Jump to content
270soft Forum

Biden picks VP in a Week


Biden Picks His VP in a Week  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Biden Picks his VP, who will likely be the next VP of the US, next week. Who do you think he will pick? ***[Note: Do not pick who you hope he picks, unless you think that person is also who he will pick.]***

    • Sen. Kamala Harris - CA
    • Sen. Elizabeth Warren - MA
    • Rep. Val Demings - FL
    • Sen. Tammy Duckworth - IL
    • Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham - NM
      0
    • Gov. Gretchen Whitmer - MI
    • Sen. Maggie Hassan - NH
      0
    • Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms - GA
    • Fmr UN Amb Susan Rice - ME
      0
    • Fmr State Rep (and Dem nom for Gov) Stacey Abrams - GA
      0
    • Gov. Gina Raimondo - RI
      0
    • Rep. Karen Bass - CA
    • Sen. Tammy Baldwin - WI
      0
    • Other (Black woman)
      0
    • Other (White woman)
      0
    • Other (woman that is neither black or white)
    • Other (He will do an about face and select a man)
      0
    • *Joke response* Biden will gaffe and accidently select Donald Trump to VP, crush Trump in the election, and then die before his inauguration, ushering in 4 years of Trump as Democrat.
  2. 2. Will Biden's VP pick have any real impact on who wins or loses the election?

  3. 3. What do you think Biden's chances are for defeating Trump for reelection in 2020?

    • 100% (guaranteed Biden)
      0
    • 90% (safe Biden)
    • 80% (strong Biden)
    • 70% (likely Biden)
    • 60% (lean Biden)
    • 50% (total toss up)
    • 40% (lean Trump)
    • 30% (likely Trump)
    • 20% (strong Trump)
    • 10% (safe Trump)
      0
    • 0% (guaranteed Trump
      0
  4. 4. How excited are you about voting in the 2020 election?

    • Very excited
    • Excited
    • Somewhat excited
    • Neither excited or unexcited
    • Somewhat unexcited
    • Unexcited
    • Very unexcited


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

This particular argument, in a legal sense does bring up a disturbing viewpoint, on the same line of thinking, of posthumously exonerated execution victims, and exonerated criminals who have already served a very large chunk of their long prison term. The analogous applications here are almost macabre...

Criminals and Presidents have different sorts of mechanisms to hold them accountable. 

President=Congress + SC. If they don't find it wrong, then it isn't.

It is apples and oranges. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, for the reasons you said.  This isn’t a guarantee, of course, I’m not from the future. But I reached this map by making two assumptions: 1) That every state that isn’t already at least

Because we're the idiots that nominate fools like Trump!

I only picked the joke response, because honestly, I have no idea who he's going to pick. But I can tell you, whoever it is will not help him win.

10 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Criminals and Presidents have different sorts of mechanisms to hold them accountable. 

President=Congress + SC. If they don't find it wrong, then it isn't.

It is apples and oranges. 

Supreme Court precedents have been well-known to make fruit salad many times in the past, and you know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I understand the question, but the answer was decided more than 150 years ago.

In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Montana v. Kennedy that an individual who was born in 1906 in Italy to a U.S. citizen mother and a noncitizen father was not a U.S. citizen by birth under the nationality laws in force at the time of his birth. It observed that automatic citizenship was granted to children of U.S. citizen fathers and noncitizen mothers by an 1855 act of Congress, but the reverse situation was only addressed, non-retroactively, in 1934.

That is absolutely true, but I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. 

The citizenship of someone who is born to that situation is absolutely not in question. However, there is a constitutional difference between the term "citizen" and the term "natural born citizen". That is the part where your statement was incorrect. The definition of "natural born citizen" is far from settled. Take the scenario you referenced above. 

Paul is an American citizen who is married to Sarah, a non-American citizen, and they have a child in Pittsburgh named Dave. Dave is unquestionably both a citizen as well as a natural born citizen. 

Now, if Paul and Sarah were to move to Canada and have Dave in Montreal, Dave is still unquestionably a citizen. What becomes a constitutional question is whether or not he is a "Natural born citizen", which is a term that is distinguished from citizen in the Constitution yet is undefined. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hestia11 said:

Obama served his 8 years. That means that he was qualified to hold the office because he wasn't removed because of it. Argument done and settled. 

Just because people got mad about it doesn't mean that that's a legal basis to argue that it wasn't legitimate. He's been done and out of there for 4 years now. Congress never removed him and the SC never barred him from holding the office. It's a moot point.

