US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[faberryman]

Biden made race and gender the primary determinant in his selection process.  So by ignoring many potential candidates who may have been better VP choices, the public now has to decide if Harris can take over as President if Biden doesn't finish his term.   Had he selected someone with stronger credentials, he would have allayed concerns that the public legitimately have about his health and age.

Who did you have in mind as someone with stronger credentials?  Was Pence the strongest Republican candidate for VP in 2016? Seemed to me that he was Trump's Dan Quayle with the added bonus that he was an evangelical. Obviously no one bought Trump's religious fervor, so that part of the electorate needed some shoring up. I don't remember the Democrats saying that Trump cheated the public by selecting him.  Maybe they did.

[Craig Lamson]

Has anyone been following the "Great Reset" initiative?

I heard about it the other day and started looking at it.  From my cheap seats this is not a good thing.  I can't image Trump buying into this but Sleepy Joe and his sidekick...no problem.

Introducing the Great Reset:

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/504499-introducing-the-great-reset-world-leaders-radical-plan-to

Great Reset website:

https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/

[faberryman]

Has anyone been following the "Great Reset" initiative?

I don't think this is something that Biden or Harris would buy into. Is Prince Charles volunteering to abdicate and abolish the monarchy. Seems like the Queen and Prince William might have some skin in the game.

[Alan Klein]

Who did you have in mind as someone with stronger credentials?  Was Pence the strongest Republican candidate for VP in 2016? Seemed to me that he was Trump's Dan Quayle with the added bonus that he was an evangelical. Obviously no one bought Trump's religious fervor, and so that part of the electorate needed some shoring up. I don't remember the Democrats saying that Trump cheated the public by selecting him.  Maybe they did.

The concern here is Biden's age and health especially his mental acuity.  That wasn't a concern with Trump in 2016.  So voters will be looking at Harris' ability to become president.

[Alan Klein]

I don't think this is something that Biden or Harris would buy into. Is Prince Charles volunteering to abdicate and abolish the monarchy. Seems like the Queen and Prince William might have some skin in the game.

You're onto something.   Socialism didn't work out too well for the Czar and his family. 

[faberryman]

Sure, if you're fine with legitimizing racism and sexism.  I'm not, but if you want to, knock yourself out.

Well, I disagree with your premise that having race and gender among your criteria for a running mate is either racist or sexist so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Let's say Richard Spenser needed to fill a position and his mandatory criteria was master degree needed, 5+ years of experience, licensed in area of expertise, knowledge of computer programming, white (non-jew).  Would you be okay with this?  After all, race is only part of the criteria listed.  It's just a tiny little part too, at the end after all, no big deal, right?

I don't know who Richard Spenser is or what he does, so you are on your own there. I guess I am just uninformed.

You cant logically argue that it is okay to use one race to base your selection off of without allowing White Nationalists to do the same (with whatever positions they seek to fill).  So if want to create that position for them, have at it.  I would rather not.

I would fully expect a white nationalist to pick a white nationalist as his (or her) running mate. If the VP pick were a female white nationalist I wouldn't say he is being sexist. It is axiomatic that a white nationalist would not pick a minority as his (or her) VP, so we really don't need to go there.

I would say a better option would be to pick the most qualified person (the same argument you used for the Dems' selection of Biden).

I don't think I made that argument. I said I thought the Democrats selected Biden because from among the contenders, he had the best chance to beat Trump.

Take for instance Obama, he was clearly the most qualified Democrat in 2008, and not because he black.  That was merely a superficial quality.  For the time, the message he had worked and he was a master technician when it came to running a campaign.

I thought McCain was a good candidate for the Republicans until he picked Palin as his running mate. Anyone who would choose that nitwit exhibited terrible judgment. The campaign was all over after that, except for the stories about Palin spending a million dollars in campaign funds to make herself look presentable. I can't remember if she bought herself a new snowmobile too.

I don't think we have a history of picking the most qualified person for VP in our elections. Biden was a good pick. I don't remember who the other candidates were.

[faberryman]

The concern here is Biden's age and health especially his mental acuity.  That wasn't a concern with Trump in 2016.  So voters will be looking at Harris' ability to become president.

Trump's mental acuity was certainly a concern for me. I thought he was an idiot then and nothing he has done since has shaken that belief.

