2024 Presidential Election: Who should replace Joe Biden?

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

you should look at the candidates qualifications and judge them based on that

You mentioned earlier that Senator Mark Kelly should be president, ending the post with "let's be honest."

In that same spirit of honesty and given the context of thread, it was implicit there that you think he's a better choice for Potus than former Senator and current VP Kamala Harris.

Continuing the honest dialog, I'm genuinely curious: Which specific qualifications (beyond astronauts being neato and cool) led you to conclude that Kelly (who's served on an aging committee and one on armed forces) is a better choice than Harris (who served on the Judiciary committee and also the joint committee on intelligence and also was Vice President and also AG for the largest state in the union before all of that)?

Qualifications: Why are Kellys a better fit than Harris' in your opinion?

[MigL]

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Who is proposing a unity ticket?

I could be wrong, but I do believe TheVat mentioned it previously in this thread. You know that eventually the two parties have to work together, they cannot continue to polarize the country such that the whole purpose of government/politicians is to get re-elected, and not actually govern the country.

22 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think Lon Chaney would be great for capturing the werewolf vote!
Or, wait, perhaps you meant Liz Cheney.

No, Lon would be a terrible choice.
Heck, he'd be even older than J Biden ... if he was still alive.
Of course I meant Liz Cheney 🙂 .

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Qualifications: Why are Kellys a better fit than Harris' in your opinion?

Personally, I don't think an astronaut's 'coolness' factor translates well to politics.
And given his 'on the job' experience, I would lean towards Shapiro, of the two that I read are shortlisted.
And those two would not make MY shortlist; I believe others are more suitable.
But K Harris is competent enough to select a running mate she feels would best complement and strengthen her Presidential bid.

After all, she spent most of her formative teenage years in Canada, so I would think she's quite a bit more sensible than most of you Americans 😄 .

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would think she's quite a bit more sensible than most of you Americans

We’re discussing US politics. Sensibility has nothing whatsoever to do with it. 😉

[MigL]

Apparently some people are taking the idea of a 'bridge' between the parties, in order to defeat D Trump, seriously.
"Haley voters for Harris" plans to continue supporting K Harris' Presidential  bid, in order to stop Trump, even though N Haley has told them to stop.

‘Haley Voters for Harris’ vow to fight on after Nikki sends them cease-and-desist letter (msn.com)

Maybe in the same way D Trump told the Jan 6 insurrection to stop ...

[CharonY]

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

Apparently some people are taking the idea of a 'bridge' between the parties, in order to defeat D Trump, seriously.
"Haley voters for Harris" plans to continue supporting K Harris' Presidential  bid, in order to stop Trump, even though N Haley has told them to stop.

‘Haley Voters for Harris’ vow to fight on after Nikki sends them cease-and-desist letter (msn.com)

Maybe in the same way D Trump told the Jan 6 insurrection to stop ...

Well, the group is a PAC (which is one of the weird US monstrosities) and from the looks of it might have been more anti-Trump rather than pro-Haley. Depending on who organizes that PAC it might be less about party, but I might be wrong.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Apparently some people are taking the idea of a 'bridge' between the parties, in order to defeat D Trump, seriously.

They can wade across, if they like. In fact, obviously, all the sane, clear-sighted conservatives should, regardless of who their preferred Republican candidate would have been. Because the candidates they're stuck with are unacceptable, they either vote Democrat or waste their vote on an independent or stay home and watch it on tv.

What the Democrats must not do is make any cross-party overtures. They're in a fight for the the very identity of their country. No olive branches, no sacrificial pigeons.

Invite voters individually, each according to their own concerns and interests, to make an independent decision.   

[iNow]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Apparently some people are taking the idea of a 'bridge' between the parties <…> seriously.

In racing there’s an old adage: “In order to finish first, you must first finish.”

The basic idea is you can’t drive so fast you fly off the circuit and take yourself out of contention. Priority #1 is you must finish the race since that is a prerequisite to winning it. 

Like you, I’m sympathetic to the idea of a crossover ticket, as I suspect many here are. Harris / Romney, for example, sounds kinda awesome if you don’t bother thinking too deeply about it. 

But the moment you look under the covers at what drives the voting numbers across districts and across electoral college states in the places that shift electoral outcomes, you can see pretty immediately that such a move would have one outcome: You would lose. 

There’s a reason the political parties focus so heavily on particular blocs of voters and ideological camps, and it’s not because they’re seeking purity among their flocks (tho it surely appears that way sometimes). 

It’s because that’s what it takes to win, and if you don’t win then it’s all just academic counting of how many angels can dance on a pinhead (no, I don’t mean Trump) 

Edited July 26 by iNow

[Alex_Krycek]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

You mentioned earlier that Senator Mark Kelly should be president, ending the post with "let's be honest."

In that same spirit of honesty and given the context of thread, it was implicit there that you think he's a better choice for Potus than former Senator and current VP Kamala Harris.

