Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

haveblue posted:

It’s a well-established principle that republicans only care about something when they have a strong personal connection to it, and, well, a lot of them have children in school

Yeah, but they usually have their kids in "good" / private schools.
I mean, I don't have the numbers so correct me if I'm wrong, but the schools getting shot up are your bog standard public schools, aren't they? Not usually the schools in the rich neighborhoods where a politician is going to have their kids.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Ershalim posted:

Probably going to regret asking this, but what exactly are the people saying we spend too little on border security complaining about? Do they want more camps, or more murders at the border, or some other thing that isn't occurring to me? I assume the question reads as border security [from Mexico], but is there another angle to it? Like, are people buying into copaganda that fentanyl from China is giving them Super Havana Syndrome or something?

They want it to be legal to hunt Mexicans for sport, and they want a world where the only dark-skinned people they ever have to interact with is the landscaper.

They're thoroughly convinced that all Mexicans are superhuman drug trafficking sexual assault cyborgs, except for the "good ones" who they happen to know personally.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Alkydere posted:

Well if the dumbass wants to drive pedal to the metal into the brick wall to reach the cliff on the other side...yeah, sure.

I guess being known as the idiot who finally kicked off the Second Great Depression by sending America into default and making the entire world banking system collapse is one way to get your name into the history books.

Pretty sure the people who own the History Book factory already have the chapter of how this was actually something Biden kicked off written and ready to print.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!


Hey, that just proves he's a normal guy like the rest of us.
His phone autocorrects random words one leg at a time, same as ours.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Timeless Appeal posted:

Drag bans are pretty obviously unconstitutional, and I can't even imagine them surviving the current worst Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with gender identity or accepting trans people. Drag bans just clearly violate the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment because they're just bans on a guy wearing a dress*. Taken to their natural extreme they pretty much give state governments the power to force women to not wear pants. Of course, if it actually gets to the Supreme Court, it'll still probably just end up being a 5-4 decision agains the bans.

*To be clear, I'm aware drag kings exist, some drag queens are cis and trans women alike along with non-binary people

I wonder if, say the drag ban does go through and manages to stick the landing, if some :smuggo: type tries to move that judge robes, or robes in general, are considered dresses and therefore drag. Or kilts.

Y'know, one of those "I am not serious about pushing for this, I am just trying to score an Own against the conservatives." kind of things.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

is pepsi ok posted:

"Competent fascist" was always the wrong framing for DeSantis. It should be something more like "guy who appeals to the MAGA base but is still friendly to/controlled by the Republican establishment."

Which is turning out to be his undoing. He can only appeal to the MAGAs through his pre-planned stunts, but when you hear the guy actually talk it's clear that he's a donor-pleaser and a sniveling ladder climber. His attempts to triangulate a position where he pushes back on Trump's insults but never actually attacks him is the exact kind of weakness that the MAGA base hates.

The "competent fascist" thing is just cope by people who are still desperate to convince themselves that Trump was some sort of wild outlier and fluke that could totally never happen again.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Fister Roboto posted:

Furries. We're already seeing that freakout, although for now it's more just a branchoff from the general anti-LGBT hysteria.

Also don't be fooled into thinking that we can't go backwards on this.

I don't think furries were ever seen as the bullet in the head of all that is good and decent like the other things were.
I think that at worst, they're seen as creepy perverts, but I don't think they generally get lumped into the Groomers category like the main LGBTQ+ body.

They usually stop the furry comparisons at the "They put a litterbox in the classroom because someone said they identify as Garfield" lie.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

BiggerBoat posted:

This is where I am and, sadly, has been my experience since I've been eligible to vote.

The first ballot I ever cast was for Michael "how am I losing to this guy?" Dukakis and every single year it's felt like I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. The only candidates I was even mildly enthusiastic about were Al Gore and certainly Barrack Obama, who to me at the time, seemed transformative. Joke was on me. My appreciation for Gore was also more retroactive than in the moment as I learned more about him and aided by the ghoulish loving disaster of the GWB administration, where I wonder what might have been and how different the world might be had Gore won that one.

