Obama on board - Democrat Biden lands key endorsement in White House race

[metisdead]

An off topic post about the Stimulus Checks has been removed, there is a topic about that in the World News forum, please stop with the off topic deflection tactics. 

 

Please remember this topic is about:

 

Obama on board - Democrat Biden lands key endorsement in White House race

[thaibeachlovers]

IMO doesn't matter who endorses Biden. It's not going to change any one's mind about his suitability. It also makes it less likely that a more suitable candidate can be substituted if all the Dem's heroes have endorsed Biden.

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO doesn't matter who endorses Biden. It's not going to change any one's mind about his suitability. It also makes it less likely that a more suitable candidate can be substituted if all the Dem's heroes have endorsed Biden.

 

It's basically an admission by the DNC, that they don't care who wins. 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It's basically an admission by the DNC, that they don't care who wins. 

IMO they knew before the campaign started that they had a snowball's chance in the hot place of winning and didn't care who won the primaries, but with Corona they probably think they have a chance, so are now getting the big guns to endorse Biden in the hope they can change enough people's minds to actually go and vote for him. Even Warren has endorsed him.

[Crazy Alex]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

A very valuable endorsement (albeit 100 percent predictable and guaranteed) from a very popular ex-president.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-approval-rating-final-2017-1?op=1

 

Think of all the Americans that wouldn't be dead of Covid if either Obama or Biden had been president now. 

 

We can't undo that but we can kick "blood on his hands" 45 to the curb (and hopefully to prison). 

 

Democrats are totally united on job one -- evict 45. 

 

For the 45 fan "republicans" (its not the republican party anymore, it's the 45 cult of personality party) have a look at what just happened in Wisconsin! If that doesn't throw a big bag of cheese flavored ice on excessive hubris, well you guys just aren't paying attention or more likely you don't want to hear, you don't want to know. 

 

Yes, the very popular ex-president who spent the vast majority of his eight years in office polling below 50%.

[JAG]

23 hours ago, blazes said:

 

Ah yes, that worked out brilliantly, didn't it.....

Well, she did get more votes than Mr Trump. Quite a lot more in fact. I don't think that should be forgotten.

[Crazy Alex]

19 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Nothing like that. 

Biden was the favorite to be nominated at the start of this. 

He wasn't the strongest of front runners but he was still the front runner. 

Biden wasn't even a candidate "at the start of this". Oops!

[lannarebirth]

16 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Yes, the very popular ex-president who spent the vast majority of his eight years in office polling below 50%.

 

True. Obama was a horrible president and Biden will be worse still. Then there's Trump who is the worst ever.

 

The one thing that may save Biden is that circumstances might become so awful that he and the Congress may be forced, against their will, to help make American's lives better.

[sucit]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It's basically an admission by the DNC, that they don't care who wins. 

I would go further than that and say they knew that Biden was unsuitable and were willing to have Trump over the possibility of Sanders. 

[lannarebirth]

Just now, sucit said:

I would go further than that and say they knew that Biden was unsuitable and were willing to have Trump over the possibility of Sanders. 

 

There ya go.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, sucit said:

I would go further than that and say they knew that Biden was unsuitable and were willing to have Trump over the possibility of Sanders. 

 

It leaked somewhere awhile back that Obama personally said he would intervene if Sanders was the nominee.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

It leaked somewhere awhile back that Obama personally said he would intervene if Sanders was the nominee.

 

There's been lots of anecdotal evidence that Obama intervened to get Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out so all centrist Democrat (Republican) votes would go to Biden and squeeze out Sanders. I guess it also helped that they had their media arm paint Sanders interchangably as a communist or a Nazi. Only the people wanted Sanders, and you can't have them calling the shots.

[sucit]

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

It leaked somewhere awhile back that Obama personally said he would intervene if Sanders was the nominee.

If only people knew the type of president Obama actually was. He was just another corporate puppet. 

[Cryingdick]

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

There's been lots of anecdotal evidence that Obama intervened to get Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out so all centrist Democrat (Republican) votes would go to Biden and squeeze out Sanders. I guess it also helped that they had their media arm paint Sanders interchangably as a communist or a Nazi. Only the people wanted Sanders, and you can't have them calling the shots.

 

Well, a good portion of those people are disgruntled now. I would actually accept a Biden win other than the fact he would have to make AOC secretary of state, Booker gets HUD, Warren is appointed to the FED, Bernie runs the treasury, Abraams is VP, which is fine, Beto is head of Homeland security, and Ilhan Omar becomes a Supreme Court justice, Mitt Romney becomes the official whitehouse ombudsman.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Cryingdick

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Well, a good portion of those people are disgruntled now. I would actually accept a Biden win other than the fact he would have to make AOC secretary of state, Booker gets HUD, Warren is appointed to the FED, Bernie runs the treasury, Abraams is VP, which is fine, Beto is head of Homeland security, and Ilhan Omar becomes a Supreme Court justice.

