And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[Madiel]

I mean, there's not a lot of point undertaking to look at the responses of other countries when you're immediately offering WRONG reasons why you couldn't possibly apply the lessons.

[Madiel]

The USA was our biggest source of infection by the way. Everyone was looking at China, but then we got more cases arriving from the USA because the testing over there was so poor.

Our authorities were probably aware of the inadequate response in the USA before many Americans were.

[Todd]

I did read all of that. I did also read not just your post but the one after it, about how being federal made you terribly special.

Reading is indeed hard, because apparently you only know some of what's been written and can't recognise when I'm responding to the other bits.

I mean, there's not a lot of point undertaking to look at the responses of other countries when you're immediately offering WRONG reasons why you couldn't possibly apply the lessons.

The USA was our biggest source of infection by the way. Everyone was looking at China, but then we got more cases arriving from the USA because the testing over there was so poor.

Our authorities were probably aware of the inadequate response in the USA before many Americans were.

Three quick rejoinders.  Impressive.  The "terribly special" bit indicates your motivation and your misunderstanding.  Oh well.

[SimonNZ]

  (Smart/crafty/evil, take your pick, Republicans will sneak in sunset clauses, ensuring that these issues will linger for years.) 

We're talking about public health and human lives and you still think "smart" and "crafty" are ways of interpreting such a move?

[Todd]

We're talking about public health and human lives and you still think "smart" and "crafty" are ways of interpreting such a move?

No, not really.  They should be mandatory; all emergency programs should have sunset clauses.  If the programs are needed at the expiration date, then the programs can be renewed.  Under no circumstances should emergency programs start out as permanent.

[Madiel]

Three quick rejoinders.  Impressive.

Sorry, but do you want me to edit posts, or not? Or will I get criticised either way? That seems to be your usual modus operandi so maybe I'll just assume that you're going to ignore the substance in search of a snide remark on all occasions.

The USA being a federation does not make it different. You and another poster both tried to make that claim. I'm telling you that it's a wrong claim. You can either take that on board are you can continue your normal habit of being a pain to deal with.

EDIT: And Germany is a federation as well, though I don't know the details of who has responsibility for what in that country.

[Todd]

Sorry, but do you want me to edit posts, or not?

An odd question.  Do what you like.

[Madiel]

An odd question.  Do what you like.

The point being that what YOU like is to comment on whatever I do. Fuck that for a game.

[Todd]

The point being that what YOU like is to comment on whatever I do. Fuck that for a game.

Um, OK.

[SimonNZ]

Someone at The Hill needs to put down the crack pipe:

A Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama ticket to replace Joe Biden? Is it even possible?


At the start of his last podcast episode Preet Bharara answered a question about whether Obama is hypothetically allowed to run as Biden's running mate and wether he could become president again if something happened to Biden. And apparently its one of those The Letter Of The Law (kind of yes he could) vs. The Spirit Of The Law (kind of no he shouldn't) things.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/stay-tuned-with-preet/e/69246965?autoplay=true

[JBS]

Someone at The Hill needs to put down the crack pipe:

A Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama ticket to replace Joe Biden? Is it even possible?


At the start of his last podcast episode Preet Bharara answered a question about whether Obama is hypothetically allowed to run as Biden's running mate and wether he could become president again if something happened to Biden. And apparently its one of those The Letter Of The Law (kind of yes he could) vs. The Spirit Of The Law (kind of no he shouldn't) things.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/stay-tuned-with-preet/e/69246965?autoplay=true

When Hillary was running in 2016,  Billy Jeff mentioned in a TV interview that they had considered the idea of him running as her VP, but decided the 22nd Amendment barred him from serving as VP (that's the one that term limits the President.)

[Karl Henning]

The USA was our biggest source of infection by the way. Everyone was looking at China, but then we got more cases arriving from the USA because the testing over there was so poor.

And is still.

[SimonNZ]

When Hillary was running in 2016,  Billy Jeff mentioned in a TV interview that they had considered the idea of him running as her VP, but decided the 22nd Amendment barred him from serving as VP (that's the one that term limits the President.)

Not a lot of "electoral math" in that scenario is there? Or is there? And if they were worried about firing up the right and getting them to the polls then that House Of Cards plagiarism would have done it. And she would have been seen as a puppet, forget that glass ceiling stuff.

But, yeah, apparently you have to parse the word "elected" in the most cynical way, and be willing to ride out the reaction.

[Herman]

Sorry, but do you want me to edit posts, or not? Or will I get criticised either way? [...] you can continue your normal habit of being a pain to deal with.

it's not terribly useful to talk with him.

[Ratliff]

At the start of his last podcast episode Preet Bharara answered a question about whether Obama is hypothetically allowed to run as Biden's running mate and wether he could become president again if something happened to Biden. And apparently its one of those The Letter Of The Law (kind of yes he could) vs. The Spirit Of The Law (kind of no he shouldn't) things.

