d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Biden Vp Poll
Prev156789Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 90,565
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Aug 12 2020 02:16pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Aug 12 2020 03:14pm)
People who have money are experts in making money in their field, they aren't necessarily an expert in how different aspects of the field works, and the ability to make money in the field doesn't mean their policy ideas would be beneficial to the country, just in the ability to make money.

And in many cases, having money can be tied to absolutely nothing about the field at all. Donald Trump certainly has a lot of money, but he's made it abundantly clear he doesn't know dick about making money. Take Trump opening his third casino on the same street in the same city and driving all 3 into bankruptcy. Certainly has money, doesn't know dick about how to keep the money or run the businesses he's actively involved in.

Some people with money are definitely experts, like Warren Buffett, who has consistently made strong returns on a sound set of fundamental principles, but I don't see money as a good shortcut to determine expertise.


What is a better shortcut to determine expertise than money?
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Aug 12 2020 02:18pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Aug 12 2020 04:16pm)
What is a better shortcut to determine expertise than money?


Professional outcomes. For a doctor i would measure life expectancy of patients vs how well they use their secondary MBA. For lawyer i would example the list of clients who have the individual on retainer and consider how well they're protected...accounting i would judge by the solvency of their books....programming the brevity of their coding...therapist the success of their clients in adapting...social worker how often pts die prematurely, are incarcerated, or hospitalized etc.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 12 2020 02:26pm
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Aug 12 2020 02:22pm
Quote (fender @ Aug 12 2020 12:54pm)
TIL buckley v valeo actually happened some 200 years earlier than everyone thinks, and the founding fathers didn't fear an oligarchy, they actually designed america to become one... lol, the hoops you're willing to jump through... amazing!

i love how you conveniently ignored the part where the video shows that even those with significant influence don't have that one to one ideal ratio - pretty strange if their premise is that it's a practically achievable scenario for even the have-nots. it's ALMOST like it's just a tool to highlight the discrepancy between full and zero representation, between direct democracy and oligarchy, how no influence is completely unacceptable in a democracy...

i also didn't say you assumed that MY position was supporting a direct democracy, i said you ACT like that's the only alternative to the current system by coming up with hypotheticals, presumably trying to 'expose' the limitations of representative democracies. read more carefully and then you will understand why i refuse to even go down that rabbit hole, it's nothing but a deflection.

sure, i acknowledge that you CLAIM the status quo is not your "ideal republic", BUT you keep supporting, making excuses, and voting for those that perpetuate that system. do you genuinely not realise how that makes zero sense, especially considering that there ARE politicians who identified this as the core problem in american politics?


Buckley vs. Valeo? That's so minor compared to vast history of corporate influence in America. Did you miss the Harding administration? Boss Tweed? The Spoils System? That's just the tip of the iceberg too. Like I said, this stuff is literally built into the system. It's both a feature and a flaw. I think it's incredibly short-sighted to go to a relatively recent SCOTUS case when there is significantly more rot.

Hamilton WAS an oligarch and he's the most influential Founding Father so...yea they didn't fear it? I think it's fair to characterize many of the Federalists as oligarchs. Now, I'd agree that the ANTI-FEDERALISTS were against oligarchy but they died out rather quickly with the Articles of Confederation. I think historical context is pretty important because what America did was actually INCREDIBLY progressive given how many monarchs existed at the time. Compared to monarchy, oligarchy is substantial progress.

As for the graph, I don't think we need to get too hung up on it. The narrator literally says "in an ideal republic" you should have X but that's neither here nor there. If he wanted to make an illustrative point, he could have done it in a more effective way. To me, the point of "no effect" was very clear to me even without the "ideal curve" and I've said before that I don't dispute that fact.

If you look at what I posted to Thor, you'll see that I actually support some of the ideas in the video. I think you're making a lot of assumptions about my beliefs just because I'm establishment and corporate friendly. The reality is that I'm just vehemently against radicalism AND populism. A lot of the proposed ideas are fucking TERRIBLE. Right now, it's the Republicans with horrible ideas but a lot of what I hear on the left is terrifying.

