The Next President is...

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

I really think Biden is going to be our sacrificial president and fall on his own sword so others with reputations at stake and with an actual future can benefit.

- Afghanistan was going to fall to the Taliban no matter when we pulled out, so no president wanted that in their term... then Biden comes around and pulls out, sacrificing his reputation in the process, but ending that goddamn pointless war

- Inflation... he's gonna have to pull a Paul Volcker to end it, which is also going tank his reputation AND the economy... but if the Democrats were smart, they'd stick Biden with all this shit to get it over with and run someone else in 2024

[Sim]

19 hours ago, nsplayr said:

but this is not true.

I've "lost" a year worth of gains just in this month.  FJB! 

[Sua Sponte]

6 minutes ago, Sim said:

I've "lost" a year worth of gains just in this month.  FJB! 

Don’t go long with Peloton.

[bfargin]

I might have missed it, but don't think I've seen this one here yet.

[M2]

3 hours ago, LumberjackAxe said:

... then Biden comes around and pulls out...

Seriously?  I doubt the man has gotten  into anything to pull out of in a very long time!
 

3 hours ago, LumberjackAxe said:

...if the Democrats were smart, they'd stick Biden with all this shit to get it over with and run someone else in 2024

First, that's a helluva assumption!  There's no way they would not put forward an incumbent president unless it's for health issues.  Otherwise it proves he hasn't done the job as well as they keep claiming he has.  Also, they next logical choice would be the VP, and her ratings are falling even faster than his.

If the Democrats were smart, they'd realize Biden was a one-and-done without mulligans; but in my opinion his "performance" has not only set them up for a huge hit during the mid-terms, but also in 2024.   If they were smart, they'd have an exit plan better than the one they employed for Afghanistan.  That would require not only taking Joe out of the picture, but Kamala as well.   And despite what she thinks, it ain't gonna be Hilary either.  The Democrats don't have a lot of time to get their shit together!  All debates on voter fraud aside, they got lucky in 2020 and Biden's victory was more about people with hurt feelings over Trump more than a true belief that he would be a better president.

Don't get me wrong, there was a lot wrong about Trump but in comparison Biden's performance can be summed up in a single graphic...

 

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, Sim said:

I've "lost" a year worth of gains just in this month.  FJB! 

As the old saying goes, “When the index is up and your portfolio is down, blame the President!” 😄

I know it sucks when your pixilated monkey JPEGs and virtual dog coins and 90s video game stonks plunge, but try to leave Uncle Joe out of it.

I’ve been 💎🙌 into this obscure thing called VFIAX for about 15 years now, check it out 💰📈 HODL!

[Lord Ratner]

Biden will announce that he's not going to run for reelection. That way the Democrats can run a legitimate primary, because they recognize if Kamala is the presumptive candidate, they're done. I expect the entire democratic machine to come out and work against her, just like the Republican machine will work against Trump if he decides to try again. Neither side is interested in running a deeply unpopular candidate right now.

 

My fear is that the Republicans will run Ron DeSantis, who I like a great deal, but he has no hook. Just a boring white guy, and that's not gonna be enough.

 

If he runs as Nikki Haley's vice president, that could do the trick. At least then he'll have name recognition after her second term.

 

I think the Democrats are just as unsure as we are about who they're going to run. The war between the progressive wing and the liberal Wing has only gotten worse since 2020.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[FLEA]

So an interesting play is to put Kamala on the supreme court. This allows Joe, or his handlers anyway, to anoint a new golden child while bypassing that sticky mess of democracy via a public election. Especially since Dems hold the house and Senate now and could get a replacement confirmed on their own terms. 

Then when Joe declines to run in '24 for "health reasons", they have an incumbent VP ready for the ballot. 

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. 

[HeloDude]

21 minutes ago, FLEA said:

So an interesting play is to put Kamala on the supreme court. This allows Joe, or his handlers anyway, to anoint a new golden child while bypassing that sticky mess of democracy via a public election. Especially since Dems hold the house and Senate now and could get a replacement confirmed on their own terms. 

Then when Joe declines to run in '24 for "health reasons", they have an incumbent VP ready for the ballot. 

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. 