And no one considers whether Obama would go along with such an scheme?

The candidate the democrats need is Andrew Cuomo, except he is busy saving New York.

[SimonNZ]

It was presented as a question about con law, not about the likelihood or desire for that outcome.

I would imagine its pretty much the last thing he would want.

[Herman]

And no one considers whether Obama would go along with such an scheme?

The candidate the democrats need is Andrew Cuomo, except he is busy saving New York.

Also, before Corona, Cuomo was not terribly popular in New York.

I don't think his current popularity would be sustainable without this crisis.

[Todd]

A Clinton-Obama fantasy is a bizarre combination of navel gazing and desperation.  But scribblers gotta scribble, and non-American American political junkies gotta post.

[Karl Henning]

That's a worrying track record for a "civilised" country....

Aren't you guys able to elect or appoint remotely decent people into high office? 
I mean, handsy septuagenarians? 

My dear chap, while I am alive to the merit of your rhetorical q. In this, as in many things, it is worth distinguishing between Biden and President Predator:

(Submitted for your approval)

What Joe Biden did right in rebutting Tara Reade's claims

By
Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
May 1, 2020 at 10:06 a.m. EDT

Political pundits will "grade" former vice president Joe Biden's response to Tara Reade's allegation that he digitally penetrated her more than 25 years ago. The campaign's written statement was empathetic and respectful but definitive. Biden sat for a tough interview Friday without losing his cool. He was not angry or accusatory; he did not claim a conspiracy nor insult the accuser. He volunteered to open Senate papers (which he said are at the National Archives, not at the University of Delaware). In short, he did what an innocent person would do and say.

The lines "If you believe Christine Blasey Ford, you have to believe Reade" or "You didn't believe President Trump, so you cannot believe Biden" (or other variations) are the worst examples of mindless "balance" and faux objectivity. It takes a minute to identify fundamental differences between situations that bear little resemblance to one another.

Trump never sat for a grueling interview to go through the facts of more than a dozen claims against him. Biden sat for an interrogation of a single claim of sexual assault. (And no, his penchant to ignore personal space and excessive hugginess were not sexual, although they were inappropriate.)

Unlike Republicans and now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who refused to allow a full investigation of charges, Biden has put no restrictions on media inquiries and has offered up relevant documents. (Republicans also refused to open up all documents relevant to Kavanaugh's past White House work having nothing to do with Ford's allegation.)

And let's get real: Reade and Ford are not similar accusers. Ford's story was consistent for years. Reade's has not been. Ford did not claim to have complained contemporaneously; Reade did and was rebutted by Biden staff to whom she would have complained. In Kavanaugh's case, there was another witness to an alleged, separate incident of sexual misconduct at Yale University involving Kavanaugh. In Reade's case, no one else has accused Biden of anything like Reade's claim.

Biden's statements in writing and in the interview are hard to dispute: Women should be heard and believed, but facts and the truth matter like in every other crime. (In his written statement enumerating the fundamental concerns in these cases, Biden said, "One is that women deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and when they step forward they should be heard, not silenced. The second is that their stories should be subject to appropriate inquiry and scrutiny.") If a witness changes her story ("Responsible news organizations should examine and evaluate the full and growing record of inconsistencies in her story, which has changed repeatedly in both small and big ways"), her credibility is seriously compromised.

Several points deserve emphasis.

First, the media do not question Trump about the serial allegations against him at his endless daily appearances. They've shrugged their shoulders and given up trying to pin him down on the numerous complaints of harassment and/or assault. They should continue to scrutinize his claims and ask questions whether he answers or not.

Second, people are entitled to believe Reade despite her inconsistencies, the denials from Biden and his staff and the (so far) dearth of written evidence of her complaint. The question is whether the American people decide the evidence is credible. Unless more evidence surfaces, I would wager they do not.

Third, Democrats perpetually worried that the Biden team is "blowing it" (Biden is hidden away! Not in the news!) might want to chill. This was a textbook example of effective campaign communication. The candidate is leading in the polls, and Trump is melting down (in the latest ABC/Ipsos poll, "his disapproval rating among Americans reached a numeric high of 57%, with only 42% approving.") Maybe these people do know what they are doing.

[Todd]

'Believe all women'? Now that Reade has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, never mind.

From the article, not that it will matter:

As a criminal defense attorney specializing in sexual assault defense — and a former federal special victims' prosecutor of these same cases — I can assure you that corroboration is key to any claim of sexual assault, particularly one in which there is a delayed report. On the topic of corroboration, then, Reade's allegation is far and away from the stronger of the two. She presents a plausible narrative of sexual assault compared with Christine Blasey Ford's more fantastical allegation against Kavanaugh.

2018 - Believe Women!

2020 - Believe women, but vet their claims.

The old adage is true: if it weren't for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.