You still haven't answered my question about what should happen regarding Ted Cruz and Sanders. What should happen? Could you please answer that before you respond to anything else I said?
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Aug 12 2020 02:27pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Aug 12 2020 01:14pm)
People who have money are experts in making money in their field, they aren't necessarily an expert in how different aspects of the field works, and the ability to make money in the field doesn't mean their policy ideas would be beneficial to the country, just in the ability to make money.

And in many cases, having money can be tied to absolutely nothing about the field at all. Donald Trump certainly has a lot of money, but he's made it abundantly clear he doesn't know dick about making money. Take Trump opening his third casino on the same street in the same city and driving all 3 into bankruptcy. Certainly has money, doesn't know dick about how to keep the money or run the businesses he's actively involved in.

Some people with money are definitely experts, like Warren Buffett, who has consistently made strong returns on a sound set of fundamental principles, but I don't see money as a good shortcut to determine expertise.

Really this just gets down to the classic problem of "What is merit?" for which there is no good answer. So I guess it's kind of a pointless discussion, but I assume that's what we're here for.


Indeed! However, people with money will be most affected by monetary/trade/economic policy so I understand why they are so eager to be involved in legislation. It REALLY boils down to the commerce clause but I'd much rather have the evils we have today than have a libertarian dystopia where the government isn't involved in it.

Quote (Skinned @ Aug 12 2020 01:18pm)
Professional outcomes. For a doctor i would measure life expectancy of patients vs how well they use their secondary MBA. For lawyer i would example the list of clients who have the individual on retainer and consider how well they're protected...accounting i would judge by the solvency of their books....programming the brevity of their coding...therapist the success of their clients in adapting...


Unfortunately, once a metric exists, it can be gamed and is no longer useful. What I liked about Andrew Yang is that he talked about modernizing a lot of our metrics which absolutely needs to happen.
Member
Posts: 90,565
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Aug 12 2020 02:31pm
Quote (Skinned @ Aug 12 2020 03:18pm)
Professional outcomes. For a doctor i would measure life expectancy of patients vs how well they use their secondary MBA. For lawyer i would example the list of clients who have the individual on retainer and consider how well they're protected...accounting i would judge by the solvency of their books....programming the brevity of their coding...therapist the success of their clients in adapting...social worker how often pts die prematurely, are incarcerated, or hospitalized etc.


that would work great in a lot of fields indeed
Member
Posts: 30,160
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 20%
Aug 12 2020 03:06pm
Quote (thundercock @ 12 Aug 2020 22:22)
Buckley vs. Valeo? That's so minor compared to vast history of corporate influence in America. Did you miss the Harding administration? Boss Tweed? The Spoils System? That's just the tip of the iceberg too. Like I said, this stuff is literally built into the system. It's both a feature and a flaw. I think it's incredibly short-sighted to go to a relatively recent SCOTUS case when there is significantly more rot.

Hamilton WAS an oligarch and he's the most influential Founding Father so...yea they didn't fear it? I think it's fair to characterize many of the Federalists as oligarchs. Now, I'd agree that the ANTI-FEDERALISTS were against oligarchy but they died out rather quickly with the Articles of Confederation. I think historical context is pretty important because what America did was actually INCREDIBLY progressive given how many monarchs existed at the time. Compared to monarchy, oligarchy is substantial progress.

As for the graph, I don't think we need to get too hung up on it. The narrator literally says "in an ideal republic" you should have X but that's neither here nor there. If he wanted to make an illustrative point, he could have done it in a more effective way. To me, the point of "no effect" was very clear to me even without the "ideal curve" and I've said before that I don't dispute that fact.

If you look at what I posted to Thor, you'll see that I actually support some of the ideas in the video. I think you're making a lot of assumptions about my beliefs just because I'm establishment and corporate friendly. The reality is that I'm just vehemently against radicalism AND populism. A lot of the proposed ideas are fucking TERRIBLE. Right now, it's the Republicans with horrible ideas but a lot of what I hear on the left is terrifying.