Continuing the honest dialog, I'm genuinely curious: Which specific qualifications (beyond astronauts being neato and cool) led you to conclude that Kelly (who's served on an aging committee and one on armed forces) is a better choice than Harris (who served on the Judiciary committee and also the joint committee on intelligence and also was Vice President and also AG for the largest state in the union before all of that)?

Qualifications: Why are Kellys a better fit than Harris' in your opinion?

I'd point to Kelly's career as an aviator and astronaut.  He's a combat veteran and was commander of the Discovery space shuttle.  

To me the skills, training, mental and physical discipline that's required to excel in those two roles amount to more than any legal training ever could. 

Edited July 26 by Alex_Krycek

[exchemist]

13 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I'd point to Kelly's career as an aviator and astronaut.  He's a combat veteran and was commander of the Discovery space shuttle.  

To me the skills, training, mental and physical discipline that's required to excel in those two roles amount to more than any legal training ever could. 

Hmm, the relevance of those - obviously impressive  - skills to those required in politics is not clear to me. Businessmen and military men do not always succeed in politics. They may be insightful and decisive leaders, but they tend to operate in structures in which obedience is built-in. Often they are not that well trained in consensus-building and the use of committees and other political processes to achieve gains, or in effective communication with electors whose interest in, and attention span for, political propositions is very limited. That's why many of them tend to be a bit, well, fascist in outlook (Exhibit A: Elon Musk). Kelly obviously is far from that, but nonetheless I see little reason to think the skills he has inherited from military aviation and the space programme are key to being a successful vice-president. Though they certainly may give him a personal aura of toughness and competence, which can help with getting the public to listen to him. 

By the same logic I would agree that a law career may not be the ideal skill set either. However it does have 2 relevant advantages. First, a good advocate has to be able to persuade a jury. This is a performance art, which can help with persuasive public speaking. Second, a lawyer has to understand law and is thus in an informed position when it comes to dealing with lawmakers or negotiating changes to laws being made.  

[Alex_Krycek]

24 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Hmm, the relevance of those - obviously impressive  - skills to those required in politics is not clear to me. Businessmen and military men do not always succeed in politics. They may be insightful and decisive leaders, but they tend to operate in structures in which obedience is built-in. Often they are not that well trained in consensus-building and the use of committees and other political processes to achieve gains, or in effective communication with electors whose interest in, and attention span for, political propositions is very limited. That's why many of them tend to be a bit, well, fascist in outlook (Exhibit A: Elon Musk). Kelly obviously is far from that, but nonetheless I see little reason to think the skills he has inherited from military aviation and the space programme are key to being a successful vice-president. Though they certainly may give him a personal aura of toughness and competence, which can help with getting the public to listen to him. 

By the same logic I would agree that a law career may not be the ideal skill set either. However it does have 2 relevant advantages. First, a good advocate has to be able to persuade a jury. This is a performance art, which can help with persuasive public speaking. Second, a lawyer has to understand law and is thus in an informed position when it comes to dealing with lawmakers or negotiating changes to laws being made.  

All good points.  However when the President meets with the aliens, Kelly can say he's left Earth, so he may carry some extra credibility with them.

Other than that I do think the points you made about being a successful trial lawyer will bode well for Kamala.  She's up against a criminal after all.  

Edited July 26 by Alex_Krycek

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

All good points.  However when the President meets with the aliens, Kelly can say he's left Earth, so he may carry some extra credibility with them.

Other than that I do think the points you made about being a successful trial lawyer will bode well for Kamala.  She's up against a criminal after all.  

.....which she is not being slow to point out! 

My worry with her is she doesn't actually seem to be that good at inspirational speaking - perhaps like our own new PM, Starmer, also a former advocate, who is good at forensic analysis and cross-questioning to expose weaknesses in an opponent, but not possessed of high flights of oratory, like an Obama, say.

I'm relieved she is starting to articulate a +ve vision of what she stands for, which seems to be loosely all around personal freedom. This can link things together like reproductive rights with the partisan control of the state envisioned in the deeply sinister Project 2025 and freedom from fear, as offered by better gun control (Exhibit B: Trump's ear?). So she does now seem to have more to say than just -ve attacks on Trump. Actually projecting something positive and a bit of happiness will be a real contrast with the permanently angry and abusive, self-centred negativity of Trump.  

So I'm crossing my finger she can make it. The whole of Europe is desperately hoping Trump loses, as our future as free countries at peace may be in the balance. (Have you seen that Russia has just sabotaged the French railway network, via 5 separate, simultaneous attacks on signalling and cabling at critical railway junctions, to try to turn the Olympics into chaos? The French arrested one Russian agent last week, but evidently there are more of them at large. More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c28eyr3y18yo)  

 

Edited July 26 by exchemist

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

To me the skills, training, mental and physical discipline that's required to excel in those two roles amount to more than any legal training ever could. 

