What Would It Take for You to Vote for Biden?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The regulations imposed on the internet are quite depressing. They're more or less the same in every developed country, making me think that each of them was basically inevitable. The internet is obviously a conduit for information, but information has power making it also an alternative power-structure to government and the media. It's also an industry sector, directly by all the infrastructure necessary to move such volumes of data, but also indirectly in enabling new forms of business. It's a fantasy to think governments would let such a thing grow in political and economic influence without regulation.

As I see it, we lost when government came for the pedos. OK we said, we're struggling to keep that child porn off our legitimate porn channels, we'll help you track them down and jail them. What we should have said is "it's a problem but we haven't given up solving it yet, we'll come to you when we need help". But we didn't, and child porn turned out to be the thin end of the wedge, right up to now and we are all complicit in government and the private sector trying to ban unacceptable opinions.

When private enterprise gave us the power of free information, free communication, and in fact free speech, they did so for no reason but to get our money. They're a huge industry now, but quite diversified so they won't stand up effectively to government. If they have the choice between bowing to new regulations or ceasing operations, they will almost all choose the option which makes them more money in the future.

When I first heard about Packet Radio I thought "what a neat idea, shame I don't have a CB rig". I regret that badly now. It could have been the grassroots alternative to internet AND mobile phones.

Anyway, on topic. Biden voted Yea to the Telecommunications Act 1996.

[Tombradyonia]

The regulations imposed on the internet are quite depressing. They're more or less the same in every developed country, making me think that each of them was basically inevitable. The internet is obviously a conduit for information, but information has power making it also an alternative power-structure to government and the media. It's also an industry sector, directly by all the infrastructure necessary to move such volumes of data, but also indirectly in enabling new forms of business. It's a fantasy to think governments would let such a thing grow in political and economic influence without regulation.

As I see it, we lost when government came for the pedos. OK we said, we're struggling to keep that child porn off our legitimate porn channels, we'll help you track them down and jail them. What we should have said is "it's a problem but we haven't given up solving it yet, we'll come to you when we need help". But we didn't, and child porn turned out to be the thin end of the wedge, right up to now and we are all complicit in government and the private sector trying to ban unacceptable opinions.

When private enterprise gave us the power of free information, free communication, and in fact free speech, they did so for no reason but to get our money. They're a huge industry now, but quite diversified so they won't stand up effectively to government. If they have the choice between bowing to new regulations or ceasing operations, they will almost all choose the option which makes them more money in the future.

When I first heard about Packet Radio I thought "what a neat idea, shame I don't have a CB rig". I regret that badly now. It could have been the grassroots alternative to internet AND mobile phones.

Anyway, on topic. Biden voted Yea to the Telecommunications Act 1996.

Technically, taxpayers money paid for the foundations of what has become the internet. Private enterprise came aboard later to make money off of it. This is a pattern you often see in other areas too, such as medicine. Many things originated in taxpayer funded science labs, and private enterprise doesn't come in until later money can be made.

If left to private enterprise, no disease would ever be prevented or cured since there is no money in that. The money is where you can get people popping pills for life.

Back to Joe Biden. If I'm still alive come November, I will vote for him. The current White House resident, whom I consider to be an imbecile and utterly corrupt and incompetent, has to go.

[Cisairse]

The regulations imposed on the internet are quite depressing. They're more or less the same in every developed country, making me think that each of them was basically inevitable. The internet is obviously a conduit for information, but information has power making it also an alternative power-structure to government and the media. It's also an industry sector, directly by all the infrastructure necessary to move such volumes of data, but also indirectly in enabling new forms of business. It's a fantasy to think governments would let such a thing grow in political and economic influence without regulation.

As I see it, we lost when government came for the pedos. OK we said, we're struggling to keep that child porn off our legitimate porn channels, we'll help you track them down and jail them. What we should have said is "it's a problem but we haven't given up solving it yet, we'll come to you when we need help". But we didn't, and child porn turned out to be the thin end of the wedge, right up to now and we are all complicit in government and the private sector trying to ban unacceptable opinions.

When private enterprise gave us the power of free information, free communication, and in fact free speech, they did so for no reason but to get our money. They're a huge industry now, but quite diversified so they won't stand up effectively to government. If they have the choice between bowing to new regulations or ceasing operations, they will almost all choose the option which makes them more money in the future.