You still haven't answered my question about what should happen regarding Ted Cruz and Sanders. What should happen? Could you please answer that before you respond to anything else I said?


again, you CLAIM to support things (what exactly, and more importantly, WHO do you realistically expect to implement them?) that the people you ACTUALLY support have every incentive (financially and politically) to reject. whatever you support from the video illustrating how america is effectively an oligarchy, the DNC establishment (to which biden and harris undeniably belong) will NOT change that, and i'm pretty sure you know that - and buckley v. valeo is a landmark decision that lead to that point, though not the only one of course.

as to your hypothetical, i've already told you twice that i'm not willing to entertain that deflection attempt. it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion, it can't refute the facts about the massive discrepancy of political representation between the average american and the donor class, nor does it somehow prove that a representative democracy can't work - or that a disagreement in genuine solution attempts inevitably leads to a problem remaining unsolved (or whatever you hoped to achieve there).

like your counterparts on the right, you SAY that you merely oppose 'radicalism', while in reality rejecting perfectly reasonable demands or solutions, that have proven effective in most of america's peer countries, or even in its own history.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Aug 12 2020 03:31pm
Quote (fender @ Aug 12 2020 02:06pm)
again, you CLAIM to support things (what exactly, and more importantly, WHO do you realistically expect to implement them?) that the people you ACTUALLY support have every incentive (financially and politically) to reject. whatever you support from the video illustrating how america is effectively an oligarchy, the DNC establishment (to which biden and harris undeniably belong) will NOT change that, and i'm pretty sure you know that - and buckley v. valeo is a landmark decision that lead to that point, though not the only one of course.

as to your hypothetical, i've already told you twice that i'm not willing to entertain that deflection attempt. it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion, it can't refute the facts about the massive discrepancy of political representation between the average american and the donor class, nor does it somehow prove that a representative democracy can't work - or that a disagreement in genuine solution attempts inevitably leads to a problem remaining unsolved (or whatever you hoped to achieve there).

like your counterparts on the right, you SAY that you merely oppose 'radicalism', while in reality rejecting perfectly reasonable demands or solutions, that have proven effective in most of america's peer countries, or even in its own history.


It's absolutely relevant to the discussion because two people can agree that a problem exists but have radically different solutions. Who is trying to refute facts? Facts are fucking facts. I want to dig DEEPER into the WHY. My non hypothetical (because it's literally happening NOW) involves the correct action to take. Should you do nothing until stronger consensus forms on the solution? Should you pick one solution and just go with it without bringing in the opposition? Something else? I want to know what YOU think the ideal scenario is on certain issues (because it obviously changes based on the severity of the issue). Who the fuck said a representative democracy can't work? Why are you straw-manning so much?

I mean, these changes are happening now in DNC establishment states....California has ranked choice voting at the local level in many cities. California also has open primaries and an instant run off system. The DNC primary got rid of winner take all states during the primary so they are definitely leading the way when it comes to representation. The DNC is also pushing for more people to vote (especially by mail). I think you need to educate yourself about the actual policies and progress that's being made. Give credit where credit is due.

Please give me an example of a solution that you're referring to that is "reasonable." I'm all ears.
Member
Posts: 30,160
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 20%
Aug 12 2020 03:44pm
Quote (thundercock @ 12 Aug 2020 23:31)
It's absolutely relevant to the discussion because two people can agree that a problem exists but have radically different solutions. Who is trying to refute facts? Facts are fucking facts. I want to dig DEEPER into the WHY. My non hypothetical (because it's literally happening NOW) involves the correct action to take. Should you do nothing until stronger consensus forms on the solution? Should you pick one solution and just go with it without bringing in the opposition? Something else? I want to know what YOU think the ideal scenario is on certain issues (because it obviously changes based on the severity of the issue). Who the fuck said a representative democracy can't work? Why are you straw-manning so much?

