Play Nice 46th President of the United States: Joe Biden 2: Incidit in scyllam cupiens vitare charybdim

[Not Important]

Please let this peanut run in 2028 it would mean the Dems have learnt nothing.

she’s living rent-free in your head. still plenty of space to spare.

 

[Demons09]

she’s living rent-free in your head. still plenty of space to spare.

You mustn’t have space left in your head the Trump administration and Dutton has completely taken over yours.

 

[Not Important]

You mustn’t have space left in your head the Trump administration and Dutton has completely taken over yours.

sure little fella. the bloke who has so little respect for the knuckleheads who support him and who he screws - peeps like you - calls you lot “basement dwellers”. to translate for you, thick as two planks.

 

[GreyCrow]

You mustn’t have space left in your head the Trump administration and Dutton has completely taken over yours.

Can you highlight what it is about her that makes you think she would struggle as a candidate or why the Democrats should run a mile from her?

 

[bzparkes]

Can you highlight what it is about her that makes you think she would struggle as a candidate or why the Democrats should run a mile from her?

How many votes did she get in the primary again?

 

[GreyCrow]

How many votes did she get in the primary again?

I dont know?

Against an incumbent President I would suggest not many had high numbers

Is that the only issue?

 

[bzparkes]

I dont know?

Against an incumbent President I would suggest not many had high numbers

Is that the only issue?

The primaries in 2019.

There were no primaries to replace Biden, that's the issue.

She was one of, if not, the most unpopular candidate amongst the Democrats and dropped out early.
Democrats running her again in 2028 would just prove they learnt diddly squat from this election.

She lost the popular vote to a Republican, after all. That's almost unheard of.

 

[GreyCrow]

The primaries in 2019.

There were no primaries to replace Biden, that's the issue.

She was one of, if not, the most unpopular candidate amongst the Democrats and dropped out early.

She lost the popular vote to a Republican, after all. That's almost unheard of.

She did not run in 2019 - she was first elected 2018

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Democrats running her again in 2028 would just prove they learnt diddly squat from this election.

Why would her running mean the Democrats learnt nothing? Is it a female thing

 

[bzparkes]

She did not run in 2019 - she was first elected 2018

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why would her running mean the Democrats learnt nothing? Is it a female thing

Ah, my mistake, saw comments about 'her' running again and assumed it was about Harris.

Apologies.

Having said that, AOC probably has a lot to work on in regards to talking about real policy points and not just trying to appeal to people's emotional bias

Some of her performances during parliamentary enquiries have been nothing short of shambolic, especially when she was questioning Holman, from memory.

Got 4 years to work on it though but regardless, Democrats need a hard reset and have to understand that you're never going to win an election if your primary focus is to constantly attack the other side and try to appeal to people's emotions, instead of giving a clear vision of wanting to improve the lives of the everyday person and how you're going to achieve that.

Trump did that, it's why he won. Whether or not he will actually do that is an entirely different discussion but I think the election results just go to show that people are tired of bickering over things that don't directly affect them.

 

[smy1305]

Ah, my mistake, saw comments about 'her' running again and assumed it was about Harris.

Apologies.

Having said that, AOC probably has a lot to work on in regards to talking about real policy points and not just trying to appeal to people's emotional bias

Some of her performances during parliamentary enquiries have been nothing short of shambolic, especially when she was questioning Holman, from memory.

Got 4 years to work on it though but regardless, Democrats need a hard reset and have to understand that you're never going to win an election if your primary focus is to constantly attack the other side and try to appeal to people's emotions, instead of giving a clear vision of wanting to improve the lives of the everyday person and how you're going to achieve that.

Trump did that, it's why he won. Whether or not he will actually do that is an entirely different discussion but I think the election results just go to show that people are tired of bickering over things that don't directly affect them.