When I first heard about Packet Radio I thought "what a neat idea, shame I don't have a CB rig". I regret that badly now. It could have been the grassroots alternative to internet AND mobile phones.

Anyway, on topic. Biden voted Yea to the Telecommunications Act 1996.

Point of contention, I disagree fully with the idea that any tangible "we" were complicit in the wedge being struck. The government passes laws unilaterally; they don't ask for approval or even consent from those who elect them.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The regulations imposed on the internet are quite depressing. They're more or less the same in every developed country, making me think that each of them was basically inevitable. The internet is obviously a conduit for information, but information has power making it also an alternative power-structure to government and the media. It's also an industry sector, directly by all the infrastructure necessary to move such volumes of data, but also indirectly in enabling new forms of business. It's a fantasy to think governments would let such a thing grow in political and economic influence without regulation.

As I see it, we lost when government came for the pedos. OK we said, we're struggling to keep that child porn off our legitimate porn channels, we'll help you track them down and jail them. What we should have said is "it's a problem but we haven't given up solving it yet, we'll come to you when we need help". But we didn't, and child porn turned out to be the thin end of the wedge, right up to now and we are all complicit in government and the private sector trying to ban unacceptable opinions.

When private enterprise gave us the power of free information, free communication, and in fact free speech, they did so for no reason but to get our money. They're a huge industry now, but quite diversified so they won't stand up effectively to government. If they have the choice between bowing to new regulations or ceasing operations, they will almost all choose the option which makes them more money in the future.

When I first heard about Packet Radio I thought "what a neat idea, shame I don't have a CB rig". I regret that badly now. It could have been the grassroots alternative to internet AND mobile phones.

Anyway, on topic. Biden voted Yea to the Telecommunications Act 1996.

Point of contention, I disagree fully with the idea that any tangible "we" were complicit in the wedge being struck. The government passes laws unilaterally; they don't ask for approval or even consent from those who elect them.

Back then the internet was a much smaller industry sector, particularly the infrastructure part of it. It could have been ruined by consumer boycotts ... though that would imply consumers having an alternative.

Hence the packet radio. We would have been fools not to see that the internet as it is would become heavily dependent on expensive infrastructure, and those companies would be sitting ducks for government regulation. They're so heavily capitalized and dependent on future earnings to pay that off. But we (consumers) were so rapt with this new thing that worked well 'out of the box' that we weren't prepared to put our time and money into a consumer-owned alternative network.

I'm not saying that any one consumer working on packet radio would have made it a great thing, or even a workable thing. But I regret that I didn't put more effort in, firstly to learn more about it, and necessary technical background to understand the documentation available. Then if I still thought it was worth pursuing I might have made the investment in some second hand CB gear and some circuitry (I think I remember) necessary to turn computer data into a radio signal.

It's not worth doing now, imo. Mainly because continual improvements have made (most of us) accustomed to far more bandwidth, and most sites now suck hard on low bandwidth. If we'd developed packet radio earlier, in the '80's, then it would have been improved in bandwidth and reliability (and with commercial relays getting into the game, I probably wouldn't have liked that), so though it would necessarily be slower and less reliable than "big" internet, at least it wouldn't be pitifully inadequate. The development of wireless would have been affected too, hopefully making it interoperable with CB radio.

My point is that packet radio was an ideologically preferable system, but it suffered from the startup disadvantage of all decentralized systems: users would have to invest up-front in their share of the system, and that's just not something that works well in our capitalist world. Big companies invest up-front, grab market share, then take it all back plus some from the users. It works better for the companies than it does for the users (duh, it's capitalism). Packet radio only works with a high adoption rate, and only a few nerds would invest to use a network that doesn't actually exist yet. Of course there's a socialist answer to this problem, but I've rambled on long enough ...

[US-SSR]

Sigh. Every day it gets harder and harder to think of a reason to vote for someone who would actually oppose foreign interference in US elections rather than buy into it to discredit a political opponent or commute the prison sentences of those convicted of engaging in it.

/s

Is it wrong of me to be disappointed that, since Roger Stone has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back, Tricky Dick won't be getting a sock in the jaw every time Stone gets donkey punched in jail? That's really what I was looking forward to.

[Mirjt]

I have been seeing this argument for why leftists and progressives whom don't like Biden would still benefit from voting for him anyway.