I mean, these changes are happening now in DNC establishment states....California has ranked choice voting at the local level in many cities. California also has open primaries and an instant run off system. The DNC primary got rid of winner take all states during the primary so they are definitely leading the way when it comes to representation. The DNC is also pushing for more people to vote (especially by mail). I think you need to educate yourself about the actual policies and progress that's being made. Give credit where credit is due.

Please give me an example of a solution that you're referring to that is "reasonable." I'm all ears.


credit is earned, not demanded. i will give credit when the dnc is not a slave to corporate money anymore, and the will of the people is represented in both their candidates as well as their policies. both is not the case, and both won't change under a biden / harris presidency, and you know it. you could describe their approach as 'the bare minimum' - and they have that in common with the republican establishment when it comes to literally EVERY 'progressive' idea. the donor class knows how to protect itself, and you are a textbook example for how it does that, lol.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Aug 12 2020 03:52pm
Quote (fender @ Aug 12 2020 02:44pm)
credit is earned, not demanded. i will give credit when the dnc is not a slave to corporate money anymore, and the will of the people is represented in both their candidates as well as their policies. both is not the case, and both won't change under a biden / harris presidency, and you know it. you could describe their approach as 'the bare minimum' - and they have that in common with the republican establishment when it comes to literally EVERY 'progressive' idea. the donor class knows how to protect itself, and you are a textbook example for how it does that, lol.


Nonsensical, racist hyperbole. Vague statement with no useful metrics provided. You are all fluff and no substance.

I think we're going to see quite a bit of change under a Biden presidency. You will poo poo it of course but there will be many people who will have better lives because of it. Funny how you're unable to provide specific examples when pressed. Like I said, I'm all ears.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Aug 12 2020 05:02pm
Found this article interesting: http://archive.is/hEV26
Quote

All the women with a shot at becoming Joe Biden’s running mate first had to face the same, sometimes jarring questions in an initial interview: What would your agenda be? What do you think Donald Trump’s nickname for you would be?

It was the opening gantlet of an arduous voyage — interviews followed by interviews in some cases, a public scrutiny that surfaced old foes or embarrassing quotes in the media, and for the 11 finalists, a deep examination by an individualized panel of 12 to 15 lawyers that culminated in time with Biden himself.

The process was in many ways unlike any other vice-presidential search in memory — taking place under an unusual public glare fostered by Biden’s early declaration that he would consider only women for the job, a decision that brought on fierce lobbying to further narrow the field by race. Hundreds of prominent Black activists, lawmakers and opinion leaders called on Biden to choose a Black woman, effectively putting him in a political bind as he mulled his most consequential decision as a presidential candidate.

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) emerged on top in the end, winning over Biden and his immediate family, to become the first Black woman, the first Asian American, the first graduate of a historically Black college and the first Californian since Ronald Reagan to find a place on a major-party national ticket.

Interviews with people briefed on the Biden vice-presidential selection effort described a process Tuesday that was extensive and laborious, with no certainty of outcome, even though Biden eventually landed on the former primary rival many had predicted from the start.

“A lot of his thought process was who shared his values, who he could work with, who could help him win and who could be ready on Day 1,” Biden campaign co-chair Cedric L. Richmond said in an interview after Harris’s selection had been announced. “He was looking at data and looking at track records and looking at a whole bunch of things.”

Race hovered over the interview process almost from the start.

As protests over racial justice swept the nation, one prominent White candidate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), publicly withdrew from consideration, while another prominent Black candidate, Stacey Abrams, announced publicly that she thought a woman of color should be selected.

Abrams and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a disabled Iraq War veteran whose mother was of Thai and Chinese descent, were among the candidates who were interviewed over the weekend. They both received a call Tuesday telling them they did not get the job.

The initial vetting was conducted by a team of four co-chairs, former senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, former Biden adviser Cynthia Hogan and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.). They logged more than 120 hours meeting with party activists, interest groups and other stakeholders with designs on who could best serve the party and country, according to a person familiar with the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

They also met, in pairs, with more than 20 initial candidates, who had been subjected to an initial public records review, and prepared a presentation for Biden and his wife, Jill, to narrow the field. Biden also met individually with each of the co-chairs to solicit additional recommendations.

