lets hope lots are in Michigan

she's very impressive

[TWEET}https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/st...171168256?s=20[/TWEET]

[San Bernardhinault]

There's only one choice. All three remaining candidates are general election liabilities, but two of them haven't got a chance.

And as we're at that point, I feel obliged to point out the bullshit arguments against Biden. Such as the corruption one, or the one that argues that he's actually as senile as Trump, or the one that says that he drives down turnout when the data shows otherwise.

[Nefertiti2]

There are three serious candidates for president
Republican
Donald trump

Democrat
Joe Biden
Bernie Sanders


You seem committed to supporting the weakest because of your rage that you think Elizabeth Warren should have won.

it's called the sunk cost fallacy.

Biden has no chance. he was toxic at the best of times.

he is the candidate only because the Demcrats would rather Donald trump was president than Bernie Sanders.

you appear to agree with them.

[San Bernardhinault]

That's at least 8 false statements in that post.

[That Night In Barcelona]

But that's not Joe Biden's fault. Nor, even, Hunter's. And there's nothing Joe Biden could have done about it unless you think he should dictate his 40 year old kid's career choices.

I don't think Hunter would keep being offered these lucrative roles unless his employers knew they were paying for access to Biden. However I appreciate that's an assumption on my part.

[Tactical Genius]

There's only one choice. All three remaining candidates are general election liabilities, but two of them haven't got a chance.

And as we're at that point, I feel obliged to point out the bullshit arguments against Biden. Such as the corruption one, or the one that argues that he's actually as senile as Trump, or the one that says that he drives down turnout when the data shows otherwise.

Joe Biden will not garner the black vote. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[San Bernardhinault]

edit: to TMIB

That is almost certainly true.

It's not Hunter Biden's fault. It's also nothing Joe Biden could reasonably do anything about. And it is not a sign of corruption on the part of any of the Bidens.

[Nefertiti2]

[URL="https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1237482499846156288?s=20"]https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status...846156288?s=20[/URL]


not Hunter Biden's fault he was offered sinecure by a Ukrainian oligarch

could have happened to any Beltway kid

[San Bernardhinault]

Are you actually unable to read?