Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

Status
Not open for further replies.
Report: Biden Advisers Consider Stacey Abrams as Running Mate

Advisers for former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign-in-waiting are debating whether to name failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as his running mate, a Thursday report says.

According to Axios, Biden aides believe adding Abrams to the ticket would send a strong signal to voters that he’s not “just another old white guy.” The outlet said Team Biden isn’t going all-in on picking the rising progressive star just yet, worrying that the move could be received as a “gimmick” and open the former Vice President up to a new line of attacks.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...isers-consider-stacey-abrams-as-running-mate/

QHgRS.gif

 
Wikileaks promoting tulsi is curious but not surprising
 
waiguoren said:
Report: Biden Advisers Consider Stacey Abrams as Running Mate

Advisers for former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign-in-waiting are debating whether to name failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as his running mate, a Thursday report says.

According to Axios, Biden aides believe adding Abrams to the ticket would send a strong signal to voters that he’s not “just another old white guy.” The outlet said Team Biden isn’t going all-in on picking the rising progressive star just yet, worrying that the move could be received as a “gimmick” and open the former Vice President up to a new line of attacks.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...isers-consider-stacey-abrams-as-running-mate/

QHgRS.gif
Click to expand...

Why is that funny?

Other than the fact that right-wingers will denigrate any left-wing woman who is overweight on the basis that they would not sleep with them, she's a great choice. She's passionate, extremely intelligent, and nearly won as a Democrat in a Southern state despite open fuckery by the other side.
 
waiguoren said:
Report: Biden Advisers Consider Stacey Abrams as Running Mate

Advisers for former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign-in-waiting are debating whether to name failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as his running mate, a Thursday report says.

According to Axios, Biden aides believe adding Abrams to the ticket would send a strong signal to voters that he’s not “just another old white guy.” The outlet said Team Biden isn’t going all-in on picking the rising progressive star just yet, worrying that the move could be received as a “gimmick” and open the former Vice President up to a new line of attacks.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...isers-consider-stacey-abrams-as-running-mate/

QHgRS.gif
Click to expand...




Oh please please please please please please please please please please please please please let this be true.
 
TheGreatA said:
I definitely agree that America does not need more mediocre white guys. However, top-level white guys, with supreme white male confidence, should still be in demand.
Click to expand...
What is "white" male confidence?
 
Fawlty said:
Wow, Yang sure has a streak of cunt in him:

"Yang has proposed the creation of a "news and information ombudsman," a kind of imperial fact-checker who would award media liars heavy fines instead of pinocchios."

In his own words (it's even worse than the quote sounds):
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/news-information-ombudsman/


He can get fucked, imo.
Click to expand...

It's a bona fide problem and I think it's a topic worth discussing, although I would be more comfortable with withdrawal of funding rather than imposition of fines. Right now, lying on a massive scale is profitable. Something should be done to disrupt that profit motive.

And to be sure, with AI on the rise, it's probably going to get worse before it gets better.
 
Trotsky said:
It's a bona fide problem and I think it's a topic worth discussing, although I would be more comfortable with withdrawal of funding rather than imposition of fines. Right now, lying on a massive scale is profitable. Something should be done to disrupt that profit motive.

And to be sure, with AI on the rise, it's probably going to get worse before it gets better.
Click to expand...
It's not that the issue is important or not, it's that even Orwell didn't think of that one.
 
Fawlty said:
It's not that the issue is important or not, it's that even Orwell didn't think of that one.
Click to expand...

Orwell thought of massive state violence to punish telling the truth. I'd say that's a step beyond administrative fines for purposefully lying.
 
Trotsky said:
Orwell thought of massive state violence to punish telling the truth. I'd say that's a step beyond administrative fines for purposefully lying.
Click to expand...
"If enough citizens complain about a particular source of information and news is demonstrably and deliberately false, there should be penalties." That's the twist Orwell didn't account for. You don't just give them two minutes' hate, you let them vote on fake news right after. How clever.

Imagine for a second this "news czar" being employed by the current president, Ministry of Truth style. We'd be screaming for impeachment. It's not just afoul of the constitution, it's anti-constitutional to the core.
 
Fawlty said:
"If enough citizens complain about a particular source of information and news is demonstrably and deliberately false, there should be penalties." That's the twist Orwell didn't account for. You don't just give them two minutes' hate, you let them vote on fake news right after. How clever.

Imagine for a second this "news czar" being employed by the current president, Ministry of Truth style. We'd be screaming for impeachment. It's not just afoul of the constitution, it's anti-constitutional to the core.
Click to expand...

Hmm, it's not "anti-constitutional." We already have administrative fines for the broadcast of unprotected speech and they've been upheld as constitutional. And, through several presidencies from both parties, we've seen those government agencies (the FCC namely) stick to objective constitutional standards promulgated by the Supreme Court. And, in the event that they don't, the speakers have hte option to appeal to the judicial system which will then safeguard their constitutional rights.

I shrug to think that "shit" and "fuck" should be subject to fines, but knowingly spreading lies for the purpose of commandeering or interfering with a person's democratic franchise should not be.
 
Trotsky said:
Hmm, it's not "anti-constitutional." We already have administrative fines for the broadcast of unprotected speech and they've been upheld as constitutional. And, through several presidencies from both parties, we've seen those government agencies (the FCC namely) stick to objective constitutional standards promulgated by the Supreme Court. And, in the event that they don't, the speakers have hte option to appeal to the judicial system which will then safeguard their constitutional rights.

I shrug to think that "shit" and "fuck" should be subject to fines, but knowingly spreading lies for the purpose of commandeering or interfering with a person's democratic franchise should not be.
Click to expand...
Giving the FCC the power to determine truth, and then fine people for going against it? Yes that's completely against freedom of press. It gives the POTUS the power to determine national truth through his appointees. The FCC can barely handle bad words, and that's a much easier topic than "truth." Plus, the fact that the FCC arguably oversteps what should be allowed constitutionally is the single worst justification for throwing another :eek::eek::eek: on the fire. Given that the proposed mechanism for these truthiness investigations is literally triggered by measured public outrage, it's wide open to manipulation by all kinds of bad actors, from foreign governments to competing news corporations to savvy politicians and activists.
 
bobgeese said:
Oh please please please please please please please please please please please please please let this be true.
Click to expand...
Oh lord, she torpedoed herself in GA when she said her "assault" weapon ban wouldn't include a grandfather clause and people would be arrested after 90 days.
 
Fawlty said:
Wow, Yang sure has a streak of cunt in him:

"Yang has proposed the creation of a "news and information ombudsman," a kind of imperial fact-checker who would award media liars heavy fines instead of pinocchios."

In his own words (it's even worse than the quote sounds):
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/news-information-ombudsman/


He can get fucked, imo.
Click to expand...
Eeeesh

Thanks for sharing. That alone is pretty much disqualifying in my book
 
Fawlty said:
Giving the FCC the power to determine truth, and then fine people for going against it? Yes that's completely against freedom of press. It gives the POTUS the power to determine national truth through his appointees. The FCC can barely handle bad words, and that's a much easier topic than "truth." Plus, the fact that the FCC arguably oversteps what should be allowed constitutionally is the single worst justification for throwing another :eek::eek::eek: on the fire. Given that the proposed mechanism for these truthiness investigations is literally triggered by measured public outrage, it's wide open to manipulation by all kinds of bad actors, from foreign governments to competing news corporations to savvy politicians and activists.
Click to expand...
Wow. If you would apply this same type of reasoning to the ICC+10th Amendment, you and I would probably see eye-to-eye on almost all political issues.
 
Trotsky said:
Orwell thought of massive state violence to punish telling the truth. I'd say that's a step beyond administrative fines for purposefully lying.
Click to expand...
I’ll give Yang the benefit of the doubt and say this comes from the right intentions. But once set up this could be easily abused. Best avoiding this “solution” altogether.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,844
Messages
58,321,459
Members
175,999
Latest member
xande.fight

Share this page

Back
Top