The general perspective for many leftists is that they lose no matter who wins, Biden or Trump, even if one may be marginally better than the other. The argument goes against that perspective by saying that when you have two candidates that you dislike, you should help to elect the one you would rather fight. If Trump wins, leftists will have a hard time fighting against his shameless, self-glorifying, cult-like, existential threat level, and undeniably fascist administration and winning over the hearts and minds of the people. Biden on the other hand made some concessions, as inadequate and patronizing and pathetic as they were, to the left and has shown that he will bend to pressure if it is strong enough. This means we will be able to better fight Biden throughout Biden's entire administration than we would be able to fight Trump.

An example of a concession Biden recently made is he moved his plan for total decarbonization and zero net emissions from 2050 to 2035 (which is in line with the admittedly inadequate Paris Climate Accords) and while progressives on Biden's joint unity task force would have preferred a larger concession (we really should be trying to finish decarbonization and zero net emissions sometime in the 2020s), this is a good start, we can pressure Biden for more concessions once he is in office (I really wish we could have the immediate and unconditional nationalization of the entire fossil fuel industry, an complete moratorium on all fossil fuel profits, and an full cessation of offshore drilling).

The idea that if the Democrats believe we will always vote for them because they are the lesser evil and so they have no incentive to actually put forward candidates and policies we actually like, is true, but only if voting is our only means of political action, however in reality we have petitions and protests and strikes and so on, so we can pressure our politicians. If Biden wanted to ease concerns among progressives, a good way to do that would be to have at least a semi-progressive voice like Elizabeth Warren (whom many progressives and leftists are still angry with) to serve as our voice in his administration (I also think Elizabeth Warren is the only semi-progressive woman who would even take the job). We must remember however that we have to keep fighting, we must find ways to make our protests larger and even more noticeable, it must be completely impossible to ignore our demands.

All that said, I think that is a well made leftist case for voting for Joe Biden. However, I am still leaning towards Howie Hawkins because I have both the fortune and misfortune of living in a safe blue state (Maryland) and my state's 10 electoral votes are going to go to Biden no matter what, but if the Green Party and Socialist Party candidate were to get a decent amount of the vote in Maryland, it may scare our senators and representatives to the U.S. Congress, as well as our state and local politicians to make some effort to appeal to leftists and progressives.

[The Black Forrest]

I have been seeing this argument for why leftists and progressives whom don't like Biden would still benefit from voting for him anyway.

The general perspective for many leftists is that they lose no matter who wins, Biden or Trump, even if one may be marginally better than the other. The argument goes against that perspective by saying that when you have two candidates that you dislike, you should help to elect the one you would rather fight. If Trump wins, leftists will have a hard time fighting against his shameless, self-glorifying, cult-like, existential threat level, and undeniably fascist administration and winning over the hearts and minds of the people. Biden on the other hand made some concessions, as inadequate and patronizing and pathetic as they were, to the left and has shown that he will bend to pressure if it is strong enough. This means we will be able to better fight Biden throughout Biden's entire administration than we would be able to fight Trump.

An example of a concession Biden recently made is he moved his plan for total decarbonization and zero net emissions from 2050 to 2035 (which is in line with the admittedly inadequate Paris Climate Accords) and while progressives on Biden's joint unity task force would have preferred a larger concession (we really should be trying to finish decarbonization and zero net emissions sometime in the 2020s), this is a good start, we can pressure Biden for more concessions once he is in office (I really wish we could have the immediate and unconditional nationalization of the entire fossil fuel industry, an complete moratorium on all fossil fuel profits, and an full cessation of offshore drilling).

The idea that if the Democrats believe we will always vote for them because they are the lesser evil and so they have no incentive to actually put forward candidates and policies we actually like, is true, but only if voting is our only means of political action, however in reality we have petitions and protests and strikes and so on, so we can pressure our politicians. If Biden wanted to ease concerns among progressives, a good way to do that would be to have at least a semi-progressive voice like Elizabeth Warren (whom many progressives and leftists are still angry with) to serve as our voice in his administration (I also think Elizabeth Warren is the only semi-progressive woman who would even take the job). We must remember however that we have to keep fighting, we must find ways to make our protests larger and even more noticeable, it must be completely impossible to ignore our demands.