I'd love to hear the explanation of what Trump's vision was that would actually improve the lives of every day Americans?? Anyone can say "I will lower taxes" (unfort for the wrong people) or "I will keep you safe" (from what exactly??) but Trump won bc he was a better used car salesman plain and simple. He has over promised and time will tell whether he under delivers. Credit to him that he is doing some of the things he said he was going do. Not sure any of them so far actually improve anyones livelihood; maybe these changes are still to come. Where he (obviously) lets himself down is in crisis mode. He simply has nfi how to handle these - it's just too big of a job for him and his 1st point of call is to blame someone rather than work out how can i care for people. US have had 2 tragedies on his watch so far - neither of them has been a great response.

Personally think AOC would be a great candidate. And possibly even more so if Trumps T2 becomes a train wreck. Americans will be looking for hope. She's practically a baby by POTUS recent standards so potentially has at least 50 years to hone her skills...

 

[GreyCrow]

Ah, my mistake, saw comments about 'her' running again and assumed it was about Harris.

Apologies.

Having said that, AOC probably has a lot to work on in regards to talking about real policy points and not just trying to appeal to people's emotional bias

Some of her performances during parliamentary enquiries have been nothing short of shambolic, especially when she was questioning Holman, from memory.

Got 4 years to work on it though but regardless, Democrats need a hard reset and have to understand that you're never going to win an election if your primary focus is to constantly attack the other side and try to appeal to people's emotions, instead of giving a clear vision of wanting to improve the lives of the everyday person and how you're going to achieve that.

Trump did that, it's why he won. Whether or not he will actually do that is an entirely different discussion but I think the election results just go to show that people are tired of bickering over things that don't directly affect them.

Ahh makes sense

On your further points I agree but also disagree

I think Harris and Wentz and the senior strategists made an error in ridiculing and mocking Trump instead of attacking his policies and explaining how it would hurt America

The public then see nothing but a cheap attack - this strengthens the Republicans resolve to vote but does not engage the Democrat voters to turn up - which happened

I think AOC would be a clearer commentator on policy but I think a different strategy will be needed in 2028

I dont know if she would be suitable but I do know she would not be the train wreck some are assuming

 

[Demons09]

sure little fella. the bloke who has so little respect for the knuckleheads who support him and who he screws - peeps like you - calls you lot “basement dwellers”. to translate for you, thick as two planks.

Bahaha the world is going conservative or are you blind, endorsing idiots like AOC isn’t going to change that and thank **** for that.
Lol thick as two planks and yet you would choose AOC one of the main reasons trump won.

 

[bzparkes]

I'd love to hear the explanation of what Trump's vision was that would actually improve the lives of every day Americans?? Anyone can say "I will lower taxes" (unfort for the wrong people) or "I will keep you safe" (from what exactly??) but Trump won bc he was a better used car salesman plain and simple. He has over promised and time will tell whether he under delivers. Credit to him that he is doing some of the things he said he was going do. Not sure any of them so far actually improve anyones livelihood; maybe these changes are still to come. Where he (obviously) lets himself down is in crisis mode. He simply has nfi how to handle these - it's just too big of a job for him and his 1st point of call is to blame someone rather than work out how can i care for people. US have had 2 tragedies on his watch so far - neither of them has been a great response.

Personally think AOC would be a great candidate. And possibly even more so if Trumps T2 becomes a train wreck. Americans will be looking for hope. She's practically a baby by POTUS recent standards so potentially has at least 50 years to hone her skills...

Plenty of pre-election policy campaign info you can look into, if you can be bothered.

Like I said, whether or not he can deliver on it is a different point entirely.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Bahaha the world is going conservative or are you blind, endorsing idiots like AOC isn’t going to change and thank **** for that.

You sound like a sheep.

 

[bzparkes]

Ahh makes sense

On your further points I agree but also disagree

I think Harris and Wentz and the senior strategists made an error in ridiculing and mocking Trump instead of attacking his policies and explaining how it would hurt America

The public then see nothing but a cheap attack - this strengthens the Republicans resolve to vote but does not engage the Democrat voters to turn up - which happened

Yes, this is exactly it. People are just simply tired of it, since it's all they've hear from the Dems about Trump since he became the Republican nominee when he first got elected.

