Yes, I'm also aware it was beaten to death and overblown, when you read it in context. I referred to it a couple of days ago on this thread as a stupid issue. Continuing to ask about it is a clown question.
The context is that this is a candidate who's entire appeal (as he sees it) is his willingness to collaborate and collude with Republicans and here he is unable to conjure that proper answer that ought to spring from the lips of any decent Democratic candidate.
There's a reason why Republicans like David Brooks love Biden so much and its not because he is going to make America a more progressive country.
Yes, I'm also aware it was beaten to death and overblown, when you read it in context. I referred to it a couple of days ago on this thread as a stupid issue. Continuing to ask about it is a clown question.
The context is that this is a candidate who's entire appeal (as he sees it) is his willingness to collaborate and collude with Republicans and here he is unable to conjure that proper answer that ought to spring from the lips of any decent Democratic candidate.
There's a reason why Republicans like David Brooks love Biden so much and its not because he is going to make America a more progressive country.
by itself, the question and the answer are pretty trivial. But if we take it in the larger context of Biden's strange fascination with bipartisanship, it takes on more meaning. If Biden's the nominee, he's got my vote, but his insistence that he can work with the modern-day GOP is maddening. It's as if he's been in a coma since 1975 and just woke up last week but still thinks Jacob Javits is in the Senate. I feel like his desire to go back to some long-ago era of bipartisanship should disqualify him from getting any Democratic primary voters' support. It borders on delusional, given what we see from the Republican Senate day after day.
But if we take it in the larger context of Biden's strange fascination with bipartisanship, it takes on more meaning. If Biden's the nominee, he's got my vote, but his insistence that he can work with the modern-day GOP is maddening. It's as if he's been in a coma since 1975 and just woke up last week but still thinks Jacob Javits is in the Senate. I feel like his desire to go back to some long-ago era of bipartisanship should disqualify him from getting any Democratic primary voters' support. It borders on delusional, given what we see from the Republican Senate day after day.
And I wasn't addressing that type of psychological evaluation that sounds a lot like a "Surovellian" swerve into "but what he really meant".
And I wasn't addressing that type of psychological evaluation that sounds a lot like a "Surovellian" swerve into "but what he really meant".
you're in a bit of denial. The Republican comment is only one of many indications from Biden that he seems to be stuck in a hopeless, outdated mindset, dooming himself to kicking at that missing football for four years.
It should be a cause of concern for any Democrat.;
And I wasn't addressing that type of psychological evaluation that sounds a lot like a "Surovellian" swerve into "but what he really meant".
you're in a bit of denial. The Republican comment is only one of many indications from Biden that he seems to be stuck in a hopeless, outdated mindset, dooming himself to kicking at that missing football for four years.
It should be a cause of concern for any Democrat.;
I just didn't think one offhand comment from Biden deserved the amount of ink and pixels used to analyze and elaborate on his psyche.
I appreciate what you're trying to do. But just because I miss Paul, you guys don't have to try to cheer me up by mimicking some of his silly comments like "No, you're really in denial".
It doesn’t have to be either one or the other. It can be both part of a pattern (because he didn’t just say no), if you see it that way, and a remark that in no way meant Biden took the question seriously (because we’re all familiar with human behavior), if you see it that way.
The pattern is the important consideration, not one answer to one question. I just find it astounding that Biden seems to sincerely believe he'd get cooperation from the modern GOP. Instead of metaphorically being repeatedly punched in the face by Mitch McConnell, which is the reality
The pattern is the important consideration, not one answer to one question.
OK. The specific comment that precipitated this line of discussion, however, was: “Seems like the sort of thing people should take into account when contemplating nominating a candidate who openly contemplates choosing a Republican running mate.” Nohero, as I read him, is simply saying that openly contemplating choosing a Republican running mate wasn’t what Biden was really doing there.
The pattern is the important consideration, not one answer to one question. I just find it astounding that Biden seems to sincerely believe he'd get cooperation from the modern GOP. Instead of metaphorically being repeatedly punched in the face by Mitch McConnell, which is the reality
Its almost as if Biden was asleep for the entire Obama Administration. Kind of calls into question the value of his experience as VP if this was his take away from that experience.
I would like a pragmatic candidate to step up so us independent voters have someone to vote for. We shouldn't need a disrupter in chief that doesn't want serious background checks for gun buyers. And unlike our pharma bought Newark senator , let's get proper legislation. HR3 is a farce. Look it up.
I would like a pragmatic candidate to step up so us independent voters have someone to vote for. We shouldn't need a disrupter in chief that doesn't want serious background checks for gun buyers. And unlike our pharma bought Newark senator , let's get proper legislation. HR3 is a farce. Look it up.
Any thoughts about Klobuchar? She seems like a pragmatic centrist and I thought she would be a good middle choice between Biden and Buttigieg.
I watched her Town Hall last night and she had 3 plans for Social Security. Most of her answers were specific with facts and figures.
I'm aware of the general sentiment about Brooks on MOL (which I share) but here's a tidbit for the Bernie crowd:
Democrats may wind up in a position in which they can’t nominate Bernie Sanders because he’s too far left, and they can’t not nominate him because his followers would bolt from a Biden/Bloomberg/Buttigieg-led party.
Only 53 percent of Sanders voters say they will certainly support whoever is the Democratic nominee. This is no idle threat. In 2016, in Pennsylvania, 117,000 Sanders primary voters went for Trump in the general, and Trump won the state by 44,292 ballots. In Michigan, 48,000 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 10,704. In Wisconsin, 51,300 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 22,748. In short, Sanders voters helped elect Trump.
Though I'll say this. At present I pretty much share the fear that we're looking at 4 more years. After the current malignancy, who TF knows what comes next. DJT might be the new GOP model for the presidency.
I would like a pragmatic candidate to step up so us independent voters have someone to vote for. We shouldn't need a disrupter in chief that doesn't want serious background checks for gun buyers. And unlike our pharma bought Newark senator , let's get proper legislation. HR3 is a farce. Look it up.
The problem is that we have a two-party system. But at this point no Republican can favor serious background checks for gun buyers because of the power of the NRA and would have a very hard time opposing the pharmaceutical companies.A Democrat can easily support the background checks but any attacks on "Big Pharma" get one labelled a socialist.
I'm aware of the general sentiment about Brooks on MOL (which I share) but here's a tidbit for the Bernie crowd:
Democrats may wind up in a position in which they can’t nominate Bernie Sanders because he’s too far left, and they can’t not nominate him because his followers would bolt from a Biden/Bloomberg/Buttigieg-led party.
Only 53 percent of Sanders voters say they will certainly support whoever is the Democratic nominee. This is no idle threat. In 2016, in Pennsylvania, 117,000 Sanders primary voters went for Trump in the general, and Trump won the state by 44,292 ballots. In Michigan, 48,000 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 10,704. In Wisconsin, 51,300 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 22,748. In short, Sanders voters helped elect Trump.
GL2 said: Only 53 percent of Sanders voters say they will certainly support whoever is the Democratic nominee.
This may be a misleading statistic. I am a Warren supporter but I would not support WHOEVER is the Democratic nominee. That said, I would support Sanders, Buttigieg, Bloomberg or Klobuchar if they were to get the nomination. There were a lot of people in Iowa who chose Sanders or Warren as their first choice but Klobuchar as their second or third.
The context is that this is a candidate who's entire appeal (as he sees it) is his willingness to collaborate and collude with Republicans and here he is unable to conjure that proper answer that ought to spring from the lips of any decent Democratic candidate.
There's a reason why Republicans like David Brooks love Biden so much and its not because he is going to make America a more progressive country.