All that said, I think that is a well made leftist case for voting for Joe Biden. However, I am still leaning towards Howie Hawkins because I have both the fortune and misfortune of living in a safe blue state (Maryland) and my state's 10 electoral votes are going to go to Biden no matter what, but if the Green Party and Socialist Party candidate were to get a decent amount of the vote in Maryland, it may scare our senators and representatives to the U.S. Congress, as well as our state and local politicians to make some effort to appeal to leftists and progressives.

How are you defining victory and loss?

Biden and Trump are the most likely people going to win. Howie and the rest? Really don’t have a hope in hell and the argument of if only people blah blah blah is nice but not really a valid measurement. It’s a what if.

Trump is a disaster on many fronts.

Is Biden the path to nirvana? Oh hell no. Senator Credit card has his own faults.

Is he a noticeable improvement over Trump? Oh hell yes. Even for the hard core leftests and progressives; at least Biden is listening to the wants and has adopted a few. Will he deliver? I can’t say. He will at least do more then Trump on that front. At worst you are looking at a half-hearted attempt versus talk and no movement or outright disparage.

Trump is the disease which must be treated. Howie, etc. just can’t do it.

Is it worth four more years of Trump just to say “you should have voted for *whoever*?”

Anyway.......

[Mirjt]

I have been seeing this argument for why leftists and progressives whom don't like Biden would still benefit from voting for him anyway.

The general perspective for many leftists is that they lose no matter who wins, Biden or Trump, even if one may be marginally better than the other. The argument goes against that perspective by saying that when you have two candidates that you dislike, you should help to elect the one you would rather fight. If Trump wins, leftists will have a hard time fighting against his shameless, self-glorifying, cult-like, existential threat level, and undeniably fascist administration and winning over the hearts and minds of the people. Biden on the other hand made some concessions, as inadequate and patronizing and pathetic as they were, to the left and has shown that he will bend to pressure if it is strong enough. This means we will be able to better fight Biden throughout Biden's entire administration than we would be able to fight Trump.

An example of a concession Biden recently made is he moved his plan for total decarbonization and zero net emissions from 2050 to 2035 (which is in line with the admittedly inadequate Paris Climate Accords) and while progressives on Biden's joint unity task force would have preferred a larger concession (we really should be trying to finish decarbonization and zero net emissions sometime in the 2020s), this is a good start, we can pressure Biden for more concessions once he is in office (I really wish we could have the immediate and unconditional nationalization of the entire fossil fuel industry, an complete moratorium on all fossil fuel profits, and an full cessation of offshore drilling).

The idea that if the Democrats believe we will always vote for them because they are the lesser evil and so they have no incentive to actually put forward candidates and policies we actually like, is true, but only if voting is our only means of political action, however in reality we have petitions and protests and strikes and so on, so we can pressure our politicians. If Biden wanted to ease concerns among progressives, a good way to do that would be to have at least a semi-progressive voice like Elizabeth Warren (whom many progressives and leftists are still angry with) to serve as our voice in his administration (I also think Elizabeth Warren is the only semi-progressive woman who would even take the job). We must remember however that we have to keep fighting, we must find ways to make our protests larger and even more noticeable, it must be completely impossible to ignore our demands.

All that said, I think that is a well made leftist case for voting for Joe Biden. However, I am still leaning towards Howie Hawkins because I have both the fortune and misfortune of living in a safe blue state (Maryland) and my state's 10 electoral votes are going to go to Biden no matter what, but if the Green Party and Socialist Party candidate were to get a decent amount of the vote in Maryland, it may scare our senators and representatives to the U.S. Congress, as well as our state and local politicians to make some effort to appeal to leftists and progressives.

How are you defining victory and loss?

I define victory as getting the policies I want and believe that we all need, such as radical and extreme climate action, medicare-for-all, housing guarantee, penal abolitionism (at least in part), increases to social security (including SSI and SSDI), student loan forgiveness, etc... I could care less who it is. However, I do not have confidence Biden would give us those things of his own accord (or the Democratic leadership, let alone the Republican leadership), and we must force him to give us those things through constant and massive political pressure and protests.

Biden and Trump are the most likely people going to win. Howie and the rest? Really don’t have a hope in hell and the argument of if only people blah blah blah is nice but not really a valid measurement. It’s a what if.