If Biden nominates Harris to SCOTUS and she is confirmed, then the VP position is vacant, and Biden’s nominee for a new VP needs to be confirmed by both the House and the Senate.  But…the Senate would then be 50-50 split, with no tie breaker.  So If the GOP wanted to, the VP position would go unfilled and no legislation could get through the Senate without at least 1 GOP Senator signing off.  So without some major concessions to the GOP, they’d be back at gridlock (which I’m personally a fan of).

BL:  Harris is staying where she’s at for the time being 

 

[SurelySerious]

I also don’t see how she could be confirmed to the SCOTUS. Surely she wouldn’t be allowed to break the tie in the Senate to appoint herself.

[HeloDude]

4 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

I also don’t see how she could be confirmed to the SCOTUS. Surely she wouldn’t be allowed to break the tie in the Senate to appoint herself.

Why not?

[Sua Sponte]

Trump has a better chance of being Speaker if the GOP flips the House than Harris being nominated to the SCOTUS.

[nsplayr]

49 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Why not?

Yea there doesn't seem to be any reason why she could not if the opportunity came up. This was asked when Trump was considering Sen. Mike Lee for SCOTUS and basically the conclusion was that during the vote, if he were the nominee, Lee could vote to confirm himself; Harris would be no different if required to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

All fun speculation, but it's not gonna happen. My money is on Ketanji Brown Jackson.

[SurelySerious]

Why not?

Conflict of interest a bit much.

[M2]

12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

My fear is that the Republicans will run Ron DeSantis, who I like a great deal, but he has no hook. Just a boring white guy, and that's not gonna be enough...

I don't get this, how is that any different than Biden who adds old and senile to the equation?!?

I would take DeSantis well over Trump in 2024!  My only concern is he has fallen out of the public eye lately to care for his wife.

Nikki Haley would be an excellent VP, and provide a future for the Republicans; but I don't trust them to make right decisions either!

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, M2 said:

I don't get this, how is that any different than Biden who adds old and senile to the equation?!?

I would take DeSantis well over Trump in 2024!  My only concern is he has fallen out of the public eye lately to care for his wife.

Nikki Haley would be an excellent VP, and provide a future for the Republicans; but I don't trust them to make right decisions either!

First, Haley is more qualified than DeSantis. Not sure why he'd lead the ticket. Both would be excellent though.

 

Like it or not, people vote with their eyes. The only reason Biden won, with the flaws you identified, is because Trump was a fucking moron. That's it. 

 

Biden loses this time around because of the economy. But he's not going to run, which means a clean slate for the voters. 

 

Put DeSantis, who's not a household name if you're not a solid liberal or conservative (with mostly predetermined votes) up against someone with pizzazz and melanin, he's toast. Unless of course you're anticipating a conservative wave at the ballot box, which I don't particularly see happening. Especially if Biden drops out.

 

He's very smart, but he's also a bit of a robot. He's learned the lessons of Donald trump, namely that you don't take shit from the media, but he's still just doesn't have that wow factor. Nikki Haley has also learned the media lessons of Donald trump, but she's an attractive, minority, female, daughter of immigrants success story.

 

If you can't see how she's a more powerful candidate, I'd say you're giving too much credit to the American voters for being issues, policy, philosophy based in their voting. Especially the "independent" vote which is largely people incapable of making up their minds.

 

Maybe with 8 years of being a household name he'll have incumbency in his favor. But that's not the story of powerful way to get elected.

 

I'd much rather see Nikki Haley run with Dan Crenshaw as her running mate. Crenshaw is not remotely qualified to be the president yet, but he certainly smart enough, is podcast is a testament to his conservative intellectualism, and he's got the best fucking hook I could imagine for a White Guy. Navy SEAL war hero disabled veteran who wears an eye patch. Can you imagine trying to debate that guy?

[Sim]

14 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

I’ve been 💎🙌 into this obscure thing called VFIAX for about 15 years now, check it out 💰📈 HODL!

VFIAX is great, just piss poor dividends. VWUAX is great for dividends, but very high expense ration. 

 

Anyhow, if you think policy of senile man has nothing to do with market, you need hard look in the mirror. 

[Sim]

16 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Nikki Haley run with Dan Crenshaw

Yes, RINOs is what this country needs.... 🤢

[pawnman]

It's a pipe dream...but I'd vote for a Tulsi Gabbard/Nikki Haley ticket (no matter which name was on top) in a heartbeat.

