who would that be? deranged in what way? I have literally no clue what you’re talking about, but maybe a super srs logical doctor like yourself would prefer debating the actual points I’ve presented in this forum than my tone or whatever strawmen you’d like to present here, which as an aside, if I may mention, displays an extreme prejudice.
edit: remember folks, for posterity - always quote what you’re replying to. even if a user deletes or edits their account or response it still shows up later.
double edit: I’m truly sorry for any users here that have no clue the context here, but this is a user that formerly self-banned based on highly aggressive takes that “trump would never be the nominee” and then resurfaces a few years later with these clearly impossible to defend takes regarding biden, and the irony is a bit too delicious to refrain from biting. I fully acknowledge that I am feeding his need for attention and I am sorry. before he tries to claim I am “doxxing” he still posts under his former screen name on twitter, it’s trivial to search for. He often tries to distance himself from those takes under the guise of “doxxing” his former user name on here or elsewhere.
No, and No. What is your actual issue with what I have posted in this discussion? Why would you doxx (redacted) like that? Please, stop. I’m sure the current mods here can deal with whatever the calvinball rules currently are, and are able to intervene in the case of whatever your concerns are here. And I’m completely certain anyone here can probably figure out who I am, probably to my precise address, nor do I care, because all of this is pointless point scoring that led us to this precise situation and it’s hardly inappropriate at this point to call out what led us here or to express anger at it. genuinely sorry if it upset anyone (not really, but in the spirit of this community’s and the edem faction’s tendency to say things they don’t mean, I truly mean that). I thought this was a place to say things that couldn’t be expressed in other settings. sorry if I was mistaken about that. I will do my best to refrain from reacting further to idiotic posts by bad faith posters that have been engaged in a multi-decade long history of bad faith posting, because this place does seem to be a place genuinely devoid of intellect or at the very least authenticity, so I don’t feel a genuine need to post my opinion other than to say this shit’s been obvious for like 15 years.
final edit: luckily my opinion doesn’t fucking matter - anyone who thinks it does probably needs to take a look in the mirror
The leisurely pace at which they are rolling out these Biden events makes me believe they are stalling for time as the convention gets nearer. “Sorry, can’t change horses, too late.”
One taped interview on Friday to be aired on Sunday and a NATO press conference later next week.
They are not even thinking ahead. Say Biden actually wins, which seems increasingly doubtful, how long can they Weekend at Bernie’s his second term before he’s forced to step aside for President Kamala? Do his advisers just need more time to lobby corporate boards for a seat?
One event tomorrow? “Can you tell us where the president is?” “I’m sorry, but that would be a violation of HIPAA.”
One mistake I’ll never make again is assuming the democrats have a long term strategy of any kind on anything. It’s hard to wrap your head around, like I have a long term strategy to destroy my work enemies, you would think they have one to stop fascism, but they don’t. It’s just day to day protect my turf self interested mediocrity.
The basic Dem strategy is that the system works and is fascist-proof and everything will be fine so long as you just tinker around the edges and don’t make major changes.
This is more or less correct I think. They have faith in institutions and technocrats. Which is not a bad thing when you are administering a government. ut it is a bad thing when you are trying to win an election. They pandemic made it as clear as it could be made that people believe what they have an emotional need to believe, not what subject matter experts tell them to believe. The irony, of course, is that it is the eDems own emotional need to believe in the persuasiveness of technocratic excellence that blinds them to this.
If you don’t know how to explain it, you’re terrible at explaining stuff. She’s not very popular, no one really likes her, and nobody thinks she’s a strong candidate.
The actual process is that if the presumptive nominee steps down, the delegates pick a replacement. I can’t imagine why people want to subvert the process to ensure that the least attractive option becomes the nominee. It’s just nuts. Let the delegates cook
I would also say that Dems really ought not spend their time explaining to voters why they picked the replacement. Dems won’t win unless they get people to understand in broad strokes what the Dems will give them in exchange for voting for them. If the election is a referendum on the quality of the Dem candidate then they’re dead. Too many voters will just get to election day and say “I actually don’t care who they chose or why, I choose to smash the R button and get my tax cuts”.
The why did you pick this candidate is such a softball. Most Dem surrogates should want the media to ask it because it gives the an easy segue into standard campaign messaging. They can just ignore why was Kamala passed over. Kamala can decide the reason that works best for her.
“We picked her because she is the best person to lead the country. Here is what is great about our candidate…”
“We picked her because she has the most compelling vision to move the country forward, here is what our candidate is going to do…”
“having, let’s call it a five-week speed-dating primary”
like, this is what we should be having anyway, the current system of this 4-year election cycle that starts as soon as the previous election is over is absolutely insane
This is exactly what I said, they should spend no time explaining and have a signature handout for voters. That’s how they win.
Dems correctly think that good governing is fighting 100 policy battles and making incremental improvement on a lot of fronts. But low info voters that decide elections aren’t impressed by that, they want the candidate to identify that they know what voters need most, and they will fulfill that need. 100 bullet points of measurable achievement makes a good CV, but not a good election pitch. This is why Hillary’s “go to our website” appeals to voters don’t really work, and Obama’s HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE appeals did work.
Dave Weigel on most recent Chapo pointed out that there is a ton of money raised for a Biden/Harris ticket. If you helicopter in some completely new person, can you spend that money? Seems like the sort of thing that could get tied up in court challenges at the very least.
Finally found a psychiatrist discussing Biden’s likely condition. (Gets more interesting at 30 mins, but not much, guy is pretty boring.)
According to this, Biden’s team is living in a tight bubble, likely focused on the campaign, and didn’t see the debate as being much of a big deal. This seems plausible. People engaged in heavy effort for a fixed cause often do not appreciate relevant context or contrary information.
Money is of very little relative importance in a presidential race. Believing ads/money wins such races is to fail to understand them. And, in any event, a real candidate would raise $100M immediately if they asked for it.
I generally agree with the substance of your posts. You just seem to insert personal attacks a lot that are based on what is clearly a shared history, but one that only you know since you are still anonymous. That’s all.