That is true, in the U.S. only the major parties have any chance of winning the Presidency, however the idea for voting for third parties is not to win office, but to influence those that do hold office with the threat that they may lose (possibly due to the spoiler effect they themselves refuse to get rid of), and to make it easier for local and state third parties to win seats at the local and state level.

Trump is a disaster on many fronts.

Absolutely correct, Biden may also be a disaster on most fronts, but Trump is literally a threat to our very existence, survival, humanity, civilization, society, and democracy and Trump must be removed from office.

Is Biden the path to nirvana? Oh hell no. Senator Credit card has his own faults.

Is he a noticeable improvement over Trump? Oh hell yes. Even for the hard core leftests and progressives; at least Biden is listening to the wants and has adopted a few. Will he deliver? I can’t say. He will at least do more then Trump on that front. At worst you are looking at a half-hearted attempt versus talk and no movement or outright disparage.

That is the point of the argument I presented earlier. Biden may still not be offering what we want and need, but he is already moving in that direction (even if it only by very small amounts or amounts that will still leave us dead). If Biden is already moving in that direction (even if it is purely for political reasons) than that means he is vulnerable to political pressure and we can use that pressure to fight Biden if and when Biden gets into office and to get the policies we want and need. Whoever wins will be an obstacle to getting the policies we want or need, but Trump is an obstacle so stubborn (he doesn't feel shame and is insulated by a cult of followers) we won't get any wins fighting him, but Biden is an obstacle that is much easier to tear down, so we should hope for that to be the wall we must overcome.

Trump is the disease which must be treated. Howie, etc. just can’t do it.

Is it worth four more years of Trump just to say “you should have voted for *whoever*?”

Anyway.......

Trump and Biden are both diseases (in terms of political power, as individuals I don't believe anyone is a disease - all people deserve love), just Trump is the more aggressive disease and Biden is the more treatable disease. I am in a safe blue state, so voting for Howie Hawkins is not going to endanger getting the more preferrible Biden diagnosis. However, there are good reasons why even someone in a swing state would not want to vote for Biden, and I will respect however people choose to vote or not vote. I will also respect your ability to make your case for why people should vote for Biden, which you gave in the question "is it worth four more years of Trump?."

[Nazis in Space]

I legitimately do not understand how your parents raised you for you to believe that calling people a disease will make them more amiable to your wishes. It's like shouting 'Hey! Fucking niggers low information voters!' and expecting to be voted into the NAACP board of directors.

That's really the basic (and hilarious) failure of the far left: They were never socialised. It's all me me me me me, also me. Hence the hilarious demand 'College forgiveness for people earning less than 125 k per year isn't enough! All college debt must be forgiven!'

Because as we all know, society's most needy are people earning more than 125 k per annum.

(This would, of couse, be financed through taxes. Literally a wealth transfer from people earning less than 125 k/year to people earning more than that. Socialism ho!)

Also, please don't call a literally non-binding, feel-good resolution 'Radical and extreme' climate action.

[Mirjt]

I legitimately do not understand how your parents raised you for you to believe that calling people a disease will make them more amiable to your wishes. It's like shouting 'Hey! Fucking niggers low information voters!' and expecting to be voted into the NAACP board of directors.

That's really the basic (and hilarious) failure of the far left: They were never socialised. It's all me me me me me, also me. Hence the hilarious demand 'College forgiveness for people earning less than 125 k per year isn't enough! All college debt must be forgiven!'

Because as we all know, society's most needy are people earning more than 125 k per annum.

(This would, of couse, be financed through taxes. Literally a wealth transfer from people earning less than 125 k/year to people earning more than that. Socialism ho!)

Also, please don't call a literally non-binding, feel-good resolution 'Radical and extreme' climate action.

1. I don't like using the metaphor of a disease, I was using that metaphor because that is the metaphor that Black Forest used and I was keeping in line with his metaphor.

2. The reason all college debt must be forgiven, is because it is wrong that anyone ever had to go into debt for college in the first place, leftists don't leave anyone out.