And it would automatically short-circuit any "misogynist/racist/xenophobic" attacks.

[VMFA187]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

It's a pipe dream...but I'd vote for a Tulsi Gabbard/Nikki Haley ticket (no matter which name was on top) in a heartbeat.

And it would automatically short-circuit any "misogynist/racist/xenophobic" attacks.

Can they alternate whose on top? 😎

[Royal]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

It's a pipe dream...but I'd vote for a Tulsi Gabbard/Nikki Haley ticket (no matter which name was on top) in a heartbeat.

And it would automatically short-circuit any "misogynist/racist/xenophobic" attacks.

Would be nice to see a balanced ticket, but Haley is a warhawk (especially compared to Gabbard). I doubt either of them would budge from their stance on foreign policy.

[arg]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

And it would automatically short-circuit any "misogynist/racist/xenophobic" attacks.

No it wouldn't. Just ask the white supremacist VA Lt Gov Winsome Sears, just one example.

[brickhistory]

Wisconsin judge rules against voting drop boxes

Quote

 

Ruling from the bench Thursday, Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren ordered the Wisconsin Elections Commission to rescind its guidance to clerks on how to use the drop boxes, saying the WEC had exceeded its authority when it issued the recommendations.

"In looking at the statutes, there is no specific authorization for drop boxes," Bohren said.

 

Pennsylvania voting drop boxes unconstitutional

Quote

A state appeals court struck down a Pennsylvania law allowing no-excuse mail-in voting as unconstitutional Friday, with potentially strong implications for the battleground state

But sure, Biden got 81 million votes - a record.

Good and hard...

[Prozac]

18 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Biden will announce that he's not going to run for reelection. That way the Democrats can run a legitimate primary, because they recognize if Kamala is the presumptive candidate, they're done. I expect the entire democratic machine to come out and work against her, just like the Republican machine will work against Trump if he decides to try again. Neither side is interested in running a deeply unpopular candidate right now.

For once I agree with you in that this would be the smartest course of action for the Dems. But I'm going to disagree that they are smart enough to execute this plan.  And while I think there are some interesting potential Republican prospects, I have my doubts that that party can get out from under the Trump/populist faction.  I guess I'm kind of pessimistic at the moment.  I expect at least another four years of dumpster fire whether its Trump 2.0 or Biden gridlocked with an uncooperative (to say the least) Republican congress.

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Sim said:

Yes, RINOs is what this country needs.... 🤢

RINO? Because they didn't support the unbelievably stupid election protest? I'm not as confident with Haley since she's been out of the spotlight for a while, but why do you consider Crenshaw not-conservative?

 

Unless you mean RINO literally, which I consider a good thing. Last I checked, the Republican party has been a disgrace for decades, at least starting with Bush. They've been almost as pro illegal immigration as the Democrats have, minus publicly voicing that opinion. They've been weak dicks on foreign policy, when they had a chance to do something about Obamacare they shit the bed. And it would be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so tragic how they completely abandoned fiscal responsibility almost immediately after the tea party revolution.

 

It's not just the Democratic party that has to go through an reckoning. Republicans have confused supporting capitalism with enabling billionaire-led multinational corporations that are completely in bed with the Democratic party, simply because they are "business." But their business has been outsourcing jobs to other countries, and almost single-handedly funding all of the radical movements that are decimating our social fabric today.

 

They have presided as the champions of capitalism over the most disgusting distortion of free market ideals in my lifetime, culminating in a pandemic, where for no reason whatsoever, the jobs and activities of the underclass were deemed non-essential, while nearly every single upper class pursuit was enabled and funded. They printed 6 trillion dollars and almost exclusively distributed it to the richest Americans, triggering an inflation wave which is going to devastate the minimal savings of the bottom half while the rich ride the speculative asset bubble to the Moon. Don't worry though, just like in 2008 they'll find a way to sell all of their nonsense holdings before the crash. The Fed will ensure they have enough time to do so by propping up the market until only us silly retail investors are left in play.

 

So who exactly are the Republicans again? And don't give me some obscure Representatives on their first or second term, if the leadership structure of the party aren't "true Republicans" then there's no such thing at all. Exactly how have the top brass of the party acted as true conservatives while Crenshaw has not?