President Biden declines to seek re-election

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

9 months 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

9 months 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

9 months 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

9 months 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

9 months 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

9 months 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

9 months 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

9 months 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

9 months 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

9 months 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

Martha Careful (3h) : meh

Zero2Cool (7h) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026

Zero2Cool (7h) : It's so awesome.

Zero2Cool (7h) : new site fan shout post fast

wpr (10h) : Slow posting in Fan shout.

wpr (10h) : Only 4

Zero2Cool (13h) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (13h) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am

wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days

beast (18-Apr) : 6 days

wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep

dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire

dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that

dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.

dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move

dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what

Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife

Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately

Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.

dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.

Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not

Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.

Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24