Maybe not as different as I like to think but, at a minimum, I don't think we get an Iraq war and we certainly would have gotten some earlier movement on climate change. I wonder too what the whole overall reaction to 9/11 might have been.

In the meantime, I find myself having trouble generating much passion for the likes of John Kerry, Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton so I can only imagine how much more lukewarm a younger voter might feel for the candidates the DNC keeps turning out.

It's also due to the generational influence of RWM and talk radio. The true believers ARE the base now and even Republicans who know all that stuff is mostly bullshit have to play along and cater to them to even win a primary. I suppose that's what you meant by "caught the car". People like Jesse Helms used to be outliers and viewed as pariahs but now you've got MTG, Desantis, Santos, Boebert, etc. as the mainstream, culminating in Trump and his cult.

And the problem with younger, more liberal voters has always been that young people simply don't turn out to vote - so those figures suggesting that they are increasing participation are encouraging. Still, it's hard for me to imagine they're particular;y fired up about Sleepy Joe or Kamala Harris.

It doesn't help that, with the exception of Obama, the Dems will gleefully knife anybody that voters DO get excited about and then told "No, you hated that guy. THIS is the person you always loved!", and Obama probably only got away with it because he was only talking the talk and never intended to walk the walk.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Gumball Gumption posted:

Moral panic in America is just a rolling stone that keeps picking things up. Large parts of our society is deeply afraid of the idea that an evil outsider is going to corrupt us and destroy us.

I think a lot of it is also just convenient scapegoating and parents whitewashing the fact that they acted out against their parents when they were younger too. You can go "Hey, I'm not a lovely parent, the devil in the Nintendo is making them act up!" or "I was a respectful and well-behaved kid, I don't know what's gotten into this generation. Must be the music."

Mizaq posted:

After hearing and reading about the sexual abuse by churches over the last [forever], it really seems to me that the child abuse panic is just more projection. Just like everything else our elders decry.

Also this. It's deflection and distraction. "Don't pay attention to the conservative feeling up a teenage girl behind the curtain, look at the drag queen who COULD be doing something!"

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

North Dakota senators vote to boost their own meal reimbursements after rejecting free school lunch bill

Free lunches for me, but not for thee

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

I AM GRANDO posted:

This is a strange poll question. Aren’t people supposed to vote for the candidate with the policies they like the best?

You'd think, but then that leads to all sorts of undesirables getting votes that rightly belong to the establishment pick, so they pivoted to "most electable" as the electrolyte that voters crave.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Dull Fork posted:

Seeing is believing. Why trust cops' reporting on it, when releasing them publicly will save us from debating about someone's opinion on what was written.

Because if it's not what they want to hear, plenty of people will ignore it or claim it's false flag or otherwise deny it.

See: Literally every time a RedMAGA goes off on a shooting after leaving a lifelong paper trail of proud republicanism and plenty of video manifestos clearly explaining that he is going to murder people for Trump because Trump said it was good and necessary to do.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Wheeljack posted:

There are all sorts of strategic reasons to run for president besides "I am mostly sure I can win this time." Positioning yourself for a future run, getting your ideas out there in hopes of getting them adopted in the platform or picked up by the other candidates or eventual nominee, becoming prominent enough to get a cabinet post, and, as mentioned, raising your profile for punditry.

Yeah, running as a protest candidate was Bernie's whole thing there, the whole "I know I have a snowballs chance in hell, but there are issues I want to address and ideas I want to push forward, and running in the primary is the best way to do it."

The fact that young people latched onto him as hard as they did in 2016 was a fluke that literally no one saw coming.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Clarste posted:

As I understand it, the real problem is mostly the water rights thing: farmers have no incentive to save water and in fact an incentive to WASTE more water since they get a set amount of water for free and any they don't use is effectively leaving money on the table. So they will specifically plant crops that will use up all that extra water. Focusing on almonds or alfafa is missing the point entirely; even if we made them both illegal tomorrow they'd find another way to waste all that water because that's what their economic incentive is.

Yeah, I remember an episode of Last Week Tonight where they talked about that, and it's very literally a Use it or Lose it system, which is why they grow so much thirsty poo poo like alfalfa.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Oxyclean posted:

A mixture of selfishness and cynicism makes me feel like giving up meat (or eating meaningfully less) would translate into me getting less enjoyment for no other tangible benefit because whatever slack in environmental benefits I create would be picked up by big corporations. Like I wouldn't entirely see why "eat less meat" would be meaningfully different then similar personal responsibility green initiatives like "remember to turn off the lights when you leave a room" and "consider switching to a low flow toilet!"

Pretty sure it's been proven that even if all of us (see: Regular people, the average Joe, etc) went all in on that; installed solar panels, recycled as much as possible, rode our bikes to work, it would still be dwarfed by the carbon footprint that massive corporations are making. Basically pissing on a forest fire.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Jaxyon posted:

I like how nobody ever talks about the cost of NOT doing poo poo about climate change.

That's because, for the people who could actually enact the kind of necessary change, the cost is zero. Hell, it's a profit for them because they're getting those sweet sweet totally legal and very technically not bribes from their lobbyist friends who like things just the way they are.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Main Paineframe posted:

I hope these are just copy-pastes from #Resistance Twitter or something, because thinking that people are going to be repulsed by photos of a guy eating Big Macs or overcooked steak feels very ivory tower liberal. A lot of people eat Big Macs and overcooked steak, it's normal and accepted in a way that eating pudding with your hands definitely fuckin ain't.

Yeah, there's a visceral "ick" factor to fingerfucking a chocolate pudding cup that a fat white guy eating McDonald's is never going to be able to compare to, no matter how gross they try to make it.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Meatball posted:

It's something I'd expect out of an early 1990s comedy starring a 14 year old Macauly Culkin who, in a bizarre chain of events, finds that he's been elected president.

He learns that a foreign delegation is coming and is expecting food, but they can't cook enough in the time before the delegation arrives, so he says, "Go to Mcdonalds!" And there's a whole montage where they go, set everything up and the delegation is *very* impressed

Ah yes, in my country of Made-Up-But-Still-Somehow-Kinda-Racist-Soundingstan, we call these steamed hams.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Oxyclean posted:

So do the other 800 just go to waste?

Also just thinking of like a scenario where they just don't get picked up so there's a ton of McDs pissed off.

Gods, hopefully they at least got donated to a homeless shelter or something.
I know the food is obviously far from healthy, but it's still a drat lot better than "Nothing."
And hell, sometimes a person just needs something to appease their inner raccoon demanding tasty garbage.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!


That's because you know exactly where this is going, and they're determined to speedrun it.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Quixzlizx posted:

I think you're projecting pretty hard there, as in this hypothetical liberal reaction is what gives you great pleasure as you mainline on sanctimony.

I'm pretty sure MAGA people love that high-fiving over putting Mexican kids in cages and sticking it to woke trans critical race theory upsets people, rather than Donald's orange spray tan and well-done steaks, if they have even mentally balanced those scales in the first place, which is doubtful.

Nah. If there's one thing conservatives love almost as much as racism and hurting people, it's seeing Libs get upset by anything ever. Especially when so many liberals make it a point to exclaim how gauche or tacky something Donald did is.

They're fine with anything that gets a rise out of the libs, whether it's when Trump put kids in cages or if he eats ketchup on a steak. Somewhere, a liberal is upset about it and the conservative is chugging from a coffee mug labeled "Liberal Tears"

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Ghost Leviathan posted:

You must have forgotten the whole thing with Michelle Obama and the very embarassing media campaign around it.

Or when George "I think gay people should be illegal" Bush was palling around at the baseball game with his very good friend Ellen.

Ravenfood posted:

The idea that anyone who is an aggressor in any situation can claim self defense is asinine. gently caress gun owners and open carrying.

And yes, the perverse incentive created by self defense laws is to shoot everyone immediately. If they are dead they can't claim you were the actual aggressor.