They need to be debunking his policies and countering with better alternatives instead of galvanising his base with constant attacks.

Undecided people basically got sick of it also, because on the campaign trail, they saw the Democrats wheeling out every celebrity under the sun, whilst the Trump was going to small/regional towns and cities and holding rallies for the working class people in an attempt to shore up that vote.

John Fetterman(democrat senator for Pennsylvania) talked about exactly this, when he drove past a Trump campaign rally in a small town in his state and saw it was packed. He said he initially was wondering why the hell they'd choose this place out in the middle of nowhere then once he realised it was their campaign strategy and saw the polls in his own state, he said he knew they were pretty much doomed.

Of course, the election was sealed when he survived the assassination attempt. That pretty much sealed the deal.

I think AOC would be a clearer commentator on policy but I think a different strategy will be needed in 2028

I dont know if she would be suitable but I do know she would not be the train wreck some are assuming

Not sure she'll be a 'train wreck' per se, but she'd need to be very clear on what policy direction the Democrats are putting forward as an attractive alternative to the Republicans. To date, she's shown that she prefers to double-down on the emotive side of politics, instead of being direct and factual. The Tom Holman hearing basically proved this.

She'd need to change up her style significantly if she wants to be considered as next presidential nominee for the Democrats, IMO.

 

[.Shotties.]

Not sure she'll be a 'train wreck' per se, but she'd need to be very clear on what policy direction the Democrats are putting forward as an attractive alternative to the Republicans. To date, she's shown that she prefers to double-down on the emotive side of politics, instead of being direct and factual. The Tom Holman hearing basically proved this.

Here are the following things she's introduced the following legislation: The Green New Deal, The Loan Shark Prevention Act, The Just Society Package, The Geothermal Cost-Recovery Authority Act, The Homes Act. She's also campaigned on very, very clear progressive platforms around wealth equality, union rights, ending subsidies to pollution companies, minimum wage, expanding voting rights, stopping cash bail and a shitload of others.

So yeah, so far she's demonstrated a really clear progressive platform (which is the base that abandoned the democrats last election) and an ability to get her legislation through the house.

Oooh, but she got upset at Tom Homan (No L) during a hearing about the kids in cages in 2019. Definitive proof that she's too emotional at the moment.

 

[bzparkes]

Here are the following things she's introduced the following legislation: The Green New Deal, The Loan Shark Prevention Act, The Just Society Package, The Geothermal Cost-Recovery Authority Act, The Homes Act. She's also campaigned on very, very clear progressive platforms around wealth equality, union rights, ending subsidies to pollution companies, minimum wage, expanding voting rights, stopping cash bail and a shitload of others.

So yeah, so far she's demonstrated a really clear progressive platform (which is the base that abandoned the democrats last election) and an ability to get her legislation through the house.

Oooh, but she got upset at Tom Homan (No L) during a hearing about the kids in cages in 2019. Definitive proof that she's too emotional at the moment.

Great.

Reckon your average American knows about any of that?

 

[.Shotties.]

Great.

Reckon your average American knows about any of that?

I'm addressing you about what you said.

 

[bzparkes]

I'm addressing you about what you said.

Yes and to date, what I've said is in line with what the average pundit most likely thinks of her.

She could be the greatest potential POTUS ever but if the public perception is that her policies don't align with what the average voter actually wants, she'll never get near it.

So, that's something she needs to work on, as I said.

 

[.Shotties.]

To date, she's shown that she prefers to double-down on the emotive side of politics, instead of being direct and factual. The Tom Holman hearing basically proved this.

Yes and to date, what I've said is in line with what the average pundit most likely thinks of her.