Thanks for the clear answer. As exchemists reply reminds us, however, this is entirely subjective and what's considered a "qualification" to you may differ for others, hence the "Kelly should be president, let's be honest" was perhaps an overstatement (one potentially influenced by the ridiculous misogyny and racism we keep seeing everywhere in our politics)

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thanks for the clear answer. As exchemists reply reminds us, however, this is entirely subjective and what's considered a "qualification" to you may differ for others, hence the "Kelly should be president, let's be honest" was perhaps an overstatement (one potentially influenced by the ridiculous misogyny and racism we keep seeing everywhere in our politics)

Indeed, Margaret Thatcher was more of a man, than Trump could ever cope with...

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

To me the skills, training, mental and physical discipline that's required to excel in those two roles amount to more than any legal training ever could.

In aviation, certainly. In legislation, I'd prefer legal savvy. Matter of perspective, I guess.

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

In aviation, certainly. In legislation, I'd prefer legal savvy. Matter of perspective, I guess.

How much time on average does POTUS spend in Air Force One as opposed to the Oval Office?

[swansont]

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

Hmm, the relevance of those - obviously impressive  - skills to those required in politics is not clear to me. Businessmen and military men do not always succeed in politics. They may be insightful and decisive leaders, but they tend to operate in structures in which obedience is built-in. Often they are not that well trained in consensus-building and the use of committees and other political processes to achieve gains, or in effective communication with electors whose interest in, and attention span for, political propositions is very limited.

On of my CO’s made a comment to this effect - he discovered that he actually had to lead because he was in charge of a bunch of civilians (and a top-heavy bunch at that; lots of people who were equivalent to officers, rather than a normal pyramid structure). Pushback from people criticizing decisions and having to deal with a union was a new experience. 

—

Having a military background lends credibility when dealing with the military. But it’s not clear to me that you have an edge in decision-making

[Peterkin]

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How much time on average does POTUS spend in Air Force One as opposed to the Oval Office?

No idea. Or even of what percent of the president's flying time is spent in the cockpit. My uneducated guess would be that no president has ever yet been required to emergency-land the thing.

[TheVat]

Am starting to wonder if Roy Cooper might migrate to top of the list.  All other criteria aside, it's good to have a friend at your side - Cooper and Harris are friends going back to when they were both AGs of their states (NC and CA).  And Cooper is a master of  bipartisanship and reaching moderates.  And he worked on his parent's farm in the summers when he was growing up which can be helpful in relating to rural America generally.  Any foothold in rural culture is going to be helpful.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

How much time on average does POTUS spend in Air Force One as opposed to the Oval Office?

Very little in both; D Trump spent most of his time on the golf course.
( or with porn stars/hookers )

[Alex_Krycek]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

 hence the "Kelly should be president, let's be honest" was perhaps an overstatement (one potentially influenced by the ridiculous misogyny and racism we keep seeing everywhere in our politics)

I hope you're not calling me sexist or racist because the candidate I tend to favor just happens to be a white male, rather than a black woman.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it that way.   

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I hope you're not calling me sexist or racist because the candidate I tend to favor just happens to be a white male, rather than a black woman.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it that way.   

You forgot to add in brackets:

(unless potentially influenced by the ridiculous woke cancel culture over compensating politics we hope doesn’t lead to Trump winning another election)

AKA How to lose votes and negatively influence people

[TheVat]

At least if Trump wins we don't ever have to vote again!   That's the assurance he gave a crowd of conservative Christians yesterday.  

 

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I hope you're not calling me sexist or racist because the candidate I tend to favor just happens to be a white male, rather than a black woman.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it that way.   

I just think you're astronutty.  Or astronaughty.  Whichever term applies.  

[geordief]

11 minutes ago, TheVat said:

At least if Trump wins we don't ever have to vote again!   That's the assurance he gave a crowd of conservative Christians yesterday.  

 

I just think you're astronutty.  Or astronaughty.  Whichever term applies.  

This ,in March from a Trump  supporting website

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/trump-2028/

 

"This is plainly unfair. Indeed, there has long been support for axing the Twenty-second Amendment due to the artificial limits it places on voter choice"

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I hope you're not calling me sexist or racist

My words which you quoted clearly confirm I wasn’t 

[toucana]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

At least if Trump wins we don't ever have to vote again!   That's the assurance he gave a crowd of conservative Christians yesterday.    

Here is the  video clip of that moment:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/27/politics/video/trump-christian-vote-vinjamuri-nr-digvid

The most charitable interpretation is that Trump was either appealing to elderly Christian voters who won't be around to vote in 2028 -  or perhaps to those MAGA fundamentalists who regard him as the Messiah, and who think that his second coming would coincide with the 'End of Days', and the 'Rapture' of the 'Elect' into heaven ?