His health? Well, the fact that he is a big fat guy who doesn't exercise because he thinks his battery will run down doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. That and all those pictures of him eating loads of McDonalds and KFC stuff while flying around in his airplane weren't a real positive. The letter from his doctor and his subsequent checkup with Ronnie Jackson were cartoon parodies. The less said about his performance at West Point the better. Frankly, I am surprised he hasn't had a heart attack or a stroke, or both. Luckily, Pence can read out of a notebook pretty well. Would his wife really sit in monitoring him if he had a meeting with a female head of state in the oval office? On the other hand, given what has taken place in the oval office in other administrations, maybe it is a good idea.

[Craig Lamson]

I don't think this is something that Biden or Harris would buy into. Is Prince Charles volunteering to abdicate and abolish the monarchy. Seems like the Queen and Prince William might have some skin in the game.

I don’t know.  It’s the AOC/Sanders agenda and Biden is “moldable”

[John Camp]

I don’t know.  It’s the AOC/Sanders agenda and Biden is “moldable”

There's an absolute astonishing level of convoluted bigotry here. It sort of makes me embarrassed to visit Lula.

[PeterAit]

Now the Orange Oaf is floating the idea that Kamala Harris is not qualified to be VP because her PARENTS were immigrants. Birtherism in a new suit. Did you ever hear anything so stupid? Oh right, it's Trump so you have. But, nevertheless:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53774289

I challenge any of the Trump supporters here to support this. say it's OK. You can support this guy?

And related to birtherism, remember long ago when Trump said that if Obama release his birth certificate he would release his taxes? Well, we have the certificate but are still waiting for the tax returns. Gee, I wonder why?

[JoeKitchen]

Now the Orange Oaf is floating the idea that Kamala Harris is not qualified to be VP because her PARENTS were immigrants. Birtherism in a new suit. Did you ever hear anything so stupid? Oh right, it's Trump so you have. But, nevertheless:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53774289

I challenge any of the Trump supporters here to support this. say it's OK. You can support this guy?

And related to birtherism, remember long ago when Trump said that if Obama release his birth certificate he would release his taxes? Well, we have the certificate but are still waiting for the tax returns. Gee, I wonder why?

My my my, yes Jeremy, things haven't changed.  Peter is still pushing fringe conspiracy theories.

Trump merely said he heard of it (like right before thee presser) and that he would think the Democrats would have looked into it.  Yes, he did mention the credentials of the lawyer who published the article.  However, that is nor the same as pushing it.  Remember, he did not bring it up, but was asked about it.  Big difference. 

[Craig Lamson]

There's an absolute astonishing level of convoluted bigotry here. It sort of makes me embarrassed to visit Lula.

Wait, how did you read that post from me?  Bigotry?   Roflmao!  Now political dissent is Bigotry!  Amazing. 

[Craig Lamson]

Now the Orange Oaf is floating the idea that Kamala Harris is not qualified to be VP because her PARENTS were immigrants. Birtherism in a new suit. Did you ever hear anything so stupid? Oh right, it's Trump so you have. But, nevertheless:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53774289

I challenge any of the Trump supporters here to support this. say it's OK. You can support this guy?

And related to birtherism, remember long ago when Trump said that if Obama release his birth certificate he would release his taxes? Well, we have the certificate but are still waiting for the tax returns. Gee, I wonder why?

The Supreme Court on Natural Born Citizens.
https://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

[James Clark]

The Supreme Court on Natural Born Citizens.
https://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

Ooh.  Let’s get textual. .

 In the context of eligibility for office, there are a couple of serious problems with her set-up, if one is trying to draw the conclusion that one must be born of two citizens (as the term is used today) on native soil to carry citizenship. 

One, by the definition she is ascribing to de Vattel’s useage (lent authority by the claim that the founders were considering his work - an assertion that, while true, isn’t as relevant as she claims,  but that’s irrelevant here)  “citizen” is merely defined as one who is a participant in the society, subject to the authority of, and contributes to, the public body.  A “natural born citizen” is one who is born to such a person.  That’s it. 

Second, and flowing from that, if de Vattel’s standard for citizenship requires anything more than jurisdiction and participation, it immediately eliminates any of the founders in question from citizenship, which is, of course, absurd. 

In a more general sense, I have no problem deriving original intent from European enlightenment thinking - its very, very simple to draw a straight line between the ideals my country was founded on and those ideas, just as it’s proper and reasonable to find the basis of our law in English common law. What you CAN’T do is make a strictly textual argument and then proceed to embellish the text in an effort to create a *more restrictive* definition.

BUT....  the 14th Amendment renders the whole issue moot in exceedingly plain language anyway, and even in the post-14th USSC discussion she cites, nothing limits the definition to children of citizens, it merely reinforces that that specific circumstance is clearly established.