 

Biden is a corporate shill. He will toe the Clinton/Obama neoliberal line. You should love that. Everything is financialized/monetized. The market, that has all information, yet is constantly wrong, decides everything.

 

He did suggest corporations wait a year before they start their buybacks, but they know that was just for public consumption and not to be taken seriously.

[Cryingdick]

11 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Biden is a corporate shill. He will toe the Clinton/Obama neoliberal line. You should love that. Everything is financialized/monetized. The market, that has all information, yet is constantly wrong, decides everything.

 

He did suggest corporations wait a year before they start their buybacks, but they know that was just for public consumption and not to be taken seriously.

 

I would love it but I don't think if Biden is elected he would be around in 18 months. That leaves the goon squad of the left he will be forced to appoint.

 

Also if a corporation doesn't take a bailout the government shouldn't dictate what they buy or dividends. If you repurposed your factories to make health equipment for the government you should be exempt of any conditions.

 

If you take the guberment tit yeah I agree you get terms dictated to you. Airlines and Cruise companies oil.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Cryingdick

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I would love it but I don't think if Biden is elected he would be around in 18 months. That leaves the goon squad of the left he will be forced to appoint.

 

Also if a corporation doesn't take a bailout the government shouldn't dictate what they buy or dividends. If you https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/10/22/examining-corporate-priorities-the-impact-of-stock-buybacks-on-workers-communities-and-investors/ your factories to make health equipment for the government you should be exempt of any conditions.

 

If you take the guberment tit yeah I agree you get terms dictated to you. Airlines and Cruise companies oil.

 

Actually they should just repeal the law allowing for corporate buybacks, which were illegal before Reagan, because it is a manipulation of the market. If they can't do that, they should AT LEAST pass a law that says you can't borrow money for the purpose of buying back stock. Additionally, ifitis to be allowed, there should be a law that says you can only buy back stock if it FALLS a certain amount, say 20%-30%. That wouldmake for very robust and resiliant corporations, as opposed to the ones lined up for the lion's share of the bailouts now.

 

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/10/22/examining-corporate-priorities-the-impact-of-stock-buybacks-on-workers-communities-and-investors/

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Actually they should just repeal the law allowing for corporate buybacks, which were illegal before Reagan, because it is a manipulation of the market. If they can't do that, they should AT LEAST pass a law that says you can't borrow money for the purpose of buying back stock. Additionally, ifitis to be allowed, there should be a law that says you can only buy back stock if it FALLS a certain amount, say 20%-30%. That wouldmake for very robust and resiliant corporations, as opposed to the ones lined up for the lion's share of the bailouts now.

 

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/10/22/examining-corporate-priorities-the-impact-of-stock-buybacks-on-workers-communities-and-investors/

The thing is the government as a cure is worse than the disease. When the government shows itself to be somewhat competent maybe they can write some laws. 

 

If you use leverage to buyback stocks sure you get eaten by the government if you go crying for money.

 

 No problems there. However any trader that has even a modicum of success knows the only way to become more successful is to use leverage regarding  anything whether it is money or time. 

 

The government has no business telling people like Jobs, Bezos, Benioff or a very big list of capable people that don't need training wheels what to do.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Cryingdick

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The thing is the3 government as a cure is worse than the disease. 

Right, you make my point. They never should have enacted the law allowing for market manipulation in the first place. Forget about the zombie corpoations, of which their are hundreds. It has contributed to extreme wealth inequality in the US. And that WILL be addressed. Hopefully at the ballot box.

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Right, you make my point. They never should have enacted the law allowing for market manipulation in the first place. Forget about the zombie corpoations, of which their are hundreds. It has contributed to extreme wealth inequality in the US. And that WILL be addressed. Hopefully at the ballot box.

It's chicken and the egg they should have never been given the authority to enact it a law against it, in the first place. By default governments don't grant rights. All rights are their until a law prohibits it.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Cryingdick

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

It's chicken and the egg they should have never been given the authority to enact it a law against it, in the first place. By default governments don't grant rights. All rights are their until a law prohibits it.

 

Ayn Rand much?

[Cryingdick]

13 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Ayn Rand much?

That's a funny story. My friend in Thailand said that and I at the time, didn't know who she was. He sent me the books to Poland. I never read them. I hope somebody has but they were like 600 pages long and the Polish winter was bad enough coming from Phuket in January.

 

I don't parrot some books. I swim down stream go with the current, am considerate, yet don't let others get in my way or blame others for what a loser I am. Ayn Rand died when I was 7 years old.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Cryingdick

[sucit]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Actually they should just repeal the law allowing for corporate buybacks, which were illegal before Reagan, because it is a manipulation of the market. If they can't do that, they should AT LEAST pass a law that says you can't borrow money for the purpose of buying back stock. Additionally, ifitis to be allowed, there should be a law that says you can only buy back stock if it FALLS a certain amount, say 20%-30%. That wouldmake for very robust and resiliant corporations, as opposed to the ones lined up for the lion's share of the bailouts now.

 

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/10/22/examining-corporate-priorities-the-impact-of-stock-buybacks-on-workers-communities-and-investors/

That is trying to solve the problems three or four steps out.

 

What they need to do is simply stop the bailouts. That solves everything. Corporations would not do as many buy backs because they know (always have) dry spells can hit. Bailouts encourage the irresponsibility. 

 

It is all painfully obvious if you ask me but when you have a system run by politicians who are controlled by corporations, this is the type of thing you get. 

[earlinclaifornia]

18 hours ago, sirineou said:

I agree with everything you said, but not only Obama, at this point I would gladly accept any past president Democrat or Republican.  I of course prefer someone who's politics align with mine, but I would settle for some Dignity and professionalism. I would be happy beyond words with a Romney president or bless his soul , if he was alive a Mckain president. During the campaign when an old woman confronted McKain with a " Obama is a terrorist" ,

Now there is a class act. I might not agree with his politics but I trust him to do the be honorable , dignified , intellectually honest man. 

I truly don't understand why anyone would support trump, What has he done for them? there are so many honorable, capable republicans, why waste your political capital and in the process endanger the country on trump? I understand their frustration with the system and their hope he would be their savior, but by now that, that was clear to us then,   should be also clear to them now .

I don't get it!!

As a registered Independent I agree totally with both postings. Mostly on MSNBC the are ex Republicans and I trust the honesty

[lannarebirth]

18 hours ago, sirineou said:

I agree with everything you said, but not only Obama, at this point I would gladly accept any past president Democrat or Republican.  I of course prefer someone who's politics align with mine, but I would settle for some Dignity and professionalism. I would be happy beyond words with a Romney president or bless his soul , if he was alive a Mckain president. During the campaign when an old woman confronted McKain with a " Obama is a terrorist" ,

Now there is a class act. I might not agree with his politics but I trust him to do the be honorable , dignified , intellectually honest man. 

I truly don't understand why anyone would support trump, What has he done for them? there are so many honorable, capable republicans, why waste your political capital and in the process endanger the country on trump? I understand their frustration with the system and their hope he would be their savior, but by now that, that was clear to us then,   should be also clear to them now .

I don't get it!!

 

 

Actually, there are very few "capable, honorable Republicans" these days. Check their voting records. Interestingly, there is a small group of "progressive" Republicans that has more in common with progressive Democrats than they do with establishment Republicans or establisment Democrats.

[lannarebirth]

8 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

We all remember you going around from candidate to candidate as they fell. Warren, Booker, Klobuchar and then suddenly Bloomberg was your man. I bet like dogs sniffing each others rears. The one in front of your nose is the best at the time. The last one doesn't last a minute in memory.

 

 

 

That's not true. He started with Klobuchar. Not my preferred candidate, but better than anyone on offer currently.

[earlinclaifornia]

8 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

It leaked somewhere awhile back that Obama personally said he would intervene if Sanders was the nominee.

I was so worried now that Obama has endorsed, your CONSPIRACY accusation would not see the light of day! Thanks for letting it out now! OMG, it is a doozy

[earlinclaifornia]

8 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Yes, the very popular ex-president who spent the vast majority of his eight years in office polling below 50%.

I wonder if then you are comparing that to the current, soon to be former, who will never see 50. 

[Thailand J]

[sucit]

I strongly believe there is not very much difference at all, president to president. 

 

How many presidents, in Obama's shoes, would have went ahead with bailing out corporations. All from the past and future.

 

We are under this illusion that presidents do different stuff. They don't.

 

Similar here. Do you really believe this crisis would have been a lot better under another president? It may have been a little less entertaining, but look at other countries! Nobody has really curtailed this, and if they have they probably got lucky. Trump did as well as any president would have done. Maybe slightly better, maybe slightly worse. 

 

This is the biggest ruse of our time though. People actually believe different presidents will implement different policies. Maybe to a certain degree, but it is all run by the same 100 or so people who have all the power.