Not really.  Obama was born in the US, so he's "natural born citizen" regardless of the nationality of his parents.  Duckworth was not born in the US, so her status as "natural born citizen" is unclear.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pilight said:

Not really.  Obama was born in the US, so he's "natural born citizen" regardless of the nationality of his parents.  Duckworth was not born in the US, so her status as "natural born citizen" is unclear.

Would Duckworth be a citizen automatically because her father was in the military(and a citizen), regardless if she was born in Thailand? Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and is still an American citizen because his parents were; as with Senator Michael Bennett(whose father was in India working for the State Department).

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, admin_270 said:

"In historic moment, Biden picks wife Jill as his VP!"

 

13 hours ago, Actinguy said:

It's been done.  ;c)  House of Cards.

It also literally happened in RL in Argentina, a country whose modelled their Constitutional government system close to, if not the same, as that of the United States. Juan Peron, in his final term of office, named his second wife Isabella (whom he married a number of years after the death of his first wife, Evita) as his VP, and she ended up succeeding him after his death in office, becoming the first female leader of a sovereign nation in the Western Hemisphere carrying the title of office of "President," in 1975.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Herbert Hoover said:

That is absolutely true, but I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. 

The citizenship of someone who is born to that situation is absolutely not in question. However, there is a constitutional difference between the term "citizen" and the term "natural born citizen". That is the part where your statement was incorrect. The definition of "natural born citizen" is far from settled. Take the scenario you referenced above. 

Paul is an American citizen who is married to Sarah, a non-American citizen, and they have a child in Pittsburgh named Dave. Dave is unquestionably both a citizen as well as a natural born citizen. 

Now, if Paul and Sarah were to move to Canada and have Dave in Montreal, Dave is still unquestionably a citizen. What becomes a constitutional question is whether or not he is a "Natural born citizen", which is a term that is distinguished from citizen in the Constitution yet is undefined. 

I’m going to just keep disagreeing that “natural born citizen” is somehow a different concept from “automatically a citizen from the moment you are born”, as there is no legal precedent to suggest that these are two different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Herbert Hoover said:

That is absolutely true, but I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. 

The citizenship of someone who is born to that situation is absolutely not in question. However, there is a constitutional difference between the term "citizen" and the term "natural born citizen". That is the part where your statement was incorrect. The definition of "natural born citizen" is far from settled. Take the scenario you referenced above. 

Paul is an American citizen who is married to Sarah, a non-American citizen, and they have a child in Pittsburgh named Dave. Dave is unquestionably both a citizen as well as a natural born citizen. 

Now, if Paul and Sarah were to move to Canada and have Dave in Montreal, Dave is still unquestionably a citizen. What becomes a constitutional question is whether or not he is a "Natural born citizen", which is a term that is distinguished from citizen in the Constitution yet is undefined. 

 

8 hours ago, pilight said:

Not really.  Obama was born in the US, so he's "natural born citizen" regardless of the nationality of his parents.  Duckworth was not born in the US, so her status as "natural born citizen" is unclear.

 

1 hour ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Would Duckworth be a citizen automatically because her father was in the military(and a citizen), regardless if she was born in Thailand? Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and is still an American citizen because his parents were; as with Senator Michael Bennett(whose father was in India working for the State Department).

 

18 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I’m going to just keep disagreeing that “natural born citizen” is somehow a different concept from “automatically a citizen from the moment you are born”, as there is no legal precedent to suggest that these are two different things.

Mind, the U.S. Constitution had to SPECIFICALLY "grandfather in," 8 of the first 9 U.S. Presidents (all except Van Buren), because while they were born on the territory that became the United States, they were all born British Subjects, in legal status, at the time of their birth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I’m going to just keep disagreeing that “natural born citizen” is somehow a different concept from “automatically a citizen from the moment you are born”, as there is no legal precedent to suggest that these are two different things.

That's what I've been saying.  There's no legal precedent, so it's not a settled point of law.  Biden doesn't want to get stuck in the mud with this debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2020 at 5:12 PM, Actinguy said:

I agree with all of these points.

I would add that I think a 269-269 split is extraordinarily likely, in which case the Representative and Senate votes will be extremely important.  If there was a tie today, Republicans could appoint Trump and Pence as the winners because they control the majority of the states in the House -- one state, one vote.  But ties are actually broken by our NEXT congress, after the 2020 election -- so if we somehow manage to pick up even more house seats (we already picked up the majority of "in play" ones in 2018) then the tie could go in Biden's favor.  Maybe with Pence as his VP, disturbingly enough.

8bd7A.png

Why is this somewhat likely though? lol. I wouldn't be that surprised, Trump was polling decently in Wisconsin until Rona' EXPLODED, if he can get it under grips maybe we'll see a rebound in those states with decent sized Trump country, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin. Florida and ME second district. 

Biden-Pence sounds very scary lol wtf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wolves said:

Why is this somewhat likely though? lol. I wouldn't be that surprised, Trump was polling decently in Wisconsin until Rona' EXPLODED, if he can get it under grips maybe we'll see a rebound in those states with decent sized Trump country, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin. Florida and ME second district. 

Biden-Pence sounds very scary lol wtf.

Well, for the reasons you said.  This isn’t a guarantee, of course, I’m not from the future.

But I reached this map by making two assumptions:

1) That every state that isn’t already at least leaning Biden would go to Trump — because if you haven’t figured out Trump’s deal by now, then you never will.

2) This still gave Biden the win...but Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were all only barely learning to Biden.  If we assume one of those is wrong, then it’s probably Wisconsin.

I wasn’t even trying to reach 269-269, but that’s where I landed.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Karen Bass is probably out of the running now that she's been uncovered as a Scientology ally

https://www.scientology.org/scientology-today/church-openings/church-of-scientology-los-angeles.html

Quote

Also commemorating the occasion was Ms. Karen Bass, Speaker Emeritus of the California State Assembly: “As a public servant, I try to do everything in my power to give a voice to the voiceless, and to guarantee that no one goes unheard.  But through human rights education, we empower everyone to lift their voice and to be heard. The Church of Scientology I know has made a difference, because your Creed is a universal creed and one that speaks to all people everywhere.”

https://www.scientologynews.org/press-releases/scientology-community-center-south-los-angeles-open-house.html

Quote

Congresswoman Karen Bass wrote a message acknowledging the Church for “its many humanitarian initiatives and social betterment programs for the benefit of South Los Angeles.”

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been seeing two news trends lately:

 

1) A last minute effort to promote Rep. Karen Bass.

2) A last minute effort to take down Sen. Kamala Harris.

 

I do not know Bass, so I have nothing against her.  And I don’t particularly like Harris.

But.

We do not need a last second dark horse decision.  Sarah Palin was a last second dark horse decision.  It was a fucking train wreck, because there was not enough time left to vet her or train her.

Lets not do that again.  If Bass hasn’t been a serious contender through this whole process, then it’s simply too late to choose her.

On the other side, while I don’t like Harris...she DOES seem to have been a major contender the entire time.  If she’s passed the long vetting process and has been having these VP discussions and training herself to do the job the entire time, then I would greatly prefer Kamala over wildcard Bass.

That said, I will of course back anyone Biden picks, because Donald Trump.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I’ve been seeing two news trends lately:

 

1) A last minute effort to promote Rep. Karen Bass.

2) A last minute effort to take down Sen. Kamala Harris.

 

I do not know Bass, so I have nothing against her.  And I don’t particularly like Harris.

But.

We do not need a last second dark horse decision.  Sarah Palin was a last second dark horse decision.  It was a fucking train wreck, because there was not enough time left to vet her or train her.

Lets not do that again.  If Bass hasn’t been a serious contender through this whole process, then it’s simply too late to choose her.

On the other side, while I don’t like Harris...she DOES seem to have been a major contender the entire time.  If she’s passed the long vetting process and has been having these VP discussions and training herself to do the job the entire time, then I would greatly prefer Kamala over wildcard Bass.

That said, I will of course back anyone Biden picks, because Donald Trump.

 

 

Harris' strong ties to the police/prison/criminal court system/law and order paradigm would be a MAJOR detriment against Biden's ticket, and a slap in the face, and a HUGE sign of being tone deaf to, and taking for granted in the most insulting and cavalier of ways, a very large portion of the voting population he's depending on coming to the polls for him, considering the current atmosphere and tenor on the American police/prison/criminal court system/law and order paradigm by that large group of left-wing voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I’ve been seeing two news trends lately:

 

1) A last minute effort to promote Rep. Karen Bass.

2) A last minute effort to take down Sen. Kamala Harris.

 

I do not know Bass, so I have nothing against her.  And I don’t particularly like Harris.