Edit: good Lord, there are some looney tunes that are posting in her comments section. 

[James Clark]

Wait, how did you read that post from me?  Bigotry?   Roflmao!  Now political dissent is Bigotry!  Amazing.

I have to agree here - I didn’t see anything bigoted in your response.  There’s been some shaky stuff posted by others earlier though.  Maybe the wrong post got quoted?

[James Clark]

My my my, yes Jeremy, things haven't changed.  Peter is still pushing fringe conspiracy theories.

Trump merely said he heard of it (like right before thee presser) and that he would think the Democrats would have looked into it.  Yes, he did mention the credentials of the lawyer who published the article.  However, that is nor the same as pushing it.  Remember, he did not bring it up, but was asked about it.  Big difference.

He also said he “didn’t know” if Harris was eligible and that it was a “very serious” issue.  She is, it’s not, and as usual his glaring ignorance for the basic foundational rules of our society are reprehensible.  Come on - I knew this junk in 6th grade.

[Craig Lamson]

Ooh.  Let’s get textual. .

 In the context of eligibility for office, there are a couple of serious problems with her set-up, if one is trying to draw the conclusion that one must be born of two citizens (as the term is used today) on native soil to carry citizenship. 

One, by the definition she is ascribing to de Vattel’s useage (lent authority by the claim that the founders were considering his work - an assertion that, while true, isn’t as relevant as she claims,  but that’s irrelevant here)  “citizen” is merely defined as one who is a participant in the society, subject to the authority of, and contributes to, the public body.  A “natural born citizen” is one who is born to such a person.  That’s it. 

Second, and flowing from that, if de Vattel’s standard for citizenship requires anything more than jurisdiction and participation, it immediately eliminates any of the founders in question from citizenship, which is, of course, absurd. 

In a more general sense, I have no problem deriving original intent from European enlightenment thinking - its very, very simple to draw a straight line between the ideals my country was founded on and those ideas, just as it’s proper and reasonable to find the basis of our law in English common law. What you CAN’T do is make a strictly textual argument and then proceed to embellish the text in an effort to create a *more restrictive* definition.

BUT....  the 14th Amendment renders the whole issue moot in exceedingly plain language anyway, and even in the post-14th USSC discussion she cites, nothing limits the definition to children of citizens, it merely reinforces that that specific circumstance is clearly established.

If that’s the case James, where can we find a decision by the Supreme Court that defines Natural Born?  The 14th, clearly does not deal with it.  It leaves that question wide open.   Clearly Harris is a citizen by birth, based on the place she was born.  That is not in question.  The requirements of the Constitution for the office of the President (and Vice President by extension) are quite specific.  It does not state “citizen” but rather Natural Born Citizen.  That’s a rather big distinction.  Nowhere in any later amendment was that requirement changed to “citizen”. While the SC cases listed in that article were not related to Presidential elections, they do define the term Natural Born.

Somewhere, sometime the issue needs to be resolved.  It’s now simply a he said she said kind of argument and it won’t go away until it’s litigated and ultimately decided by SCOTUS.  People can argue this to death, and I suspect they will.

[JoeKitchen]

I thought McCain was a good candidate for the Republicans until he picked Palin as his running mate. Anyone who would choose that nitwit exhibited terrible judgment. The campaign was all over after that, except for the stories about Palin spending a million dollars in campaign funds to make herself look presentable. I can't remember if she bought herself a new snowmobile too.

I don't think we have a history of picking the most qualified person for VP in our elections. Biden was a good pick. I don't remember who the other candidates were.

Well, I have to agree with you on McCain, and Palin. 

Biden though?  This just came out today ...

“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f--k things up,”  Obama, 2020. 

Yep, sounds like the best choice to me.

[JoeKitchen]

He also said he “didn’t know” if Harris was eligible and that it was a “very serious” issue.  She is, it’s not, and as usual his glaring ignorance for the basic foundational rules of our society are reprehensible.  Come on - I knew this junk in 6th grade.

I think we've known this for ... what ... 5 years now.  How are you still surprised by this?  I'm surely not.  It's like waking up in the morning and being amazed the sun had risen that day, as if you were not sure it would the night before. 

[faberryman]

Somewhere, sometime the issue needs to be resolved.  It’s now simply a he said she said kind of argument and it won’t go away until it’s litigated and ultimately decided by SCOTUS.  People can argue this to death, and I suspect they will.

I am sure that if the Trump campaign or other interested parties believe this is a serious issue, they will bring a lawsuit so that it can be properly adjudicated, and not content themselves with arguing about it in the media and on the internet.