President Biden declines to seek re-election

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

a year ago

I don't follow Politics too much, it kind of annoys me. And while I know this is probably nitpicky, I believe phrasing matters. The parties don't even try to hide their agenda is their party first, Country second. This is a snippet of Joe Biden's letter to America stating he's not seeking re-election anymore. Just four months before the election.

image.png You have insufficient rights to see the content.

I'm a Robert F Kennedy fan and I think he would have been a great President. So, Biden dropping out drew parallels to when Lyndon Johnson. However, I feel Johnson announced his decision not to run for re-election was far earlier in the President race than Biden.

Does the Democratic party have a young worthy candidate like they did with RFK back in the late 60's? Or does the Vice President have to be forced onto the ticket?

What do you all feel about this? And please let's attack the subject at hand, not one another.

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

beast
Select Member

a year ago

Does the Democratic party have a young worthy candidate like they did with RFK back in the late 60's? Or does the Vice President have to be forced onto the ticket?

What do you all feel about this? And please let's attack the subject at hand, not one another.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

It doesn't matter if any party has worthy candidates, as worthy candidates can't ever seem to get any traction. As the parties control everything, and I think they even work together to keep the parties system in power.

In theory, any Democrats whom steps up can win the nomination at the National Convention.

For practice matters though, the Vice President should have a large advantage in that they're the next person up,

And only the President and Vice President have access to the large amount of funds that they have been raising as it's their names on it. So any other candidate would be behind in the raising funds category, as well as name recognition.

So it's mostly likely the Vice President's race now.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

a year ago

Yeah. I was thinking it has to be Kamala Harris to take Biden's spot on the voting sheets. I also thought about the money stuff and admittedly have no idea how that works. I think some people are lobbyists or donors or something where they put millions of dollars to back a candidate.

I'd be kind of pissed if I donated X amount of dollars for a candidate and then four months before election they dropped out. Maybe that's just the normal risk of donating though?

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

a year ago

While reading the snippet below my brain started going into unlikely spots. Such as, if I'm a Country that hates the USA, I think now is probably a good time to attack. Yes, I know that's doomsday thinking and unlikely, but reading this stuff. It just feels like we're kind of a clusterfuct of sorts.

What happens with the money pledged to Biden?
Because Ms Harris was part of the same electoral ticket as Mr Biden, campaign finance experts have suggested that the nearly $100m (£73m) he has amassed could flow directly to her if she does become the Democrats' nominee.

This was "not an open question,” Dara Lindenbaum, a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, told the New York Times. “It’s very clear,” she added.

However, Republicans have signalled that they plan to challenge this transfer of funds, pointing out that Mr Biden was not yet officially his party's nominee when he dropped out of the White House race.

If the nominee turns out to be someone other than Ms Harris, it is less clear what happens to the funds accrued by the Biden-Harris campaign.

Martha Careful
Member

a year ago

I think the decision of a foreign adversary to attack would be more predicated upon the track record of the current president versus the likely response of the next president, as opposed to whether or not the current president will not return. To that end, if I was China and was going to attack in the next six years, I would do it now. That is a hell of a gamble though that I just don't think they're willing to take at this point… at least I hope not.

if you are more conservative and you look at the number of speakers that were young, bright, powerful and made sense at the Republican convention, you would ask yourself 'why are we running Trump.'

if you were more liberal and you looked at the number of outstanding governors i. e., more centrist candidates that could mop the floor with the Republican candidate you would ask yourself 'why Harris'?

whether it should or not, I think the assassination attempt makes Trump a more sympathetic figure and one that will make people more likely to live with his obvious faults.

The two party system really isn't serving us terribly well, IMO.

Go Packers!!!!

beast
Select Member

a year ago

The two party system really isn't serving us terribly well, IMO.

Originally Posted by: Martha Careful

No it's not, and I strongly believe the parties are working together to keep it a two party system, and keep the parties in control over the politicians, especially the moderate ones.

And I think you make a great point, that those whom become the Presidential Nominees haven't seemed like their the best candidates when looking around at whom else is potentially available.

Originally Posted by: Martha Careful

China seems very strict to keep to their schedules, that being said, there was once a rumor (at least I believe it was a rumor, maybe it was more than that), that China is building up it's Military, with potential plans to invade Taiwan in 2027.

Also China has been watching the Ukraine war closely to see how Russia was doing with their invasion, and learn from it.

I have no idea how much or how little truth there is to that, but China certainly does seem to be building in a lot of different ways. And getting into more and more China Sea scrimmages with foreign countries, including to my surprise, Canadia.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

a year ago

Here's my 2 cents.
I think the democrats realize this election is already sewn up by Trump.
If they do have a candidate that they believe would fare a little better then Harris would, and they think whoever they put out there would lose to Trump, why destroy that person's chances at a run for president in 2028, when Trump can't run? Make Harris the sacrifice, bite the bullet, and prepare for 2028.
Harris has shown no ability during the last 4 years to be able to lead this country if she had been thrown into the presidency, so why would people vote for her?
I know the ONLY reason, because they hate Trump.
I have watched so many of Harris' speeches on YouTube, and they all just repeat the same things over and over. A lot of words, but no substance.
I'm not attacking her, just saying my observations. Her "passage of time" ramble is an example.

Martha Careful
Member

a year ago

Cheesey,

It is so nice to hear from you!!

Although you may be right about what the Dems think. But if they think that, I think they are wrong. Lots of thinking!!!

The convention has not taken place and candidates ALWAYS get a bump from them.

If they were to run someone more to the middle like a Governor Shapiro (who has done a good job here, IMO) or a Gov Beshear, who polls very well for people who know him, or a Gov Cooper, I think they win easily.

The practical issue is that Harris cannot be passed by or black voters will boycott the election and its lights out (Please, do not call me a bigot., Rep Clyburn has basically stated this.)

And yes, she has a funny laugh, but I actually like it...it is heartfelt and genuine. Also, if you run ANY candidate's stump speech, one would be able to cut and paste to make anyone look silly and repetitious.

But back to the main point, Trumps negatives are north of 55%!!! An orange cone, without negatives, and without dumb policy positions would beat him...and rather easily.

But back to the Biggest point, welcome back, and happy birthday.

Go Packers!!!!

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

a year ago

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

I had conversations with some folks pre-2020 election that wanted essentially anyone but Donald Trump in office. They couldn't tell me why, just that he's awful. I agreed, he's not a great human being, but he's supposed to lead the Country, not lead choir boys. I told them wouldn't it be better to just vote on policies and such and if Trump wins, at least you won't hear his name during elections anymore? The refute was the Country couldn't survive four more years under Trump. Which is absolute horse crap. The President is a TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE. The Country is next to permanent. My guess is Democrats and voters assumed Trump would disappear after not being elected in 2020 and go away quietly or by force (court suing's). He's proven to be as difficult to get rid of as a New York cockroach.

Anyhow, those conversations came to mind when reading that they (Democrats) are "sacrificing" Kamala Harris so they can just focus on 2028 election and in their mind, turn the Country around. And sadly, that's the best thing for that party because the Country is always going to have issues to target. You cannot make 300 million people happy. The motto candidates always like to use is "change" in some extrapolated manner.

beast
Select Member

a year ago

#10

I have watched so many of Harris' speeches on YouTube, and they all just repeat the same things over and over. A lot of words, but no substance.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

Are you suggesting any other 2024 Presidential candidate differs from this? They all talk a lot and said absolutely nothing, other than I'm good, they're bad.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I agree, but did Trump run the country or mainly watch TV all morning, complain about it the afternoon, before playing golf in evening and back to complaining at 2 am tweets.

A number of reports suggested Trump wasn't helpful nor knowledgeable in meetings and just kept talking about how the media covered him than talk about the actual subject of the meetings.

I think it's very questionable how much the US President's this Century have actually lead the government.

Rumor had it that Dick Cheney was largely pulling the strings under George W. Bush.

Obama... but congress was strongly controlled by Republican and even Obamacare (the item with his name in it), rumor is he basically threw it at Congress and said get it done, based on an extremely rough and short outline and the details weren't his.

Trump had no clue what's going on, as he just watched TV reactions, and played golf (spending more in 4 years than Obama's first 4 years and golfing more than Obama despite those being some of his major complaints about Obama.

Then Biden, maybe even less clue of what going on as he seems to be mentally out of it, and his 4 years have been a lot more liberal policies than he did when he was younger, which I'm assuming someone else was running those things.

And no matter whom we're going to get in 2024, it's going to be more raising the debt as both sides have horrible policies of getting rid of the debt l, they both just want to spend a freaking ton. Republicans might be a bit less than the Democrats but it's still way too much and the business tax cuts means less income for the government and the same debt raising effects.

If the American government ever loses trust, then the USA is screwed, as we can't pay off the debt.... not with these politicians (both Republicans and Democrats).

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (9h) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals

Zero2Cool (10h) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy

Zero2Cool (10h) : No sir. I did not.

dfosterf (10h) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?

wpr (11h) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.

dfosterf (12h) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it

Zero2Cool (12h) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty

wpr (12h) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.

Mucky Tundra (13h) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?

Zero2Cool (13h) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that

Zero2Cool (14h) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute

wpr (16h) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.

wpr (16h) : The site is much more better.

Zero2Cool (16h) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?

Zero2Cool (16h) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.

dfosterf (16h) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo

Zero2Cool (17h) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.

Zero2Cool (17h) : Other times, it's turtle ass

Zero2Cool (17h) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.

beast (18h) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.

beast (18h) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!

beast (18h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end

Zero2Cool (19h) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?

wpr (19h) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.

Zero2Cool (19h) : SSL might be settled now.

Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues

wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back

Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.

dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev

Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.

Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last

Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : I had to manually move three posts.

Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : But when I go it, Martha's is the last reply

Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Still a little screwy; it shows on the main forum that you were the last person to reply to the Jenkins trade thread

Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Host issues, been crazy day

Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Connect 4?

Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Connecting to new database

Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : What the hell

beast (22-Jul) : Packershome going to the Whiteout unis again

Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops

Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with

Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery

Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷

dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings

Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more

Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!

dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old

dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason

dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2025 Packers Schedule

Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM

COMMANDERS

Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM

Browns

Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM

Cowboys

Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM

BENGALS

Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM

Cardinals

Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM

Steelers

Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM

PANTHERS

Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM

EAGLES

Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM

Giants

Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM

Lions

Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM

Broncos

Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM

Bears

Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM

RAVENS

Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM

Vikings