“We are grateful to the incredibly talented and diverse field of women leaders for their time, commitment, and dedication, and to the hundreds of stakeholders whose valuable input was a critical part of this effort,” the four co-chairs said in a joint statement after Harris was selected. “Vice President Biden’s focus from the very start was on who would be the best governing partner to help him lead our country out of the chaos created by Donald Trump.”

Harris performed well in that initial meeting with the co-chairs, according to a person familiar with how it went, who declined to disclose any of the candidates’ answers to the initial interview questions. The co-chairs described her as having an impressive balance of the presence to take on Trump and knowledge of the issues. She also spoke in the meeting about her close relationship with Biden’s late son Beau and her personal story of having immigrant parents, a mother from India and a father from Jamaica.

She also continued to work with interest groups outside of the process, courting Black activists during racial justice protests over the summer. Despite a leaked comment from Dodd questioning whether Harris had enough “remorse” for her attacks on Biden during the primary, Biden himself stayed true to his public statements behind the scenes, displaying no lingering grudge.

Long after Harris had accused Biden of offending her for praising segregationist senators and opposing forced busing, the two leaders had found a way to get along, meeting by chance on her husband’s October 2019 birthday in a private airport terminal on the campaign trail. As Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, shared cupcakes with the Biden team, the two candidates wandered away for a private conversation that helped solidify their bond, according to people who were familiar with the exchange.

Ultimately 11 women made it to the final phase of the process, far more than publicly reported, with Biden conducting one-on-one interviews with each over the last nine days, sometimes in person and some virtually. Celinda Lake, one of the Biden campaign’s pollsters, did research on the best way to introduce each candidate’s personal story, and the campaign prepared rollout strategies, including potential new campaign logos, for all of the finalists.

Each of them also was subjected to an extensive legal vetting, run by former White House counsel Bob Bauer, former Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco and former White House senior counsel Dana Remus, all veterans of the Obama administration.

They oversaw a team of 12 to 15 other attorneys for each candidate who scraped every part of their pasts, an invasive examination that typically involves questions about everything from personal finances to drug use and romantic affairs. Once the information was in, Biden consulted individually with his family, including his wife and his sister, Valerie Biden Owens, his longtime friend and adviser Ted Kaufman and his political strategist Mike Donilon.

Other teams of political researchers, meanwhile, began releasing information into the public in an effort to complicate their paths to the nomination. In an effort to help them respond, the Biden team tried to elevate all the women’s profiles, fulfilling what staff described as a Biden promise to enhance each candidate’s public profile. He hosted the candidates on his podcast, fundraisers and virtual town halls, while his staff helped place them on television news programs.

Through all of it, Biden faced enormous pressure to narrow his search by race. As far back as April, Abrams laid down a racial marker as well. “We need a ticket that reflects the diversity of America,” she said on ABC’s “The View.”

Several other public and private efforts followed to persuade Biden to pick a Black woman, including at least one that involved former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile, which led to a meeting with Biden himself.

“My advice was sought,” said Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), a powerful Biden ally who found out about the Harris pick Tuesday from Biden. “I talked to him [Biden] over the past several days more than I talked to him all year.”

At another point in the day, Biden sat down before a laptop at a desk at his home in Wilmington. In front of him was a framed Hagar the Horrible comic strip that has long inspired him, with Hagar shouting up to the heavens, “Why me?!” and an answer coming from the clouds, “Why not?”

Biden had typed notes in front of him on a card of the things he wanted to convey.

“I’m calling you today because I’ve made that first Presidential decision,” the note said. “I’ve decided I’d like you to join this effort to win back the soul of this country and be our nation’s next Vice President.”

In a photo of the moment captured by Adam Schultz, his campaign photographer, Harris appeared on the laptop from her condominium in Washington, smiling broadly.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev156789Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll