Anything to protect the party! Or at least that how it seems to have been going for the past 20 years. Tangentially: I'm surprised there hasn't been a larger voice among independents pushing for...
Anything to protect the party! Or at least that how it seems to have been going for the past 20 years.
Tangentially: I'm surprised there hasn't been a larger voice among independents pushing for the destruction of the two party system during all of this. I mean 2015-to-now is the perfect real life example of why it's horseshit and I haven't heard dick about it since the primaries in '16.
There has been, but it's not really politically feasible without taking power first. Election laws are written in ways that make it almost impossible for third parties to have a chance at winning...
There has been, but it's not really politically feasible without taking power first. Election laws are written in ways that make it almost impossible for third parties to have a chance at winning anything without far exceeding the requirements for Democrats or Republicans.
For example, in Michigan, a candidate for US senate need only collect 15,000 signatures if they have the support of a major party. If they are running as an independent, they must collect 30,000. To count as a major party, they first need their principal candidate to receive at least 5 percent of the total votes cast for all candidates at the most recent general election. That is not an easy task for a new third party to accomplish if they don't also have a slate of candidates running everywhere, which is difficult to achieve when the signature requirements are doubled.
I wasn't really commenting on how it would happen, because I don't know (because I'm not a policy expert or political scientist) and am not particularly interested in the how so much as the end...
I wasn't really commenting on how it would happen, because I don't know (because I'm not a policy expert or political scientist) and am not particularly interested in the how so much as the end result. Some people like the two party system, some don't. If you support it, cool, that's no skin off my nose.
One of those huge differences is that the Senate staffers were on Biden's payroll, and the Kavanaugh friends (Republicans and Democrats) did it without being paid.
One of those huge differences is that the Senate staffers were on Biden's payroll, and the Kavanaugh friends (Republicans and Democrats) did it without being paid.
I'm baffled as to why you'd think these people would talk badly about a former employer--especially the ones who are still in politics as noted in the article, but any of them really--in such a...
I'm baffled as to why you'd think these people would talk badly about a former employer--especially the ones who are still in politics as noted in the article, but any of them really--in such a public way. I hated my former employer, but as someone who's got many career years left, I'm keeping my damn mouth shut. This would be doubly true if I were in politics.
Search all the records for Reade's name. If it's not there, put the issue to bed. "Here's a list of 65 people Kavanaugh didn't try to rape" is equally unconvincing to me as "Here's 74 former staffers Biden didn't try to rape"
I have a background as a political organizer, so grain of salt, etc. One thing you figure out quite quickly is that everybody has a reputation in politics. Your reputation precedes you, and is...
Exemplary
I have a background as a political organizer, so grain of salt, etc.
One thing you figure out quite quickly is that everybody has a reputation in politics. Your reputation precedes you, and is usually talked about in opaque terms and sometimes, when drunk, directly. I drank enough with enough colleagues to know well in advance, for example, that nobody wants to work for Amy Klobuchar (who has a reputation for acerbic tirades), that every wonk--in theory--would love to work for Elizabeth Warren, and that Cory Booker really is a bubbly happy dude (though he gets awkwardly competitive about weird shit).
But the one thing that was always true, even the story a year ago about Biden being too touchy was going viral, is that everyone has ever had a chance to meet and work with the guy loves talking to and working with Joe Biden. That struck me. Because no one had such nice things to say even about Obama, who some drunkenly described as "a little cold" and "brilliant and scholarly, with all that comes with." Or Hillary, who got reviews such as "incredible listener" and "remembers that one time we met 14 years ago in a little farm in Iowa" and "expects half as much work from her team as she puts in herself, which is still going to kill you to try and match."
So yeah, it is still going to require digging into the evidence to get a better idea of what the likelihood of Reade's accusation really is, but there's no false equivalence here. Kavanaugh responded to the allegations against him by launching into partisan tirades while attempting to rise as an "unbiased judge." Biden responded to the allegations by denying them and insisting that they have a chance to be vigorously investigated. He hasn't launched into character attacks (of which there is ample material); he hasn't gone out of his way to ridicule her like Trump has to his many (23 I believe) accusers. He has reacted with restraint and calm.