3. Not everything needs to be funded through taxation. We have a fiat currency and are monetarily sovereign, we can just spend money into existence; this would normally cause inflation that would require taxation to reduce, however when you have an economy that has underutilized resources, labor, and so on, it actually will have nearly no inflationary effect, and right now we are very underutilized. Even if we do need taxes to reduce inflation (or to pay for spending if you are using that economic framework), those taxes can come from wealth taxes, taxes on capital, taxes are extremely high incomes, taxes on corporations (though they may try to pass those expenses onto consumers until regulations prevent them), etc... We can also raise revenue in other ways, such as through a sovereign wealth fund or a system of public banking. All the debt that the government holds itself it can just say that they are ignoring them, canceling them, or forgiving them, and the debt not held by the government, well the government can just order the banks that hold that debt to absorb the loss.

4. I agree that the Paris Climate Agreement is flawed, it does not go far enough and it is non-binding, however it is a good benchmark.

[Slavakino]

If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard

[Mirjt]

If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard was in my top 5, the others were Sanders, Warren, Yang, and Castro.

[Slavakino]

If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard was in my top 5, the others were Sanders, Warren, Yang, and Castro.

I would have liked either Gabbard or Trump to win tbh. Bernie for me was the sort that doesn't go with my policies but he is honest and might have been a good contender

[An-Tanwir]

If Biden announced he had stage-four cancer and chose a former member of the Black Panther Party as his running mate, I'd vote for him.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard was in my top 5, the others were Sanders, Warren, Yang, and Castro.

Mostly men. Which isn't wrong, it's fair to say that most qualified candidates are men, the top 5 could contain just one woman without that being unrepresentative ... it's not Americans in general, but qualified Democratic Americans, Biden has to choose from.

But this is why I think it was a mistake to announce it would be a woman and then draw the process out so long. To some people it will give the impression that Biden's choice is hard not because he's giving it an awful lot of thought ... but that there AREN'T any suitable women.

And thus, whoever he does pick will be assumed Second Best to some unspecified man. Which is exactly what opponents of Affirmative Action will keep going on about. That hypothetical "good male Democrat" whose place the VP "took". That stone around her neck, the second best, might still be there in four years.

It could have been avoided by not announcing early, that it would be a woman. Or by choosing promptly after making that announcement. In my opinion Biden has made a mistake.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

If Biden wins, the oldest president elected in American history will be 77. If Trump wins, it will be 74.I love Biden's smile, and when he and Obama stand together laughing, I want to brush my teeth.And trump will make me want to whistle.But trump was so rude that he said Biden was too old to know he was alive or dead.

[Mirjt]

Tulsi Gabbard was in my top 5, the others were Sanders, Warren, Yang, and Castro.

Mostly men. Which isn't wrong, it's fair to say that most qualified candidates are men, the top 5 could contain just one woman without that being unrepresentative ... it's not Americans in general, but qualified Democratic Americans, Biden has to choose from.

But this is why I think it was a mistake to announce it would be a woman and then draw the process out so long. To some people it will give the impression that Biden's choice is hard not because he's giving it an awful lot of thought ... but that there AREN'T any suitable women.

And thus, whoever he does pick will be assumed Second Best to some unspecified man. Which is exactly what opponents of Affirmative Action will keep going on about. That hypothetical "good male Democrat" whose place the VP "took". That stone around her neck, the second best, might still be there in four years.

It could have been avoided by not announcing early, that it would be a woman. Or by choosing promptly after making that announcement. In my opinion Biden has made a mistake.

To be fair only 6 out of the 29 "major" candidates in the Democratic Primaries were women (Warren, Gabbard, Harris, Williamson, Klobuchar, Gillibrand).

I do agree with you that Biden botched his Vice-Presidential selection process and gave ammunition to misogynistic ways of thinking, however I get the feeling that sexism would enter the picture one way or another, and that thought makes me really sad (I have been feeling very depressed about the state of the world and the state of the U.S. lately).

[New haven america]

I legitimately do not understand how your parents raised you for you to believe that calling people a disease will make them more amiable to your wishes. It's like shouting 'Hey! Fucking niggers low information voters!' and expecting to be voted into the NAACP board of directors.

That's really the basic (and hilarious) failure of the far left: They were never socialised. It's all me me me me me, also me. Hence the hilarious demand 'College forgiveness for people earning less than 125 k per year isn't enough! All college debt must be forgiven!'

Because as we all know, society's most needy are people earning more than 125 k per annum.