E: also the guy is claiming he shot in self defense because he didn't know if they were armed. That's insane. At least cops have to pretend to claim they thought they saw a gun or were in danger.

poo poo, that's been the MO at least since Trayvon Martin was murdered.
Start a fight you were explicitly told not to start, murder the person when you start getting your rear end kicked, claim self defense even though you were the instigator, and then get off scot-free because the prosecutor is a loving moron too focused on trying to hammer home a clever narrative that sounds nice and historical instead of winning the case with the mountains of available evidence.

See also: Kyle Rittenhouse or whatever that shitbag's last name was.

the_steve fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Apr 16, 2023

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Blind Pineapple posted:

I think that was "stand your ground," which is a slightly different stupid law that encourages gun degeneracy in the US.

To follow up on the Ralph Yarl story, they filed charges today. The shooter was an 84-year-old white man named Andrew Lester. The charges are first degree assault and armed criminal action which don't sound like much, but apparently the first degree assault charge alone carries a max sentence of life in prison. The armed criminal action charge carries a sentence of 3-15 years, which may as well be life for an 84yo. There's a pretty good chance the old bastard won't live through the trial, but at least there was some reasonably quick and meaningful action.

Yeah. I think the very reductionist barebones definitions are:

Castle Doctrine: If they're in your house and you didn't invite them, they're fair game.

Stand Your Ground: You are under no obligation to attempt to disengage from a conflict.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Unclear why, but Christie seems to want to give his Presidential campaign another shot.

I can't really see this ending in any way other than disaster for him again. If Trump somehow flames out, then DeSantis is there to pick up the remains. Christie ran basically at the height of his popularity last time and got nowhere. I don't see him getting much more popular after being out of office for 8 years and trying the same thing again.

Although, I guess I have to give him credit for being the one Republican who seemed prepared for the obvious follow-up question on abortion. His answer seems like it will piss off the more extreme pro-lifers, though.

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1648385852450414593

He's probably just doing it for the publicity bump. Get a piece of the news cycle for a few weeks while he gives them the ol' Will I Won't I? before making an announcement that after lots of prayer and talking it over with his family, now just isn't the time for him to make a presidential bid.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Silly Burrito posted:

That is some grade A BS. I get why Fox would settle but drat I wanted them to lose this case.

Doesn't it take 2 to tango with this?
I mean, yeah, Fox offered to settle, but Dominion must have agreed to it.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Angry_Ed posted:

Still find it annoying that nobody really and definitively pushed back against the claim that "if we default nothing bad will happen". Like, defaults for any country are bad, I imagine a default for a country who's currency is the de-facto world reserve currency would be catastrophic.

But of course Republicans already hosed up the USA's credit rating and even then still think this game of chicken is something they can win. Speaking of, surprising that nobody has asked anyone in the GOP why they think ruining our credit rating is in line with "fiscal responsibility" and "you gotta budget the country like you budget a house". I know they wouldn't give a straight answer but it's still surprising.

Their straight answer is and will be: It's the Dem's fault. They're the ones who refuse to negotiate with us by giving us everything we want and then some and that's why they're making us do this.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Randalor posted:

I'm honestly not even sure what DeSantis' endgoal even is right now. Hes picking a fight with his state's largest employer and using people who can't even be bothered to go to Disney's open meetings so they keep having "11th hour reveals" that were announced months prior, so I'm honestly curious what his chances of re-election are as Governor. He's too cowardly to actually announce he's running for president, and instead playing these "If I were going to run *wink*" games. Like, other than "to own the libs" and "piss off Florida's biggest employer", what is his actual endgame?

I think he was hoping to get coronated by the party at large.
I mean, one of the common descriptors for him was that he was "every bit as vile as Trump, but more willing to play along with the GOP establishment and not be a total loose cannon" , or, "the competent fascist" was a popular line.

So he was probably hoping that by throwing enough red meat at the base with his Hunt Trans People for Sport bill and his attempts to force Disney to ban using any colors of the rainbow that it would give him enough support amongst the voters, and his "Not constantly being brought up on criminal charges" aspect would get him enough cred with the party apparatus to just sleepwalk on through.