It is a fair point that former employees still in politics have an incentive to say nice things, but my experience in the dark bowels of political organizing leads me to be a little more generous when giving them the benefit of the doubt. It jives with what I've heard from many others, years before these allegations came up.
Fair point. Going on the record is still a good career move, but still a fair point. Being older, these people might have less to gain from it career-wise. Senate and University of Delaware records.
Instead they felt that this was such an absurd claim that they needed to not only speak out, but many of them are on the record with their names to dispute the allegations.
Fair point. Going on the record is still a good career move, but still a fair point. Being older, these people might have less to gain from it career-wise.
National Archives says it does not have personnel records from that office. The papers should not be released publicly, but they should be searched by a committee that includes, e.g., journalists...
The U of D records are Biden's personal papers and do not contain any personnel files, those are at the national archives.
If you were the secretary for the McDonalds CEO, and that CEO was about to become President of the United States, I might have reason to doubt your fawning praise of said CEO.
If you were the secretary for the McDonalds CEO, and that CEO was about to become President of the United States, I might have reason to doubt your fawning praise of said CEO.
This isn't fawning praise -- someone reached out to them and asked them a question. No one is lining up to take a bullet for the bossman from 30 years ago. If what you're assuming is happening is...
This isn't fawning praise -- someone reached out to them and asked them a question. No one is lining up to take a bullet for the bossman from 30 years ago.
If what you're assuming is happening is true -- I would expect a wildly different picture from the people who no longer work in politics -- somebody who has a desk job at WidgetFactory has little to gain or lose by weighing in.
Uh.. what? This whole article seems like it is trying to justify Biden's actions, arguing from the point: Yes, Joe Biden touches and hug people without permission, but that's OK, cause most people...
However, staffers agree it was not in Biden’s nature to gauge social signals about whether someone wanted to be hugged or touched. Many said they learned that he might do so without warning, though most saw it as an endearing quality that wasn’t sexual in nature.
Uh.. what? This whole article seems like it is trying to justify Biden's actions, arguing from the point: Yes, Joe Biden touches and hug people without permission, but that's OK, cause most people find it endearing and so should you!
Already not having much evidence about this whole situation with Tara Reade, reading these kinds of articles only pushes Biden lower in my opinion.
Not an American, but if I was, I would. Biden's policies doesn't mesh with mine, but at this point Trump is a cartoon villain in my eye, His supporter's think he is playing 3-D chess, but as...
Not an American, but if I was, I would.
Biden's policies doesn't mesh with mine, but at this point Trump is a cartoon villain in my eye, His supporter's think he is playing 3-D chess, but as someone recently said, he is mostly just eating the pieces.
I'm all for hearing this woman's side of the story but at this point it looks like an obvious smear campaign with two objectives beyond tarring Biden: make sexual assault allegations political...
I'm all for hearing this woman's side of the story but at this point it looks like an obvious smear campaign with two objectives beyond tarring Biden:
make sexual assault allegations political i.e. the Democrats only care when it happens to Republicans
when it eventually all blows up or fizzles out -- just another example of a false rape accusation
Pretty gross, and unfortunately the Bernie camp ate it up.
How 65 women came to Kavanaugh’s defense in matter of hours
Funny how both sides use the same tactics.
Anything to protect the party! Or at least that how it seems to have been going for the past 20 years.
Tangentially: I'm surprised there hasn't been a larger voice among independents pushing for the destruction of the two party system during all of this. I mean 2015-to-now is the perfect real life example of why it's horseshit and I haven't heard dick about it since the primaries in '16.
There has been, but it's not really politically feasible without taking power first. Election laws are written in ways that make it almost impossible for third parties to have a chance at winning anything without far exceeding the requirements for Democrats or Republicans.
For example, in Michigan, a candidate for US senate need only collect 15,000 signatures if they have the support of a major party. If they are running as an independent, they must collect 30,000. To count as a major party, they first need their principal candidate to receive at least 5 percent of the total votes cast for all candidates at the most recent general election. That is not an easy task for a new third party to accomplish if they don't also have a slate of candidates running everywhere, which is difficult to achieve when the signature requirements are doubled.
I wasn't really commenting on how it would happen, because I don't know (because I'm not a policy expert or political scientist) and am not particularly interested in the how so much as the end result. Some people like the two party system, some don't. If you support it, cool, that's no skin off my nose.
One of those huge differences is that the Senate staffers were on Biden's payroll, and the Kavanaugh friends (Republicans and Democrats) did it without being paid.
I'm baffled as to why you'd think these people would talk badly about a former employer--especially the ones who are still in politics as noted in the article, but any of them really--in such a public way. I hated my former employer, but as someone who's got many career years left, I'm keeping my damn mouth shut. This would be doubly true if I were in politics.
Search all the records for Reade's name. If it's not there, put the issue to bed. "Here's a list of 65 people Kavanaugh didn't try to rape" is equally unconvincing to me as "Here's 74 former staffers Biden didn't try to rape"
I have a background as a political organizer, so grain of salt, etc.
One thing you figure out quite quickly is that everybody has a reputation in politics. Your reputation precedes you, and is usually talked about in opaque terms and sometimes, when drunk, directly. I drank enough with enough colleagues to know well in advance, for example, that nobody wants to work for Amy Klobuchar (who has a reputation for acerbic tirades), that every wonk--in theory--would love to work for Elizabeth Warren, and that Cory Booker really is a bubbly happy dude (though he gets awkwardly competitive about weird shit).
But the one thing that was always true, even the story a year ago about Biden being too touchy was going viral, is that everyone has ever had a chance to meet and work with the guy loves talking to and working with Joe Biden. That struck me. Because no one had such nice things to say even about Obama, who some drunkenly described as "a little cold" and "brilliant and scholarly, with all that comes with." Or Hillary, who got reviews such as "incredible listener" and "remembers that one time we met 14 years ago in a little farm in Iowa" and "expects half as much work from her team as she puts in herself, which is still going to kill you to try and match."
So yeah, it is still going to require digging into the evidence to get a better idea of what the likelihood of Reade's accusation really is, but there's no false equivalence here. Kavanaugh responded to the allegations against him by launching into partisan tirades while attempting to rise as an "unbiased judge." Biden responded to the allegations by denying them and insisting that they have a chance to be vigorously investigated. He hasn't launched into character attacks (of which there is ample material); he hasn't gone out of his way to ridicule her like Trump has to his many (23 I believe) accusers. He has reacted with restraint and calm.
It is a fair point that former employees still in politics have an incentive to say nice things, but my experience in the dark bowels of political organizing leads me to be a little more generous when giving them the benefit of the doubt. It jives with what I've heard from many others, years before these allegations came up.
Fair point. Going on the record is still a good career move, but still a fair point. Being older, these people might have less to gain from it career-wise.
Senate and University of Delaware records.
National Archives says it does not have personnel records from that office.
The papers should not be released publicly, but they should be searched by a committee that includes, e.g., journalists from NYT.
According to you I'm a paid spokesperson for McDonald's because I flipped burgers there twenty years ago?
If you were the secretary for the McDonalds CEO, and that CEO was about to become President of the United States, I might have reason to doubt your fawning praise of said CEO.
This isn't fawning praise -- someone reached out to them and asked them a question. No one is lining up to take a bullet for the bossman from 30 years ago.
If what you're assuming is happening is true -- I would expect a wildly different picture from the people who no longer work in politics -- somebody who has a desk job at WidgetFactory has little to gain or lose by weighing in.
Uh.. what? This whole article seems like it is trying to justify Biden's actions, arguing from the point: Yes, Joe Biden touches and hug people without permission, but that's OK, cause most people find it endearing and so should you!
Already not having much evidence about this whole situation with Tara Reade, reading these kinds of articles only pushes Biden lower in my opinion.
Not an American, but if I was, I would.
Biden's policies doesn't mesh with mine, but at this point Trump is a cartoon villain in my eye, His supporter's think he is playing 3-D chess, but as someone recently said, he is mostly just eating the pieces.
I'm all for hearing this woman's side of the story but at this point it looks like an obvious smear campaign with two objectives beyond tarring Biden:
Pretty gross, and unfortunately the Bernie camp ate it up.