(This would, of couse, be financed through taxes. Literally a wealth transfer from people earning less than 125 k/year to people earning more than that. Socialism ho!)

Also, please don't call a literally non-binding, feel-good resolution 'Radical and extreme' climate action.

Can't tell if really good sarcasm or actual belief.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Mostly men. Which isn't wrong, it's fair to say that most qualified candidates are men, the top 5 could contain just one woman without that being unrepresentative ... it's not Americans in general, but qualified Democratic Americans, Biden has to choose from.

But this is why I think it was a mistake to announce it would be a woman and then draw the process out so long. To some people it will give the impression that Biden's choice is hard not because he's giving it an awful lot of thought ... but that there AREN'T any suitable women.

And thus, whoever he does pick will be assumed Second Best to some unspecified man. Which is exactly what opponents of Affirmative Action will keep going on about. That hypothetical "good male Democrat" whose place the VP "took". That stone around her neck, the second best, might still be there in four years.

It could have been avoided by not announcing early, that it would be a woman. Or by choosing promptly after making that announcement. In my opinion Biden has made a mistake.

To be fair only 6 out of the 29 "major" candidates in the Democratic Primaries were women (Warren, Gabbard, Harris, Williamson, Klobuchar, Gillibrand).

I don't need a calculator to see that 6/29 is ... 1 in 5.
Either I made a good guess, or you're flattering me, either way ...

I do agree with you that Biden botched his Vice-Presidential selection process and gave ammunition to misogynistic ways of thinking, however I get the feeling that sexism would enter the picture one way or another,

Absolutely! Just picking a woman (without foretelling it) would leave an opportunity for misogynists to say she didn't deserve it, she was a token woman, or even ... she slept her way to the top. "How many women did Biden try out?"

Announcing it, then not doing it for so long, presents a challenge to whoever Biden chooses. She will need to prove herself and not just in VP debates.

and that thought makes me really sad (I have been feeling very depressed about the state of the world and the state of the U.S. lately).

A hot dinner when I was hungry has improved my mood. Biden has advisors, on top of tons of political experience. This can't be the big mistake I thought it was.

Biden wants this fight! It IS affirmative action, probably two ways, and it's Biden that did it. Come at us!

[Thermodolia]

I legitimately do not understand how your parents raised you for you to believe that calling people a disease will make them more amiable to your wishes. It's like shouting 'Hey! Fucking niggers low information voters!' and expecting to be voted into the NAACP board of directors.

That's really the basic (and hilarious) failure of the far left: They were never socialised. It's all me me me me me, also me. Hence the hilarious demand 'College forgiveness for people earning less than 125 k per year isn't enough! All college debt must be forgiven!'

Because as we all know, society's most needy are people earning more than 125 k per annum.

(This would, of couse, be financed through taxes. Literally a wealth transfer from people earning less than 125 k/year to people earning more than that. Socialism ho!)

Also, please don't call a literally non-binding, feel-good resolution 'Radical and extreme' climate action.

Can't tell if really good sarcasm or actual belief.

Unfortunately I think it’s an actual belief.

[Elwher]

If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard

I wanted to see Buttigieg and Hickenlooper on the ticket. Not for their policies, but for the possible slogan of "Make America Giggle Again"

[Pigeonstan]

If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard

I wanted to see Buttigieg and Hickenlooper on the ticket. Not for their policies, but for the possible slogan of "Make America Giggle Again"

i would never

[Asle Leopolka]

If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard

There are dozens of us! DOZENS!

If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard

I wanted to see Buttigieg and Hickenlooper on the ticket. Not for their policies, but for the possible slogan of "Make America Giggle Again"

They both would have been decimated in the General - neither polled well among key demographics during the primaries and they would be horrible at increasing voter turnout and turning moderates/centrists/undecideds/never-Trumpers to the Dem camp.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Ugh. I hate Biden with a passion, but if I lived in a place that wasn't solidly blue I'd probably vote for him for harm reduction. I hate bourgeoisie electoralism, but there's a point where I just have to swallow my pride.

[Farnhamia]

If I was gonna vote for a Democrat I would have liked Gabbard

I wanted to see Buttigieg and Hickenlooper on the ticket. Not for their policies, but for the possible slogan of "Make America Giggle Again"

The best should have been Al Franken and Jill Stein, for the lawn signs and bumper stickers alone.