Biden VP news megathread (pg 286 - been selected, announcement could be today)

[Meatball Ron]

Honestly, her vote on the defense budget cuts is irrelevant. She's had the MOST progressive voting record in the Senate since she assumed office in 2017.

Also, she explained that the reason she voted against the amendment was that the cuts were too broad. She stated that she supports more targeted cuts and that she would support such measures in the future.

Also, the amendment wasn't going to pass anyways it was more of a "show" amendment.

Oh yes, total workhorse Kamala Harris concentrating on the issues that matter like trying to get Twitter to ban Trump's account.

Wow, I've never heard that one before. You're so clever! .

Anyways, Trump's Twitter account should be banned and that's not even close to most of what Kamala has advocated for in her 3 years as a Senator. I wouldn't expect you or most people on Atlas to care though.

Don't even bother trying to explain. These anti-Kamala people are purely irrational; they cannot be reasoned and will continue to choose to only see what they want to see despite what is true.

[Ferguson97]

Honestly, her vote on the defense budget cuts is irrelevant. She's had the MOST progressive voting record in the Senate since she assumed office in 2017.

Also, she explained that the reason she voted against the amendment was that the cuts were too broad. She stated that she supports more targeted cuts and that she would support such measures in the future.

Also, the amendment wasn't going to pass anyways it was more of a "show" amendment.

Oh yes, total workhorse Kamala Harris concentrating on the issues that matter like trying to get Twitter to ban Trump's account.

Wow, I've never heard that one before. You're so clever! .

Anyways, Trump's Twitter account should be banned and that's not even close to most of what Kamala has advocated for in her 3 years as a Senator. I wouldn't expect you or most people on Atlas to care though.

Don't even bother trying to explain. These anti-Kamala people are purely irrational; they cannot be reasoned and will continue to choose to only see what they want to see despite what is true.

Oh no it’s obvious why certain anti-Kamala people act like that - they know she’s intelligent and charismatic and would easily win the nomination in 2024, and don’t like the idea that they’ll have to wait until 2032 for another chance at their candidate - but of course the Dems won’t win four elections in a row, so it’s more like 2040.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1286624753026039808

Give me a f--king break.

Lmao, any mention of anyone else and the Atlas KHive gets all in a tizzy.

[Sir Mohamed]

Bass would be too much of an unknown or lackluster candidate in my opinion. Her previous comments over Cuba may hurt Biden in FL. Not saying they will, but I'm not ready to take the risk when other potential candidates like Harris, Duckworth, Warren or Demings are available and have more to add to the ticket. Bass and Rice would be the worst choices he can make out of the currently discussed ones.

[wbrocks67]

Yeah, it's interesting how every week we get a new article on someone - one week it was Demings, then Rice, then Duckworth, then Bass, then Warren, etc.

But Harris, objectively, continues to be in the conversation every time. Though Demings appears to be railroaded by that POLITICO article from a week or two ago that dug up her police chief history.

Harris just makes sense.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Mrs. Bass is not amused by that article.

https://twitter.com/karenbasstweets/status/1286668019251519489?s=21

[BidenHarris2020]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1286624753026039808

Give me a f--king break.

Lmao, any mention of anyone else and the Atlas KHive gets all in a tizzy.

My response was to the TITLE of the ARTICLE by Politico. Reading, and more importantly UNDERSTANDING is fundamental.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Kamala voted against cutting military spending by 10%. Can someone please remind me why so many people want her as VP?

Because cutting military spending is bad.

We spend more than the next top 10 countries combined... Why do we need to spend so much?

Our military investments pay off in more ways than war-making capacity (r&d, social progress, etc.), but even if we limit ourselves to just investments in fighting capacity, well...someone has to stand as a deterrent to Russia, China, and other aggressive, semi-fascist states.

If we’re looking to reduce the influence of “aggressive semi-fascist states” I think it’d be a good idea to look in the mirror first. And if we want to invest in social progress and R&D we can just do those directly instead of funneling more money into the Pentagon to figure out how to build more fighter jets.

