2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Telconi]

From the AP: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steyer-wont-run-for-president-will-focus-on-impeachment/ar-BBS21r3?li=BBnb7Kz

Crisis officially averted.

I mean, I'm glad I won't have to hear Steyer tell me how I totally need to elect him president because Trump is the worstest meanie head ever. But then again, 40 million dollars will buy a lot of air time of Steyer telling me I totally need to impeach Trump, because he's the worstest meanie head ever.

[Phoenicaea]

^ i would agree, seen from abroad the thing is mainly about either 'impeachment' is there, or not.

in italy courts and the country substantially failed to find ruler Berlusconi guilty for its conflict of interest, corruption. and so the ruler has made what he daily wished.

then, Beelusconi has been found guilt of tax fraud schemes, a good thing, the closest accuse to its money abuse crimes. then the coourt said 'he is guilty for history, nevertheless let him'.

even after the ruler grew older, eunuchs - mostly some of his past political servants, somewaht rule, this for the records.

so the condemn was late, and the state somewhat admitted the crime couldn t be paid. it let me think that, if Trump isn t found guilty, ha will rule until he wishes.

he s old, so may be a decade. it was the behaviour, the deeds and acts of the state itself the payment of corruption, from the country to the ruler's society.

then, may be something, who knows, it is not Trump has good health (you can just look at it), still the tendency is he will not be overthrown unless he s moved away by marines.

or by illness, or by its financing sposorship, or by war (would require a not fully inept president for not being lost), or by marines in case of election result against the ruler.

the lesson to me is we are all impotent, regimes structure decide things and there is no valuable bracket. when you see you are not in a republic, it is always too late.

we are all 'shadow and dust' you know, after all pulvis et umbra

[Shrillland]

^ i would agree, seen from abroad the thing is mainly about either 'impeachment' is there, or not.

in italy courts and the country substantially failed to find ruler Berlusconi guilty for its conflict of interest, corruption. and so the ruler has made what he daily wished.

then, Beelusconi has been found guilt of tax fraud schemes, a good thing, the closest accuse to its money abuse crimes. then the coourt said 'he is guilty for history, nevertheless let him'.

even after the ruler grew older, eunuchs - mostly some of his past political servants, somewaht rule, this for the records.

so the condemn was late, and the state somewhat admitted the crime couldn t be paid. it let me think that, if Trump isn t found guilty, ha will rule until he wishes.

he s old, so may be a decade. it was the behaviour, the deeds and acts of the state itself the payment of corruption, from the country to the ruler's society.

then, may be something, who knows, it is not Trump has good health (you can just look at it), still the tendency is he will not be overthrown unless he s moved away by marines.

or by illness, or by its financing sposorship, or by war (would require a not fully inept president for not being lost), or by marines in case of election result against the ruler.

the lesson to me is we are all impotent, regimes structure decide things and there is no valuable bracket. when you see you are not in a republic, it is always too late.

we are all 'shadow and dust' you know, after all pulvis et umbra

Technically, this belongs in the MAGAthread, but I will say this. Impeachment isn't there because, while the House could easily impeach him, it still has to go to the Senate where at least 20 GOP Senators would have to cross the floor and vote to convict him, which is simply not possible in the current climate. As for arresting him, the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, and that goes either way thanks to the concept of executive privilege.

[Seangoli]

^ i would agree, seen from abroad the thing is mainly about either 'impeachment' is there, or not.

in italy courts and the country substantially failed to find ruler Berlusconi guilty for its conflict of interest, corruption. and so the ruler has made what he daily wished.

then, Beelusconi has been found guilt of tax fraud schemes, a good thing, the closest accuse to its money abuse crimes. then the coourt said 'he is guilty for history, nevertheless let him'.

even after the ruler grew older, eunuchs - mostly some of his past political servants, somewaht rule, this for the records.

so the condemn was late, and the state somewhat admitted the crime couldn t be paid. it let me think that, if Trump isn t found guilty, ha will rule until he wishes.

he s old, so may be a decade. it was the behaviour, the deeds and acts of the state itself the payment of corruption, from the country to the ruler's society.

then, may be something, who knows, it is not Trump has good health (you can just look at it), still the tendency is he will not be overthrown unless he s moved away by marines.