He just very obviously failed to stick the landing, but, I do think that was what he was trying to accomplish.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

OneTwentySix posted:

Does anyone have any good articles about why transgender athletes should be able to play in sports? I'm trans, my partner is trans, but she is mostly on the side of trans athletes have an advantage and shouldn't play, but has expressed openness to the alternative. I used to be in the same boat, but then I read some things and changed my mind, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to talk to her about it without potentially remembering incorrectly and I don't have any data to go along with it.

Other people already posted links to studies proving trans athletes don't have the advantage that critics claim they do, but my kneejerk reaction was "Well if you concede that trans athletes shouldn't be allowed in sports, then you're tacitly admitting that you are not a 'real' man or woman, that you are some sort of Other." and that just seems like ground you shouldn't want to give up.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

lil poopendorfer posted:

The issue that I hear regarding trans youth in sports is the idea of a trans woman changing w cis women in the locker room. the possibility of trans women having unfair advantage over their cis competitors never really comes up

I think the advantage thing was their initial thrust a couple years ago, until they decided that sexual deviancy was the angle to really work.

Basically to them, if you're young and trans, then you're either a boy wanting to perv on the girl's locker room or just trying to get an easy softball scholarship, and if you're an adult and trans, then you're a groomer who wants to watch toddlers use the bathroom.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

In my experience being stuck working around hardcore chuds, yeah; Trans Men are tomboys who were tricked and coerced into transitioning instead of letting them grow out of the phase and go on to become the love interest of a country music song where she's just one of the guys, but with boobs.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

If an even semi-masculine GOP politician emerged and started going all in, calling Trump a fat lazy piece of poo poo who's never been in a fight or fired a weapon, it would be interesting to see play out. I tend to think any old racist washed up MMA fighter could loving clean house in the GOP by just physically threatening and bullying anyone who crossed him. Hard to imagine Trump's base rallying to his defense if someone like Matt Best suddenly decided to jump in and out-Trump Trump.

Just lie about everything and wear a shirt with that graphic of Trump playing tennis in his tighty whities. Call him a disgusting limp dick beta who has to pay porn stars for sex. Call him out for being an absentee father and for being a fake Christian who dodged the draft. I think that combo would actually sink him. I know the chud base can't feel cognitive dissonance but the one thing Trump hasn't encountered is someone who could undoubtedly beat the poo poo out of him who lacks the shame to bring that fact up every day, all day.

Trump would just lean into his "I'm a billionaire" myth and counter that Hypothetica MMA Guy is a roided up moron who gets his rear end kicked for a living and doesn't have a fraction of Trump's claimed net worth.
"Folks, running for office is probably the smartest thing this meathead has ever done, because at least now he's not getting punched in the head all night, but I gotta tell you folks, he was a loser in UFC. His record wasn't even that good."

And his base would eat that up because it's a lot easier to project "Hey, I could maybe be rich one day." onto a fantasy figure than "Hey, I could be friggin' ripped if I dedicated myself wholly to exercise and proper nutrition."

Trump appeals to his base's lifestyle (or desired lifestyle at any rate) in a way that other guys can't.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Gumball Gumption posted:

No way they'll actually kill abortion, they care about fundraising more.

I dunno. I would never in a million years have believed they would manage to overturn Roe v. Wade, but here we are in that million-and-first year.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

zoux posted:

When you cost the boss $787m....

Still, this is stunning, he's far and away the biggest draw on Fox and probably the biggest white nationalist voice in America. There is no bigger platform for him than Fox News, this is going to have a massive positive effect on political discourse in the US.

Won't he just end up going to the other chud channel? ONN? OAN? Whatever the one is for people who think Fox is too left leaning?

Sure, it's not going to bring Fox down in a blaze of glory, but it isn't like Tucker has to go home and live off his "heir to a TV dinner dynasty" money.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

zoux posted:

Some citizen journalism: my mom told me today that my Tuckerphile brother-in-law is absolutely melting down over the firing. He's just going to "cancel Fox News" because he doesn't understand how cable packages work I guess.