She could be the greatest potential POTUS ever but if the public perception is that her policies don't align with what the average voter actually wants, she'll never get near it.

So, that's something she needs to work on, as I said.

But you didn't say that was the perception, you said it as fact and proven. By a single hearing , which no doubt your extent of viewing is what you've seen chopped up and edited on social media. I quoted above.

So what is it? Is she actually "proven" to be only interested in the emotional side of politics or is the perception of her completely incorrect?

I have to say, I'm genuinely interested in where you get your information. You say stuff about the Democrats being a left-to-far left entity despite them being a free-market, strike breaking, corporate donation taking political arm who "stokes the fires of trans" despite having little to no policy on them compared to the Republicans. Now you're spitting the classic right wing line that "AoC is dumb and emotional" despite a clear track record of being able to navigate progressive policy through hostile houses.

 

[bzparkes]

But you didn't say that was the perception, you said it as fact and proven. By a single hearing , which no doubt your extent of viewing is what you've seen chopped up and edited on social media. I quoted above.

So what is it? Is she actually "proven" to be only interested in the emotional side of politics or is the perception of her completely incorrect?

I think you're misunderstanding my point here.

As someone who clearly supports AOC, you don't seem to understand that a great deal of the public think that she's too young/inexperienced + she uses a lot of emotive arguments, instead of factual ones to push her position(see the whole crying at the border stuff + Tom Holman hearing).

Regardless of how good her potential policies are, she needs to moderate her public image for the mainstream voters to be appealing for them to support.

This is the same for any politician going for a leadership position, not just her.

You can be as 'correct' as you want about her, it's irrelevant if people believe the 'chopped up and edited' stuff on social media, because that's all they're exposed to from her in many cases. They aren't going to go looking for other content because why would they?

Being a politician is all about how the public perceive you. Your 'policy' is mostly irrelevant. Surely you understand this?

 

[.Shotties.]

I think you're misunderstanding my point here.

No, I get what you're pivoting to now that your original point has been blown up.

What you actually said is that she needed to be clear on policy (I don't know how you can claim she isn't) and that it's proven that she's only interested in the emotive side of politics, which contributes to the idea that she is. If you wanted to talk about perception you should have said it.

So again, can you admit that the perception of her is wildly incorrect and then we can discuss why that might be.

 

[bzparkes]

No, I get what you're pivoting to now that your original point has been blown up.

What you actually said is that it's proven that she's interested in the emotive side of politics, which contributes to the idea that she is. If you wanted to talk about perception you should have said it.

So again, can you admit that the perception of her is wildly incorrect and then we can discuss why that might be.

My opinion isn't incorrect, because it's an opinion.

You seem to be confusing facts with opinions.

It's politics.

As soon as you admit facts don't matter(we just saw Trump elected, after all) the sooner you can understand that the only thing that matters is the public opinion of a candidate.

So instead of trying to catch me out in a stupid 'gotcha', try understanding that politics aren't rooted in 'facts' whatsoever and it's simply a popularity contest people use to elect their candidate.

And as I said, AOC has perceptions about her currently from many demographics outside her supporter base and many of them aren't positive, despite what you believe.

She needs to address that if she wants to have an actually shot at becoming POTUS.

Having said that, I seem to recall at some point last year she said she wasn't interested in the top job. That may change though.

 

[.Shotties.]

My opinion isn't incorrect, because it's an opinion.

So is the following your opinion or what you think the average American believes?

. To date, she's shown that she prefers to double-down on the emotive side of politics, instead of being direct and factual. The Tom Holman hearing basically proved this.

Again, if you want to admit this perception is wildly off base when you consider her actual body of work, we can discuss how this perception arose and how to work against it, because it's clear at this point that being "direct and factual" with a clear progressive policy platform and an ability to get that policy into legislation isn't helping.

 

[bzparkes]

So is the following your opinion or what you think the average American believes?

It's my opinion of what the average American believes.

I thought I made that clear?