or by illness, or by its financing sposorship, or by war (would require a not fully inept president for not being lost), or by marines in case of election result against the ruler.

the lesson to me is we are all impotent, regimes structure decide things and there is no valuable bracket. when you see you are not in a republic, it is always too late.

we are all 'shadow and dust' you know, after all pulvis et umbra

Technically, this belongs in the MAGAthread, but I will say this. Impeachment isn't there because, while the House could easily impeach him, it still has to go to the Senate where at least 20 GOP Senators would have to cross the floor and vote to convict him, which is simply not possible in the current climate. As for arresting him, the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, and that goes either way thanks to the concept of executive privilege.

Well, impeachment isn't really a criminal matter and is instead a means of removing a political officer from their position forcibly. You don't really need to arrest them to impeach them. That said, if he were effectively impeached and removed from office, he would lose executive privilege as he is no longer legally the President. How this plays out is anyone's guess, because it has never happened before.

There is also the (slim) possibility of him getting 25th'd by his cabinet.

[Hediacrana]

What do people think of the idea that Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020? The short of that article is that at this point in time, having been in politics for decades is no longer an advantage; political experience, if anything, makes someone suspect in the eyes of today's voters.

From that article:

What brought Clinton down was public exposure not to her personality — which was sparkling enough to make her the most admired woman in America for 17 years straight before losing the claim to Michelle Obama in 2018 — but extended public scrutiny of every detail of a decades-long career in public life. This, in turn, is the exact same problem Biden will inevitably face as a presidential candidate. Americans like outsiders and fresh faces, not veteran insiders who bear the scars of every political controversy of the past two generations.

(...)

It’s not just that Biden, despite his currently strong polling, would make for a weak candidate if he runs. The entire spectacle of once again re-fighting every intraparty battle from the past two generations of Democratic Party politics would be bad for almost everyone at a time when Democrats should be talking about their ideas for the future rather than raking over the past.

On the one hand this all sounds very plausible to me, but on the other hand, we're seeing right now what happens when someone without public office experience gets to lead the country. Wouldn't the ruins of Trump turn voters to more experienced candidates next time?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

What do people think of the idea that Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020? The short of that article is that at this point in time, having been in politics for decades is no longer an advantage; political experience, if anything, makes someone suspect in the eyes of today's voters.

From that article:

What brought Clinton down was public exposure not to her personality — which was sparkling enough to make her the most admired woman in America for 17 years straight before losing the claim to Michelle Obama in 2018 — but extended public scrutiny of every detail of a decades-long career in public life. This, in turn, is the exact same problem Biden will inevitably face as a presidential candidate. Americans like outsiders and fresh faces, not veteran insiders who bear the scars of every political controversy of the past two generations.

(...)

It’s not just that Biden, despite his currently strong polling, would make for a weak candidate if he runs. The entire spectacle of once again re-fighting every intraparty battle from the past two generations of Democratic Party politics would be bad for almost everyone at a time when Democrats should be talking about their ideas for the future rather than raking over the past.

On the one hand this all sounds very plausible to me, but on the other hand, we're seeing right now what happens when someone without public office experience gets to lead the country. Wouldn't the ruins of Trump turn voters to more experienced candidates next time?

Biden doesn't have the laundry list of problems that she had however.

[Ngelmish]

What do people think of the idea that Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020? The short of that article is that at this point in time, having been in politics for decades is no longer an advantage; political experience, if anything, makes someone suspect in the eyes of today's voters.

From that article:

What brought Clinton down was public exposure not to her personality — which was sparkling enough to make her the most admired woman in America for 17 years straight before losing the claim to Michelle Obama in 2018 — but extended public scrutiny of every detail of a decades-long career in public life. This, in turn, is the exact same problem Biden will inevitably face as a presidential candidate. Americans like outsiders and fresh faces, not veteran insiders who bear the scars of every political controversy of the past two generations.

(...)

It’s not just that Biden, despite his currently strong polling, would make for a weak candidate if he runs. The entire spectacle of once again re-fighting every intraparty battle from the past two generations of Democratic Party politics would be bad for almost everyone at a time when Democrats should be talking about their ideas for the future rather than raking over the past.