Re:  "looking in the mirror"-- We already are.  Republicans are going to be trounced in November.  In what way does that preclude robust military funding, though?  Given the choice of fighting fascism at home or abroad, why not both?  Regarding the notion of direct spending on social progress and R&D, well, the average American trusts the military a lot more than it trusts almost any other public institution.  It's not optimal, but in politics you have to play to the electorate you have, not the one you want.

Anyway, to tie this back to the veep discussion, these are two big points in favor of Tammy Duckworth.  She's Asian American, so what better spokesperson for democracy to offer the peoples of East Asia?  And her military background should be highly appealing to America's swing voters.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286462426142187525

Honestly, this makes me favor Harris and Duckworth even more.  I love Warren, but if the Bernie bros think she'd be an acceptable running mate that's a good sign she'd be a bad pick.

[Meatball Ron]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286462426142187525

Honestly, this makes me favor Harris and Duckworth even more.  I love Warren, but if the Bernie bros think she'd be an acceptable running mate that's a good sign she'd be a bad pick.

Lol. Imagine of Bernie won the primary and the Hillary-aligned groups put out a list of acceptable/unacceptable VP picks. Totally finksing absurd.

[BidenHarris2020]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286462426142187525

This is hilarious. The arrogance lmao

[Lord Halifax]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286462426142187525

Honestly, this makes me favor Harris and Duckworth even more.  I love Warren, but if the Bernie bros think she'd be an acceptable running mate that's a good sign she'd be a bad pick.

Lol. Imagine of Bernie won the primary and the Hillary-aligned groups put out a list of acceptable/unacceptable VP picks. Totally finksing absurd.

Nah, quite reasonable. There are two wings in the party, both should be represented on the ticket.

[Torrain]

From this LA times article, it looks like there are 2 camps: a Kamala camp & a "not-Kamala but we don't know who" camp, which explains the weirdly rising & falling articles about everybody else (i.e. has anybody seen any new Val Demings articles recently? She was all the rage just a few weeks ago.):

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-07-24/big-lead-shifts-biden-running-mate-search

I heard Dan Pheiffer talking about the Obama VP selection a couple of weeks back, and he described how they would give super non-commital answers to the press about potential candidates, and let the speculation draw attention away from the three candidates actually in consideration, so as to preserve a tiny bit of suspense.

I imagine that Team Biden is doing the same thing now. They've decided on Harris or Duckworth, but whenever a reporter phones them with a list of female politicians they act surprised and refuse to comment.

That way the conversation stays on Biden's VP pick, without focusing on the candidate before she is actually selected.

I am 95% sure we're getting Harris on Aug 1st (to mark 100 years of the 19th Amendment (ratified in August 1920)), and all this noise is just misdirection so they can finish vetting, and writing an announcement speech.

[Not Me, Us]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286462426142187525

This is hilarious. The arrogance lmao

Ah yes. Because if there's one thing Harris supporters aren't, it's arrogant.

[BidenHarris2020]

Why not just issue an endorsement of specific candidates.  Instead they chose to release a "Not OK" list. How divisive

[BidenHarris2020]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286462426142187525

This is hilarious. The arrogance lmao

Ah yes. Because if there's one thing Harris supporters aren't, it's arrogant.

At least you know 💋

[brucejoel99]

I am 95% sure we're getting Harris on Aug 1st (to mark 100 years of the 19th Amendment (ratified in August 1920)), and all this noise is just misdirection so they can finish vetting, and writing an announcement speech.

The 100th anniversary isn't until Aug. 18th, which is Day 2 of the DNC, so it'd make sense if the VP voice-vote by acclamation is held on that day, but in keeping with past conventions & with the timeline Biden himself has said they're on (he apparently hasn't held the final one-on-one interviews yet), I don't think we're getting the actual running mate announcement 'til a few days before the DNC (so, ~Aug. 14th or so).

EDIT: acclamation, not acclimation.

[BidenHarris2020]

From this LA times article, it looks like there are 2 camps: a Kamala camp & a "not-Kamala but we don't know who" camp, which explains the weirdly rising & falling articles about everybody else (i.e. has anybody seen any new Val Demings articles recently? She was all the rage just a few weeks ago.):

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-07-24/big-lead-shifts-biden-running-mate-search

I heard Dan Pheiffer talking about the Obama VP selection a couple of weeks back, and he described how they would give super non-commital answers to the press about potential candidates, and let the speculation draw attention away from the three candidates actually in consideration, so as to preserve a tiny bit of suspense.

I imagine that Team Biden is doing the same thing now. They've decided on Harris or Duckworth, but whenever a reporter phones them with a list of female politicians they act surprised and refuse to comment.

That way the conversation stays on Biden's VP pick, without focusing on the candidate before she is actually selected.

I am 95% sure we're getting Harris on Aug 1st (to mark 100 years of the 19th Amendment (ratified in August 1920)), and all this noise is just misdirection so they can finish vetting, and writing an announcement speech.

I wasnt aware of the significance of August this year, as it relates to the 19th amendment. I'm even more convinced that's the date for the reveal. And it's a Saturday

[Torrain]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286462426142187525

This is hilarious. The arrogance lmao

Ah yes. Because if there's one thing Harris supporters aren't, it's arrogant.

So Harris supporters are arrogant, while the Sanders fans claiming to be leading a transformative revolution (while being refuted by the voters - twice) are humble...

[Torrain]

I am 95% sure we're getting Harris on Aug 1st (to mark 100 years of the 19th Amendment (ratified in August 1920)), and all this noise is just misdirection so they can finish vetting, and writing an announcement speech.

The 100th anniversary isn't until Aug. 18th, which is Day 2 of the DNC, so it'd make sense if the VP voice-vote by acclimation is held on that day, but in keeping with past conventions & with the timeline Biden himself has said they're on (he apparently hasn't held the final one-on-one interviews yet), I don't think we're getting the actual running mate announcement 'til a few days before the DNC (so, ~Aug. 14th or so).

I guess that makes sense. I was thinking that the month would be enough for the symbolism, I had no idea that the DNC was being held on the actual anniversary, that's going to make for a decent headline/speech.

I could see Biden waiting a week or two more, I just feel like after August starts, we're starting to run short on time (we're now under 100 days until the election). I get the waiting though. It minimises the time that Team Trump has to characterise the Veep nominee, and gives the Biden campaign a chance to grab the media attention, at the most opportune time for them (i.e. they have the ability to upend any news-cycle they want, in order to unveil the nominee).

I wasnt aware of the significance of August this year, as it relates to the 19th amendment. I'm even more convinced that's the date for the reveal. And it's a Saturday

Hmm, didn't realise it was a Saturday. Romney announced his VP pick on a Saturday, while Romney, McCain, Obama and Trump announced their nominees on Fridays.  (I've done a bit more research and found out that they also all waited until the back end of August to announce, so I may be a bit premature with Aug 1st).

[Ancestral Republican]

I mean not supporting a very modest cut in our massively bloated military welfare program should be disqualifying for any progressive. Like them or not, the people you pejoratively call "Bernie Bros" represent a substantial and growing portion of the Democratic Party and it's important to have a ticket that broadly covers the major perspectives in the Democratic Party.

And honestly someone who thinks the military has the right amount of our money in 2020 is completely tone-deaf and clueless.

A lot of noise about Susan Rice at the moment - a pretty good choice imo. 

[Ancestral Republican]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286462426142187525

This is hilarious. The arrogance lmao

Ah yes. Because if there's one thing Harris supporters aren't, it's arrogant.

So Harris supporters are arrogant, while the Sanders fans claiming to be leading a transformative revolution (while being refuted by the voters - twice) are humble...

That awesome moment when you live in Scotland and go online to tell Americans they're arrogant for wanting healthcare.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I mean not supporting a very modest cut in our massively bloated military welfare program should be disqualifying for any progressive. Like them or not, the people you pejoratively call "Bernie Bros" represent a substantial and growing portion of the Democratic Party and it's important to have a ticket that broadly covers the major perspectives in the Democratic Party.

Imagine thinking that a random amendment (one of hundreds), with virtually no detail or serious consideration to its consequences, is the proper way to defund 10% of the military.

This is a typical Sanders amendment in that it wasn't written with any intention of passing.  It was only written to use as a wedge against his colleagues.

Here is the relevant text for this amendment that you guys can't shut up about.  You can't tell me with a straight face that this is a serious attempt at policymaking.

       (c) Funding.--
       (1) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of amounts
     in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $75,000,000,000
     to the Administrator to carry out this section.
       (2) Limitation.--No funds made available under this
     subsection shall be provided to--
       (A) any person who is a Federal elected official or serving
     in a Senior Executive Service position; or
       (B) any entity that is controlled in whole or in part by a
     Federal elected official or serving in a Senior Executive
     Service position.
       (3) Emergency designation.--
       (A) In general.--The amounts provided under this section
     are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
     section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2
     U.S.C. 933(g)).
       (B) Designation in senate.--In the Senate, this section is
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
     4112(a) of H. Con. Res. 71 (115th Congress), the concurrent
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.

[GoTfan]

I mean not supporting a very modest cut in our massively bloated military welfare program should be disqualifying for any progressive. Like them or not, the people you pejoratively call "Bernie Bros" represent a substantial and growing portion of the Democratic Party and it's important to have a ticket that broadly covers the major perspectives in the Democratic Party.

Imagine thinking that a random amendment (one of hundreds), with virtually no detail or serious consideration to its consequences, is the proper way to defund 10% of the military.

This is a typical Sanders amendment in that it wasn't written with any intention of passing.  It was only written to use as a wedge against his colleagues.

Here is the relevant text for this amendment that you guys can't shut up about.  You can't tell me with a straight face that this is a serious attempt at policymaking.

      (c) Funding.--
       (1) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of amounts
     in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $75,000,000,000
     to the Administrator to carry out this section.
       (2) Limitation.--No funds made available under this
     subsection shall be provided to--
       (A) any person who is a Federal elected official or serving
     in a Senior Executive Service position; or
       (B) any entity that is controlled in whole or in part by a
     Federal elected official or serving in a Senior Executive
     Service position.
       (3) Emergency designation.--
       (A) In general.--The amounts provided under this section
     are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
     section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2
     U.S.C. 933(g)).
       (B) Designation in senate.--In the Senate, this section is
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
     4112(a) of H. Con. Res. 71 (115th Congress), the concurrent
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.

Did Sanders kill your dog or something mate?

Seriously, you froth at the mouth in hatred every time he's mentioned.

I also find it hilarious that the people constantly preaching about party unity seem intent on dividng the Democratic Party.

[Torrain]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286462426142187525

This is hilarious. The arrogance lmao

Ah yes. Because if there's one thing Harris supporters aren't, it's arrogant.

So Harris supporters are arrogant, while the Sanders fans claiming to be leading a transformative revolution (while being refuted by the voters - twice) are humble...

That awesome moment when you live in Scotland and go online to tell Americans they're arrogant for wanting healthcare.

1. I never mentioned healthcare, and was speaking more to the frustrating aspects of the Sanders fanbase, rather than any specific policy.

2. Please don't NHS-shame me. I am fully aware of my privilege. The NHS gave me extra time with three of my grandparents before they died from cancer, and protected our family from significant economic strain. Moreover, my aunt is receiving hospice care right now, from some of the most admirable people in the country. We are blessed, and I will never forget that.

However.

I'm a pragmatist. I believe that the best way to expand healthcare is to elect a democratic trifecta, and I believe Joe Biden had the best chance of uniting the party to pursue that outcome.

You can't go from the US model to the NHS overnight, not in a country with a system like the USA. Obviously it's not my place to tell you how to do it, but to imagine that you can just create a single-payer system in the space between 2020 and 2022 feels like a stretch.