But.

We do not need a last second dark horse decision.  Sarah Palin was a last second dark horse decision.  It was a fucking train wreck, because there was not enough time left to vet her or train her.

Lets not do that again.  If Bass hasn’t been a serious contender through this whole process, then it’s simply too late to choose her.

On the other side, while I don’t like Harris...she DOES seem to have been a major contender the entire time.  If she’s passed the long vetting process and has been having these VP discussions and training herself to do the job the entire time, then I would greatly prefer Kamala over wildcard Bass.

That said, I will of course back anyone Biden picks, because Donald Trump.

 

 

Bass has had some links to scientology...which makes me a bit leery. Well, more than a bit leery.

 

Harris is a known choice, and I don't think she'll have any more skeletons in the closet we already don't know about. People have reasons to dislike her already, yes, but I don't think there's an explosive thing that will take her down.

 

Honestly, before I didn't really want to see Susan Rice as VP. But I'm getting more used to it as we go along here. I'm just hoping for pretty much anyone but Bass right now. It seems like the riskiest choice and sure-fire way to lose later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m still thinking Duckworth is the clear correct choice here, I’ll root for her until it’s over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Patine said:

Harris' strong ties to the police/prison/criminal court system/law and order paradigm would be a MAJOR detriment against Biden's ticket, and a slap in the face, and a HUGE sign of being tone deaf to, and taking for granted in the most insulting and cavalier of ways, a very large portion of the voting population he's depending on coming to the polls for him, considering the current atmosphere and tenor on the American police/prison/criminal court system/law and order paradigm by that large group of left-wing voters.

Sure, agreed on the surface.  But if they've vetted all of the top picks and she came out on top, then I trust that process.

That's preferable to making a last second switch to someone who hasn't been vetted at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

then I trust that process.

You are far too trusting of institutions who have proven time and again they don't deserve your trust - wary willingness to see what they produce or accomplish, and judge based on that, but not trust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

You are far too trusting of institutions who have proven time and again they don't deserve your trust - wary willingness to see what they produce or accomplish, and judge based on that, but not trust.

We've already seen what happens when they change the pick at the last second.  Sarah Palin.  Didn't go great either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

We've already seen what happens when they change the pick at the last second.  Sarah Palin.  Didn't go great either.

I'm just saying not to put much TRUST in anything done or any process by big Political Party organizational or Federal Government apparatus of power. You should be far more wary and willing to expect failure, betrayal of the trust, lies, and/or incompetence more often than not, because that's what's produced more often than not. We here in Canada long ago learned to be dubious and skeptical of our politicians, and not EXPECT as much of them as Americans seem to sincerely of theirs. Canadian politicians don't attract personal following of devotion (or, on the other side, blind, unreasoning hatred) like Obama, Trump, and Sanders, for instance. If a Canadian politician is elected and immensely exceeds the cynical expectations and excels and delivers the goods on issues, they become among the true greatest Canadian statespeople. Frankly, Americans could learn something from this more realistic attitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

I'm just saying not to put much TRUST in anything done or any process by big Political Party organizational or Federal Government apparatus of power. You should be far more wary and willing to expect failure, betrayal of the trust, lies, and/or incompetence more often than not, because that's what's produced more often than not. We here in Canada long ago learned to be dubious and skeptical of our politicians, and not EXPECT as much of them as Americans seem to sincerely of theirs. Canadian politicians don't attract personal following of devotion (or, on the other side, blind, unreasoning hatred) like Obama, Trump, and Sanders, for instance. If a Canadian politician is elected and immensely exceeds the cynical expectations and excels and delivers the goods on issues, they become among the true greatest Canadian statespeople. Frankly, Americans could learn something from this more realistic attitude.

Thanks!  I've learned a lot today!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about you but I am waiting with baited breath to find out who Biden's VP pick will be...

 

... and apparently so is Biden himself. :P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2020 at 10:20 AM, admin_270 said:

"In historic moment, Biden picks wife Jill as his VP!"

At least he thought he did, then he found out it was his sister.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, billay said:

I think Warren would still be the best pick. It might turn off some of the black vote but the angry Bernie supporters could fill in the blanks. She plays well in the rust belt too.

Just goes to show you how messed up the Democrats are. When making the right VP choice is a matter of pleasing different ethnic groups who vote on nothing but the color of someone's skin, that is a party in chaos. But then again, obsession with skin color is a Democrat tradition going back over 150 years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...