On the one hand this all sounds very plausible to me, but on the other hand, we're seeing right now what happens when someone without public office experience gets to lead the country. Wouldn't the ruins of Trump turn voters to more experienced candidates next time?

The premise of the article is sound, but it remains to be seen whether or not the rather large cadre of voters who cited Clinton's vote for the Iraq War as a dealbreaker while at the same time saying they would have liked it if Biden ran actually have any consistency.

[Shrillland]

We've got another contender: https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-has-decided-to-run-for-president-says-report?fbclid=IwAR0M60YuYVuKU9xkf85MeF5W-DdvHfj8wC1PdrAHpfY2fz_Az5BXTDZvWHw

Not a surprise that she'd run, but a big deal that it's official.

[Arlenton]

Gillibrand is eyeing Troy, NY for a presidential run HQ. Guess she’s running too.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news10.com/amp/news/local-news/ap-sources-gillibrand-eyes-troy-ny-for-2020-presidential-campaign-base/1696181854

[Major-Tom]

We've got another contender: https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-has-decided-to-run-for-president-says-report?fbclid=IwAR0M60YuYVuKU9xkf85MeF5W-DdvHfj8wC1PdrAHpfY2fz_Az5BXTDZvWHw

Not a surprise that she'd run, but a big deal that it's official.

I can't see myself voting for her in the primaries, due to her actions as AG of California. I'd rather have her stay in the Senate and keep up some of the more meaningful work she's been doing, a good portion of which I can support.

[Hediacrana]

What do people think of the idea that Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020? The short of that article is that at this point in time, having been in politics for decades is no longer an advantage; political experience, if anything, makes someone suspect in the eyes of today's voters.

From that article:



On the one hand this all sounds very plausible to me, but on the other hand, we're seeing right now what happens when someone without public office experience gets to lead the country. Wouldn't the ruins of Trump turn voters to more experienced candidates next time?

Biden doesn't have the laundry list of problems that she had however.

Well, that would seem to be the case at this point. But if every aspect of Biden's very long political career was given the level of scrutiny that was given to Clinton's, you'd probably end up with a laundry list that is not altogether different.

[Thermodolia]

We've got another contender: https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-has-decided-to-run-for-president-says-report?fbclid=IwAR0M60YuYVuKU9xkf85MeF5W-DdvHfj8wC1PdrAHpfY2fz_Az5BXTDZvWHw

Not a surprise that she'd run, but a big deal that it's official.

Well if she gets nominated I’m not voting for president. I’m sure I’m not alone in that regard

[Ifreann]

We've got another contender: https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-has-decided-to-run-for-president-says-report?fbclid=IwAR0M60YuYVuKU9xkf85MeF5W-DdvHfj8wC1PdrAHpfY2fz_Az5BXTDZvWHw

Not a surprise that she'd run, but a big deal that it's official.

Well if she gets nominated I’m not voting for president. I’m sure I’m not alone in that regard

I'm not voting no matter who gets nominated.

[Shrillland]

We've got another contender: https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-has-decided-to-run-for-president-says-report?fbclid=IwAR0M60YuYVuKU9xkf85MeF5W-DdvHfj8wC1PdrAHpfY2fz_Az5BXTDZvWHw

Not a surprise that she'd run, but a big deal that it's official.

I can't see myself voting for her in the primaries, due to her actions as AG of California. I'd rather have her stay in the Senate and keep up some of the more meaningful work she's been doing, a good portion of which I can support.

I've looked at her record on Wiki, she had some problems but I didn't see too many really abhorrent positions. What things do you think she did wrong?

[Thermodolia]

I can't see myself voting for her in the primaries, due to her actions as AG of California. I'd rather have her stay in the Senate and keep up some of the more meaningful work she's been doing, a good portion of which I can support.

I've looked at her record on Wiki, she had some problems but I didn't see too many really abhorrent positions. What things do you think she did wrong?

Her whole second amendment debacle is a big problem. She might win in CA and NY but that’s not going to be enough to carry her to victory

[Shrillland]

I've looked at her record on Wiki, she had some problems but I didn't see too many really abhorrent positions. What things do you think she did wrong?

Her whole second amendment debacle is a big problem. She might win in CA and NY but that’s not going to be enough to carry her to victory

To me, that's not all that big when you consider how conservative SCOTUS now is. Anything she'd try to do would get shot down. What irritates me about this race is that we don't have a lot of governors with a serious chance, I much prefer them to senators in that regard.

[Ngelmish]

Her whole second amendment debacle is a big problem. She might win in CA and NY but that’s not going to be enough to carry her to victory

To me, that's not all that big when you consider how conservative SCOTUS now is. Anything she'd try to do would get shot down. What irritates me about this race is that we don't have a lot of governors with a serious chance, I much prefer them to senators in that regard.

Governors have been flaming out a lot, in both parties, this century. Bush was the last one that actually made it, and Romney was an exception. Both parties have been gravitating towards electrifying speakers who, for the most part, hail from the legislative side of the aisle. I don't expect that to change anytime soon -- there seems to be a real appetite for the president to be chief advocate as opposed to chief executive.

Mind you, in the context of 2020, it doesn't help the governors chances a lot that our likely choices are composed of Inslee, Bullock and Hickenlooper.

[Shrillland]

To me, that's not all that big when you consider how conservative SCOTUS now is. Anything she'd try to do would get shot down. What irritates me about this race is that we don't have a lot of governors with a serious chance, I much prefer them to senators in that regard.

Governors have been flaming out a lot, in both parties, this century. Bush was the last one that actually made it, and Romney was an exception. Both parties have been gravitating towards electrifying speakers who, for the most part, hail from the legislative side of the aisle. I don't expect that to change anytime soon -- there seems to be a real appetite for the president to be chief advocate as opposed to chief executive.

Mind you, in the context of 2020, it doesn't help the governors chances a lot that our likely choices are composed of Inslee, Bullock and Hickenlooper.

I'll confess to being old-fashioned in that regard, I just figure that a President should have governing experience as opposed to representation.

[Thermodolia]

Gabbard is running!! Gabbard/Ojeda 2020!!

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Gabbard is running!! Gabbard/Ojeda 2020!!

who dis

[Arlenton]

Oh boy Gabbard is in.

[Thermodolia]

Gabbard is running!! Gabbard/Ojeda 2020!!

who dis

A representative from HI, who’s also a Major in the HI National Gaurd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

She was a medic in Iraq. She’s fucking badass

[Varaskia]

What do people think of the idea that Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020? The short of that article is that at this point in time, having been in politics for decades is no longer an advantage; political experience, if anything, makes someone suspect in the eyes of today's voters.

From that article:

What brought Clinton down was public exposure not to her personality — which was sparkling enough to make her the most admired woman in America for 17 years straight before losing the claim to Michelle Obama in 2018 — but extended public scrutiny of every detail of a decades-long career in public life. This, in turn, is the exact same problem Biden will inevitably face as a presidential candidate. Americans like outsiders and fresh faces, not veteran insiders who bear the scars of every political controversy of the past two generations.

(...)

It’s not just that Biden, despite his currently strong polling, would make for a weak candidate if he runs. The entire spectacle of once again re-fighting every intraparty battle from the past two generations of Democratic Party politics would be bad for almost everyone at a time when Democrats should be talking about their ideas for the future rather than raking over the past.

On the one hand this all sounds very plausible to me, but on the other hand, we're seeing right now what happens when someone without public office experience gets to lead the country. Wouldn't the ruins of Trump turn voters to more experienced candidates next time?

In electing Trump, the American people were rejecting the status quo. A status quo that Biden, in the Democratic primaries, would represent. The way forward for the Democrats is to choose a candidate they can portray as a radical, change candidate, and that would be impossible with Biden. The Democrats seem to have favourable chances in 2020, but if they pick Biden I honestly think they'll screw it up and hand Trump another term. Very few people are genuinely enthused by him (as opposed to somebody like Bernie Sanders, who's been the most popular political figure in America for the last 3 years now...)

[Jolthig]

Tulsa is running for president

[Shrillland]

who dis

A representative from HI, who’s also a Major in the HI National Gaurd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

She was a medic in Iraq. She’s fucking badass

Oh, aye, she is indeed. I just think it's a shame about her foreign policy stance. For me, spreading democracy(without necessarily policing the world) should be one of our pillars, not supporting dictatorships because of the spectre of Islamic terrorism.