Is Joe Biden done? I hope so.

Meadmaker

Unregistered
Meadmaker
Joined
Apr 27, 2004
Messages
29,033
Joe's star seems to be falling. I like Joe. In terms of his politics, I think he's the best Democratic candidate. Liberal, but pragmatic. Just my kind of guy, except for his birthdate. I just don't want to vote for someone that old.

I don't want to vote for Warren or Sanders or Trump for the same reasons, and more, but they aren't quite as old as Biden.

But, Sanders is a guy who's too far left to actually identify as a Democrat. (I think he calls himself an "independent who caucuses with the Democrats" still in the Senate.) I don't want to vote for an avowed socialist. So, Warren? Still has the age problem, just not as bad as Biden, but she's stumbling all over herself promising to give away other people's money. She can provide free college and free health care and forgive student loans and all she has to do is raise taxes, but only a little bit and only on other people. That kind of fibbing would be an automatic disqualification in my book....except that if she gets the nomination she'll be running against Trump. Even if it were some other Republican, they would be telling the "if we cut taxes we'll get more money" fib, because you can't get the GOP nomination without telling that lie these days.

So, in an ironic twist, Joe's had some stumbles and may get caught up in someone else's scandal. His polls have dropped lately. He looks old. He might be on his way out.

I hope so, because unless he gets out soon, there's no way that a more moderate candidate, like Klobuchar, has any chance of sneaking in. If he gets out of the way, a younger candidate might be able to grab the middle lane, which is what I hope happens. Otherwise, I would have a choice between a socialist or Trump, which means I would have to vote for the socialist, and if the Dem wins, the only chance for divided government would have me rooting for a GOP senate victory.

Divided government is what I really want, so I suppose Trump as president with a united opposition congress would not be incredibly awful, but the "Trump as president" part really sticks in my craw.
 
Meadmaker said:
Joe's star seems to be falling. I like Joe. In terms of his politics, I think he's the best Democratic candidate. Liberal, but pragmatic. Just my kind of guy, except for his birthdate. I just don't want to vote for someone that old.

I don't want to vote for Warren or Sanders or Trump for the same reasons, and more, but they aren't quite as old as Biden.

But, Sanders is a guy who's too far left to actually identify as a Democrat. (I think he calls himself an "independent who caucuses with the Democrats" still in the Senate.) I don't want to vote for an avowed socialist. So, Warren? Still has the age problem, just not as bad as Biden, but she's stumbling all over herself promising to give away other people's money. She can provide free college and free health care and forgive student loans and all she has to do is raise taxes, but only a little bit and only on other people. That kind of fibbing would be an automatic disqualification in my book....except that if she gets the nomination she'll be running against Trump. Even if it were some other Republican, they would be telling the "if we cut taxes we'll get more money" fib, because you can't get the GOP nomination without telling that lie these days.

So, in an ironic twist, Joe's had some stumbles and may get caught up in someone else's scandal. His polls have dropped lately. He looks old. He might be on his way out.

I hope so, because unless he gets out soon, there's no way that a more moderate candidate, like Klobuchar, has any chance of sneaking in. If he gets out of the way, a younger candidate might be able to grab the middle lane, which is what I hope happens. Otherwise, I would have a choice between a socialist or Trump, which means I would have to vote for the socialist, and if the Dem wins, the only chance for divided government would have me rooting for a GOP senate victory.

Divided government is what I really want, so I suppose Trump as president with a united opposition congress would not be incredibly awful, but the "Trump as president" part really sticks in my craw.
Click to expand...

I find it kind of absurd when you reference his age when you consider he's only a few years older than Warren or Sanders. I bet he's in far better condition than either of them. Definitely better than Sanders. And my preference is Warren. But I still like Joe.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if you are being literal or figurative but Sanders is older than Biden. Joe record-player Biden just seems older because they keep asking him to justify statements he made about Trump’s Wall because they contradict contemporary statements he made about Hadrian’s Wall.
 
acbytesla said:
I find it kind of absurd when you reference his age when you consider he's only a few years older than Warren or Sanders. I bet he's in far better condition than either of them. Definitely better than Sanders. And my preference is Warren. But I still like Joe.
Click to expand...

Ha! Another! Sanders is 78. Biden is 76!
 
Biden had quite a head start coming out the gate just from his VP position and sheer name recognition. But he doesn’t seem to generate a whole lot of excitement, just a general “he’s electable” vibe. If he starts falling behind I don’t think he be able to recover.
 
All three of them are really too damned old to be doing this game now. It's a bit like watching tennis players from the fifties toddle around the court playing exhibition matches. It's amusing (sometimes) to watch the oldies try to relive their glory days.

Trump is in the same category, but his "age" is mental age. More and more I'm convinced his toddler-tantrum behaviour is due to mental regression due to loss of cognitive function, probably caused by dementia. His father died of the same issue at that age.

But yeah, Joe is a pretty good guy. Just that his age has indeed taken the edge off what was probably a sharper mind in earlier years.
 
Biden seems focused on bi-partisanship - his ability to 'work across the aisle'.
This is an obsolete strategy, and Joe seems out of touch.
As Mitch McConnell has demonstrated so convincingly; bi-partisanship is dead, deceased, no longer among the living, pining for the fjords.
Makes Joe look even older.
 
angrysoba said:
I don’t know if you are being literal or figurative but Sanders is older than Biden. Joe record-player Biden just seems older because they keep asking him to justify statements he made about Trump’s Wall because they contradict contemporary statements he made about Hadrian’s Wall.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I thought Joe was older.

So, another reason not to vote for Bernie.

Warren at least is a woman, and I know they live longer and I think they are less likely to suffer early onset dementia, so that's a plus for her. (I don't actually know that the dementia thing is true. I've just heard it said.)
 
It is just another sign of the dysfunction in USA politics. There are geriatrics everywhere who have built up a their own private principality over time. Obama beat the system to the extent that he became president, then he was so hamstrung by the built in inertia he could barely do anything.
 
I'm not particularly fond of Warren, but I think she's a better choice than Sanders or Biden. I'm hoping some of the younger folks will climb in popularity and become viable candidates.
 
Trebuchet said:
Joe should have run in 2016. He's too old now as are Sanders and Trump. And me.
Click to expand...

I would definitely have voted for him in 2016. Even then, I would have preferred someone under 70, but there were no options that fit that bill, and I liked him a whole lot better than Sanders, Clinton, Trump, or anyone else who ran that year.
 
Trebuchet said:
Joe should have run in 2016. He's too old now as are Sanders and Trump. And me.
Click to expand...

.... and me. And I fancy myself to be pretty sharp, but I would not be up to the rigors of running a country, much less being the titular leader of "the free world".

And I'm three months younger than Warren.


They're all too old. Every one of the four "prime" candidates is over 70.
 
Meadmaker said:
So, Warren? Still has the age problem, just not as bad as Biden, but she's stumbling all over herself promising to give away other people's money. She can provide free college and free health care and forgive student loans and all she has to do is raise taxes, but only a little bit and only on other people. That kind of fibbing would be an automatic disqualification in my book....
Click to expand...

It's not a fib. For real.

If I could prove to you it's not a fib, would that matter to you?
 
Foolmewunz said:
.... and me. And I fancy myself to be pretty sharp, but I would not be up to the rigors of running a country, much less being the titular leader of "the free world".

And I'm three months younger than Warren.


They're all too old. Every one of the four "prime" candidates is over 70.
Click to expand...

Warren just doesn't seem too old to me. She comes across as adequately youthful.

I'd rather vote for a more competent and trustworthy 95 year old than a less competent and trustworthy 50 year old, though.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
It's not a fib. For real.

If I could prove to you it's not a fib, would that matter to you?
Click to expand...

Some news organization the other day complained that, under Warren's tax plan, Jeff Bezos would have to pay something like $73 billion in taxes.

Oh, the horrors!

Now, what's the bad news?
 
Meadmaker said:
Joe's star seems to be falling. I like Joe. In terms of his politics, I think he's the best Democratic candidate. Liberal, but pragmatic. Just my kind of guy, except for his birthdate. I just don't want to vote for someone that old.

I don't want to vote for Warren or Sanders or Trump for the same reasons, and more, but they aren't quite as old as Biden.

But, Sanders is a guy who's too far left to actually identify as a Democrat. (I think he calls himself an "independent who caucuses with the Democrats" still in the Senate.) I don't want to vote for an avowed socialist. So, Warren? Still has the age problem, just not as bad as Biden, but she's stumbling all over herself promising to give away other people's money. She can provide free college and free health care and forgive student loans and all she has to do is raise taxes, but only a little bit and only on other people. That kind of fibbing would be an automatic disqualification in my book....except that if she gets the nomination she'll be running against Trump. Even if it were some other Republican, they would be telling the "if we cut taxes we'll get more money" fib, because you can't get the GOP nomination without telling that lie these days.

So, in an ironic twist, Joe's had some stumbles and may get caught up in someone else's scandal. His polls have dropped lately. He looks old. He might be on his way out.

I hope so, because unless he gets out soon, there's no way that a more moderate candidate, like Klobuchar, has any chance of sneaking in. If he gets out of the way, a younger candidate might be able to grab the middle lane, which is what I hope happens. Otherwise, I would have a choice between a socialist or Trump, which means I would have to vote for the socialist, and if the Dem wins, the only chance for divided government would have me rooting for a GOP senate victory.

Divided government is what I really want, so I suppose Trump as president with a united opposition congress would not be incredibly awful, but the "Trump as president" part really sticks in my craw.
Click to expand...

Hey, for what it's worth, because of the pointless inanity of the Elizabeth Warren threads, I'm voting for EW just out of spite. ;)
 
alfaniner said:
I'm not particularly fond of Warren, but I think she's a better choice than Sanders or Biden. I'm hoping some of the younger folks will climb in popularity and become viable candidates.
Click to expand...

I really hope Beto would have been better. Before he resigned from the Senate I wanted to see Al Franken run.
 
Meadmaker.

In what way is Bernie an "avowed socialist"? The only problem with it is that he once said it long ago.
There's nothing he proposes that calls for the scaremongering he usually receives.
 
pgwenthold said:
Some news organization the other day complained that, under Warren's tax plan, Jeff Bezos would have to pay something like $73 billion in taxes.

Oh, the horrors!

Now, what's the bad news?
Click to expand...

It's not true. But he definitely would pay more.
 
Warren looks younger than she is. She takes selfies with... well... everyone. And she moves fast. Biden and Sanders look older than their years. Her presidency would also be a a historic first for Native Americans.
 
Venom said:
Meadmaker.

In what way is Bernie an "avowed socialist"? The only problem with it is that he once said it long ago.There's nothing he proposes that calls for the scaremongering he usually receives.
Click to expand...

He still calls himself that on the regular. Not that I think it really matters or is a bad thing - he's just applying a different label to what used to be known as "New Deal Liberalism." But it's an ongoing thing with him.
 
acbytesla said:
It's not true. But he definitely would pay more.
Click to expand...

Here's what it (the 2 cent tax on each dollar of wealth over 50 million) would mean:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/h...ortunes-of-bezos-gates-and-buffett-2019-09-10
The paper, by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California at Berkeley, finds that the top 15 wealthiest Americans as estimated by Forbes magazine would collectively have seen their net worth drop to just under $434 billion had Warren’s plan been in effect since 1982. That’s down from about $942 billion.
Click to expand...

https://www.ccn.com/jeff-bezos-net-worth-elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax/
How would Warren’s wealth tax affect the Bezos fortune moving forward?

Together, Jeff Bezos and ex-wife MacKenzie would pay $4.8 billion per year on their current $160 billion in combined net worth. That's approximately 76,000 times the median US household income of $63,179.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
It's not a fib. For real.

If I could prove to you it's not a fib, would that matter to you?
Click to expand...

Yes. I think it's a fib. I think the kind of spending she's talking about would require a significant tax increase, and not just on rich people. I don't think the money is there without dipping into the middle class.
 
Every Americans natural instinct should be to rally to Biden when the President uses his bully pulpit to attack him and pressures foreign governments to dig up dirt.

What happened to rooting for the underdog?
 
Meadmaker said:
Yes. I think it's a fib. I think the kind of spending she's talking about would require a significant tax increase, and not just on rich people. I don't think the money is there without dipping into the middle class.
Click to expand...

Do you think this is bunk, or....?
https://www.newsweek.com/mega-wealthy-billionaires-sign-letter-moderate-wealth-tax-1445554
Warren's goal is to manage this inequality by implementing a wealth tax on individuals and families with $50 million or more in assets. According to the senator's projections, the moderate tax would raise some $2.75 trillion in additional revenue for the government over 10 years. Warren's proposals would use this additional money to pay for a range of programs, such as drastically reduced healthcare and education costs, which includes student loan debt forgiveness for millions of Americans.
Click to expand...
 
I don't want Biden to win the primary, but we should not be paying attention to false allegations except to attack the accuser.
 
kellyb said:
Who has better numbers?
Click to expand...
What in the history of the country makes you think these people would actually pay it, though? Part of the problem in the past has been big companies like GE paying no taxes whatsoever by using offshore account, loopholes, etc. Raising their tax rate does not solve this problem. It just gives them even more incentive to play the shell game.

Also, the former Mrs. Bezos is going to be responsible for some of that tax money now as well :) .
 
The Biden Case is a test case of whether US media finally have their priorities straight, or whether they are still trapped in a desperate need to appear "fair and balanced" at any cost.
 
Seems that a primary would be the perfect case for using ranked choice voting.

Bernie and Warren are running on closely related platforms, appealing to the progressive wing of the party. Biden is leading the entire pack, but I would guess that ranked choice would reveal a stronger preference for a progressive candidate over Biden.

If either Warren or Bernie were to drop, I imagine most of the support would come over to the other and they would be ahead of Biden.

Edit: Fixed, thanks Yuppy.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Seems that a primary would be the perfect case for using ranked choice voting.

Biden and Warren are running on closely related platforms, appealing to the progressive wing of the party. Biden is leading, I would guess that ranked choice would reveal a stronger preference for a progressive candidate over Biden.

If either Warren or Bernie were to drop, I imagine most of the support would come over to the other and they would be ahead of Biden.
Click to expand...
Did you use the names you meant to, especially that first one?
 
kellyb said:
Here's what it (the 2 cent tax on each dollar of wealth over 50 million) would mean:
Click to expand...

the top 15 wealthiest Americans as estimated by Forbes magazine would collectively have seen their net worth drop to just under $434 billion had Warren’s plan been in effect since 1982. That’s down from about $942 billion.

What a tragedy.
 
acbytesla said:

the top 15 wealthiest Americans as estimated by Forbes magazine would collectively have seen their net worth drop to just under $434 billion had Warren’s plan been in effect since 1982. That’s down from about $942 billion.

What a tragedy.
Click to expand...

Hey, that's millions fewer jobs created!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom