Senate The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election has begun

Somewhat more useful here or US Politics thread (will let Jello or Pointy G move as directed), not sure:

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9214015/tech-nerds-politics

But a good challenge on tech nerds (i.e. "intelligentsia") vs. politics.

 

Are you the post monitor now?

My post had nothing to do with any of that. Wocky, sometimes you're patently Woxy.

 

Apologies for thinking your direct reference to a previous post was meant to imply some sort of connection to it.

 

Direct reference of that part of it and applying it to my post. Hello?

 

I literally don't understand what you are trying to say. Is or isn't there a connection?

 

You're thick. I just answered you. I used a term you had used earlier to describe my post. That's the only connection.

 

To be fair, I don't understand what you're trying to say either.

 

My post is what it is. You don't understand it. Okay. Thanks for the information.

I specifically used a term or phrase. I wasn't implying a direct connection. I was using a term and said "what were we saying about facts earlier" as a way to say "Boehner is all of those things Blumenthal said" as a matter of fact.

 

A. Someone else--that is, not me--posted that Republicans have problem accepting facts

B. Another poster agreed.

C. You then post something that starts with "speaking of facts" and goes on to discuss Blumenthal's opinion of John Boehner

The most logical assumption, given that we had up until that point been exclusively discussing people whose perceptions were deeply skewed and out of sync with the facts, was that you were offering up another individual with factually erroneous views. This is the scenario I responded to. It is also technically possible, given your verbiage, that you meant to suggest that this is someone's whose views do align with facts, except that most of the points there concern perception (Does John Boehner work "hard enough?" Does he drink too much?" etc), not "facts" in the same sense we were discussing earlier (eg. "What is Barack Obama's birthplace?"). So I would be uncertain about the soundness of the analogy to begin with, and why their was no explicit signal you were trying to contrast it with the thread's earlier invocation of facts.

Really, though, I don't know what you want. Sorry that I misinterpreted you in what is probably the most reasonable way possible, given what and how you posted? Do you want to share what your actual point in posting the Blumenthal story was, since we seemed to have missed the boat so grandly?*

*Another clue, by the way, that maybe you didn't do the best job explaining yourself the first time.

 

OMG, Wocky doesn't understand someone?! What's this?! Wocky then puts in absolutes "completely" or "most reasonable".

I think you left out "completely insane" or "totally ridiculous".

I made a post that seemed to imply a connection where there was not. So this out of place post or discordant post somehow leads to a series of posts where you dwell on the trivial.

Move on and stop wasting my time! Typical Woxyizm.

Talk about Hillary for God's sake!

 

Just heard on ABC News that a source close to Biden says it's "more likely than not" the Vice President's going to run.

Still on the fence about this, but ultimately, I think a Biden run wounds Hillary to the point of her probably losing the general (assuming she's the nominee).

Any new thoughts here?

Peace,

V-03

 

Is it too early to get that "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" feeling?

 

I'm struck by Biden's heart-felt, pained cogitations about whether he would be able, physically and emotionally, to give his all to a run. If he ultimately decides not to, I suspect this would be a major reason. I also think it stands in sharp contrast to current Presidential contender Hillary Clinton. Faced with the fact that she doesn't enjoy campaigning, she has rose to the occasion and. . .mostly run a campaign without much in the way of actual campaign events. Knowing that it was important to avoid the taint of scandal in an election year, she deliberately constructed the most easily criticized communications network imaginable, and then handled in a defensive, ham-fisted way. Others have spoken about the need for mutual sacrifice and commitment, so that we sometimes don't pick our "ideal" candidate so that we can assure a few good outcomes. There's a certain logic to that. But it's certainly nicer when that sense of obligation is shared by all parties, rather than having a nominee who sees only obeisance he or she is already owed while flouting the most basic principles of running a campaign. I'm really glad that Biden is thinking this true, and is trying to be dedicated about the choice he makes. But I wish some others would have done the same.

 

I could support Biden in ways I couldn't support Hillary. He's like Trump in saying what's on his mind but in a jovial way. Does anyone think Hillary graciously bows out if the VP gets in?

I don't.

 

I like Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, they seem like better choices than Hillary Clinton. Bernie because he actually has convictions and Joe Biden because, let's face it, the man has a weird sort of charm and uses 'My Friend' as a nice way of saying '**** you.'

 

Is there really any chance, realistically, that Donald Trump can become President?

 

No.

 

No. just saw new polls. He's not only got 79% disapproval among non whites, he's underwater with white's as well. if he was the nominee it would be like 96' where 4-5 months before the election everyone knew the outcome and it was a low turnout.

 

Don't do it, Joe. He can't win, and losing a third run at the presidency will tarnish some of the shine from his excellent tenure as vice-president.

 

Why don't you think he can win KW?

 

He's a poor campaigner. Biden went nowhere in 1988, and went nowhere in 2008 until Obama picked him as his running mate. He's very undisciplined, which is fine when you're not leading the ticket, but not so acceptable when you're at the top. I also think he's too old to be running for president, let alone actually being one.

I haven't saved any of the articles and columns that echo variations of these thoughts and more, but they're out there.

I say this all as someone who thinks he's been a terrific VP.

 

I also think he's too old to be running for president

I tried that in a comment on a progressive blog, and i got accused of ageism. apparently the illnesses and ravages that commonly accompany old age don't exist in the progressive blogosphere.

 

I don't think it's ageism to observe that running for president and being president is a highly taxing endeavor, physically and mentally and emotionally. Biden can't be called a boomer, because he's actually older than the oldest ones by a few years. That's going in the wrong direction. The same is true for Bernie Sanders, though he seems to have escaped much in the way of attention on it.

It's an unfortunate irony for Biden, because he was in his twenties when he was elected as a US senator.

 

When you see how quickly US presidents age when in office you have to agree.

 

He can't have been - under the U.S, constitution it's age 30 before you're eligible. Age 25 for Representatives.