They probably mean Cancel as in the magic spell that liberals use to ruin a celebrity just because they did a few dozen racisms or sex crimes when they were younger.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

selec posted:

Biden announced his campaign today, and is already seeming to plan how to rein in all that youthful enthusiasm he’s been gifted since Dobbs:

https://twitter.com/mstratford/status/1650870568055451650?s=46&t=6Q05E9cp_ar9ql-5Jy81HQ

Going to be wild to see how they manage the perceptions here; young voters have multiple issues and if you’re seen actively loving them over on a big one, how do you activate them as volunteers or donors? Could see a lot of fundraising letters being returned with “sorry, I had to pay interest on loans that are worth more than they were when I got them” scrawled over the pitch.

I imagine it will at least be mitigated with the "It's either us or the Bad Orange Man will come back" shaped whip they used in 2020.

Plus there's plenty of comfortable young people who come from families with money who will be tripping over themselves to flood social media with the narrative that life has never been better and we're in a new golden age, and anyone who disagrees is a Russian propagandist.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!


Probably for the best, I really feel like Bernie burned whatever goodwill and trust he had with people last time, what with the refusing to defend himself or really call bullshit on any of the countless falsehoods he was letting his Good Personal Friend Joe Biden get away with. He never went on any kind of counterattack, and then immediately sold out to the establishment he was supposed to be the voice against.

If he had bothered to throw a single punch back in 2020, I'd probably feel differently, but you can't let yourself get walked over for an entire election cycle and then expect people to believe you'd still fight for them.
I'd say he probably realizes that himself, but given the way the Dems have been going all in on "You love Joe Biden, the beatings will continue until Joe's approval improves", they might have just outright told Bernie what the score was going to be.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Rappaport posted:

Bernie's real old, there's no talking around that, but the bit I bolded seemed disheartening on a different level. If he's saying no "progressives" should run against uncle Joe, he's still throwing around his weight as a progressive firebrand of yesteryear.

Of course since uncle Joe is committed to running now, a primary challenger would be wasting their time I guess (since this isn't really 1968 levels of crazy just yet), but who are the Dems priming for 2028? Kamala is a disaster, and big-name senators like Bernie and Liz are olds.

Kamala being a disaster isn't going to stop them from continuing to force her on us by any means necessary.

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Piell posted:

Biden isn't going to swap Vice Presidents

I'm honestly not sure which way they'd go with this.
On one hand, yeah, she's completely useless for anything other than checking idpol boxes for the brunch crowd, but on the other hand, swapping out veeps could be seen as a sign of weakness.
"Yeah, look, we hosed up with Kamala, can we have a 4 year mulligan?"

In other news that I just came across on the Twitter
Kansas City considers becoming a transgender safe haven in defiance of Missouri laws

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Oracle posted:

What I can see happening is them convincing Kamala to go back to the Senate when Feinstein dies or retires. It'd get her the hell out of the VP seat and remove her inevitability as the next candidate in 28, keep Gavin Newsom's promise to appoint a black woman while avoiding Barbara Lee supporters anger, and avoid appointing another fossil to the Senate.

I still doubt it.
Anything that involves Kamala not being Biden's running mate will be taken as "We made a mistake, and we were wrong to have her."

That's not a weakness the Dems would want to admit to.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

the_steve
Nov 9, 2005

We're always hiring!

Oracle posted:

Eh, nobody pays any attention to the VP. All the air in the room would go towards breathless 'who's he gonna pick?!' after the initial furor dies down. Bonus if they can get her to say she was bored in the VP slot and wanted to get back to the senate to do some real work.

If I were the GOP, I'd have at least one attack ad about "Backstabbin' Joe" dropping Kamala. Maybe using it as one piece of a larger mosaic of him saying one thing and doing another.
So yeah, maybe she wouldn't be the whole focus, but I'd definitely use her as a jab.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply