US Politics

Verone, 59, says he has several medical problems, including a growth on this chest and two ruptured disks. He also says he's out of work and has no insurance.

So, according to Verone, that's why he walked into a bank in Gastonia earlier this month and gave a teller a note that said "This is a bank robbery. Please only give me one dollar." Then, he waited for the police.

Getting less attention is this passage in the report from WCNC-TV in Charlotte:

"He is hoping for a three-year sentence. He would then be able to collect Social Security when he got out and said he would head for the beach. 'I've already looked at a condominium. I've spoken to a realtor on Myrtle Beach,' Verone said."
Click to expand...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...to-rob-bank-of-1-to-get-health-care-in-prison
 
For people who want a left-wing take on ACA/BCRA/single-payer, and have some slack time at work, this podcast, from 00:04 to 1:04, is very informative:
 
Kamala Harris
- Has hired Clinton staff, presumably for key positions
- Has rented space in DC, presumably for campaign affairs
- Has met with Clinton donors, presumably for support/funding

We have the next Dem primary winner, I announce this early.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Kamala Harris
- Has hired Clinton staff, presumably for key positions
- Has rented space in DC, presumably for campaign affairs
- Has met with Clinton donors, presumably for support/funding

We have the next Dem primary winner, I announce this early.
Click to expand...
I think the Dems are gonna go with a white guy next time.
 
Neutral said:
I think the Dems are gonna go with a white guy next time.
Click to expand...

With the amount of names being mentioned as possible candidates, i fear that it will turn into a circus on the Democrat side with the number of people running in the primaries.

It happened on the GOP side last year with 17 candidates trying to get the nomination.
 
Last edited:
Neutral said:
I think the Dems are gonna go with a white guy next time.
Click to expand...
Not many credible ones floating around though. Adam Schiff? Joe Kennedy?

Gavin Newsom is still just a lieutenant governor, he has no national profile either.

It'll be between Booker and Harris I think.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Not many credible ones floating around though. Adam Schiff? Joe Kennedy?

Gavin Newsom is still just a lieutenant governor, he has no national profile either.

It'll be between Booker and Harris I think.
Click to expand...
I think Booker is finished after his vote on drug imports.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Kamala Harris
- Has hired Clinton staff, presumably for key positions
- Has rented space in DC, presumably for campaign affairs
- Has met with Clinton donors, presumably for support/funding

We have the next Dem primary winner, I announce this early.
Click to expand...

If she's hired Clinton staffers, then alarm bells are already ringing in my ears.

If Harris cant see the need to have a complete break from the Clinton campaign and to move on from that toxic brand, then i am not optimistic she would be the right person for the nomination.
 
Sweet Square said:
I think Booker is finished after his vote on drug imports.
Click to expand...
He's submarined after that vote. Will float back sometimes soon.

Logically speaking, he has the right profile for establishment Democrats. Well educated, executive and legislative credentials, black, well spoken, will have no lack of funding due to proximity to the business world. He isn't something the progressive wing would prefer but I dont think he'll run into the same resistance shown to Clinton should he get the nomination.

Harris though seem more likely. She has a clean slate and her position on the Senate Intelligence Committee allow her plenty of national spotlight.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
He's submarined after that vote. Will float back sometimes soon.

Logically speaking, he has the right profile for establishment Democrats. Well educated, executive and legislative credentials, black, well spoken, will have no lack of funding due to proximity to the business world. He isn't something the progressive wing would prefer but I dont think he'll run into the same resistance shown to Clinton should he get the nomination.

Harris though seem more likely. She has a clean slate and her position on the Senate Intelligence Committee allow her plenty of national spotlight.
Click to expand...
Agree that he fits the bill for the dems. I think his chances come down to how powerful and organised the progressive wing of the party is. Whoever their candidate will be(I guess it might have to be Bernie)there's no reason why they can't turn Bookers vote on drug prices into the equivalent of the UK Labour Party welfare bill a few years back.

But overall I think your right, Harris will most likely be the front runner and could be very hard to beat.
 
What makes you guys think Kamala will be a shoe in for the nomination?

From what i've seen, she doesn't stand out whatsoever so i must be missing something. Is it just the fact the Clinton machine is moving into place to support her at this very early stage.
 
Fergies Gum said:
What makes you guys think Kamala will be a shoe in for the nomination?

From what i've seen, she doesn't stand out whatsoever so i must be missing something. Is it just the fact the Clinton machine is moving into place to support her at this very early stage.
Click to expand...

Party backing, no scandals to delve into, good platform to position herself as the anti-Trump, woman of colour.

In years past she'd be more of a sleeper hit or VP candidate, but with the Dem field being wholly uninspiring she's quite well placed for a strong run.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Party backing, no scandals to delve into, good platform to position herself as the anti-Trump, woman of colour.

In years past she'd be more of a sleeper hit or VP candidate, but with the Dem field being wholly uninspiring she's quite well placed for a strong run.
Click to expand...

A quick search and this is one of the controversies that come up.

Late last year, lawyers for California Attorney General Kamala Harris caused a controversy after they argued against an early prison-release program, because they believed it would “severely impact fire camp participation.” Harris distanced herself from those comments after a public uproar.
Click to expand...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/prisoners-conned-into-fighting-wildfires
 
Fergies Gum said:
A quick search and this is one of the controversies that come up.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/prisoners-conned-into-fighting-wildfires
Click to expand...
Every politicians have those kind of 'scandals'. Sanders has his wife's college (now under investigation with the FBI), support for the F-35, nuclear waste dump on a town of mostly people of Hispanic descent. It didnt stick.

I'd argue that it could even help her against the 'soft on crime' tag usually stuck on Democratic candidate.

Something that would damage her boat is verifiable financial entanglements with big business - advocacy in return for contribution, for example. She was a law enforcement official in CA, first time Senator with no controversial vote, there is very little to throw on her. Not having a record is a big plus in running for office nowadays.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Party backing, no scandals to delve into, good platform to position herself as the anti-Trump, woman of colour.

In years past she'd be more of a sleeper hit or VP candidate, but with the Dem field being wholly uninspiring she's quite well placed for a strong run.
Click to expand...

She's a complete lightweight and her race (which is actually half black/half Indian) is more of a hindrance than an advantage.
 
Fergies Gum said:
What makes you guys think Kamala will be a shoe in for the nomination?

From what i've seen, she doesn't stand out whatsoever so i must be missing something. Is it just the fact the Clinton machine is moving into place to support her at this very early stage.
Click to expand...

You're correct. She has zero credentials to run for President as she only just got elected to the Senate. And trust me, she's no Obama.
 
Raoul said:
She's a complete lightweight and her race (which is actually half black/half Indian) is more of a hindrance than an advantage.
Click to expand...
We used to laugh about Trump's chance.

All you need to run for office nowadays is nice platitudes and an impressive-sounding profile. She will run, whether she'll win no one can be sure, but she'll be top of the pack.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
We used to laugh about Trump's chance.

All you need to run for office nowadays is nice platitudes and an impressive-sounding profile. She will run, whether she'll win no one can be sure, but she'll be top of the pack.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to suggest she'll be near the top of the pack as she hasn't demonstrated any sort of aptitude at a national level.
 
Raoul said:
There's nothing to suggest she'll be near the top of the pack as she hasn't demonstrated any sort of aptitude at a national level.
Click to expand...
Being an attack dog on the Trump-Russia affair in televised public hearings is quite apt.

You might not want to accept this, but come 2020 she'll be there. Unless Biden decides to run, the likes of Joe Kennedy or whoever obscure white males the Dems can concoct won't be head and shoulder above her.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Being an attack dog on the Trump-Russia affair in televised public hearings is quite apt.

You might not want to accept this, but come 2020 she'll be there. Unless Biden decides to run, the likes of Joe Kennedy or whoever obscure white males the Dems can concoct won't be head and shoulder above her.
Click to expand...

Except that she isn't an attack dog on Trump/Russia and if you lived in the US you would know this. Her only claim to fame so far is asking a few touch questions and getting mansplained by McCain that she has to let the guest answer the questions. Moreover, its far too early to make any credible predictions as to who is leading the Dem pack for 2020. I have my favorites and others have theirs, but all things said, we simply don't know. I do know that there's a very high chance that the person who wins in 2020 will be a white male.
 
Raoul said:
Except that she isn't an attack dog on Trump/Russia and if you lived in the US you would know this. Her only claim to fame so far is asking a few touch questions and getting mansplained by McCain that she has to let the guest answer the questions. Moreover, its far too early to make any credible predictions as to who is leading the Dem pack for 2020. I have my favorites and others have theirs, but all things said, we simply don't know. I do know that there's a very high chance that the person who wins in 2020 will be a white male.
Click to expand...
I don't even have a favourite, because Warren won't run. What I know, however, is that whoever manages to capture the Southern black votes will have the highest chance of securing the Democratic nomination, and if reports are to be believed that she's received backings from Clintonworld then the only other credible opponent for her for that demographic is Charlie Booker.

Of course, it's still quite early, but the machinations already started. In a year time we will start seeing people flock to Iowa. 12 months is a lifetime in politics, but bar an earth-shattering event, it's not likely a candidate will appear out of thin air to sweep the field.
 
Fergies Gum said:
If she's hired Clinton staffers, then alarm bells are already ringing in my ears.

If Harris cant see the need to have a complete break from the Clinton campaign and to move on from that toxic brand, then i am not optimistic she would be the right person for the nomination.
Click to expand...

She needs experience to run the campaign. These staffers are probably handed over down the line, Obama staffers would have worked for Clinton and now will move to next Dem candidate etc. They are mostly on in-party choices. I doubt the campaign staffers will drag her down to Clinton level.

InfiniteBoredom said:
no scandals to delve into
Click to expand...

The one with Mnuchin already gets bought up everyitme her nomination is discussed, but then most politicians have something like this. Shouldn't affect her much.

Raoul said:
She's a complete lightweight and her race (which is actually half black/half Indian) is more of a hindrance than an advantage.
Click to expand...

She'd score well with minorities, 1s2/2nd generation Americans, liberals, women...mostly strike a chord with the core party supporters. Her strong stance anti-Trump may tilt some neutrals...but then everything hinges on her own charisma which we've seen very less till date. She should dump the "A Better Deal" dem policy and do something more adventurous to get people interested.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
She needs experience to run the campaign. These staffers are probably handed over down the line, Obama staffers would have worked for Clinton and now will move to next Dem candidate etc. They are mostly on in-party choices. I doubt the campaign staffers will drag her down to Clinton level.
Click to expand...
They tend to go and work for the tories over here.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I don't even have a favourite, because Warren won't run. What I know, however, is that whoever manages to capture the Southern black votes will have the highest chance of securing the Democratic nomination, and if reports are to be believed that she's received backings from Clintonworld then the only other credible opponent for her for that demographic is Charlie Booker.

Of course, it's still quite early, but the machinations already started. In a year time we will start seeing people flock to Iowa. 12 months is a lifetime in politics, but bar an earth-shattering event, it's not likely a candidate will appear out of thin air to sweep the field.
Click to expand...

It would be great, but it ain't happening.

Like @Raoul said Obama is a once in a generational talent, truthfully he won't be fully appreciated until about 6-8 years down the line.
Harris is fantastic, but she's not ready, Obama wasn't ready but you trusted him. The sexism & racism in America won't allow people to elect a black woman, not now, and certainly not before a white woman either.

The Dem's will be up against one of the most unpredictable candidates in Trump, and he clearly has millions of silent voters - barring a huge scandal, they will just vote for him again. Therefore the Dem's need a aesthetically safe choice, with a charismatic persona.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
She'd score well with minorities, 1s2/2nd generation Americans, liberals, women...mostly strike a chord with the core party supporters. Her strong stance anti-Trump may tilt some neutrals...but then everything hinges on her own charisma which we've seen very less till date. She should dump the "A Better Deal" dem policy and do something more adventurous to get people interested.
Click to expand...

Hillary was a white woman who lost the election because too many women voted for Trump, so I don't think Harris being a woman will be some sort of advantage. If there's one thing we've learned the hard way from the past campaign its that the establishment choice doesn't necessarily have an advantage, and when you throw in a few other barriers (ie. being a woman, being ethnic etc), then it really becomes difficult. My view is that the candidate who can effectively channel the Bernie policies and enthusiasm, but not be Bernie, will have an advantage. Harris doesn't strike me as being in the Bernie camp, she's more in the establishment Hillary camp.
 
vi1lain said:
The Dem's will be up against one of the most unpredictable candidates in Trump, and he clearly has millions of silent voters - barring a huge scandal, they will just vote for him again. Therefore the Dem's need a aesthetically safe choice, with a charismatic persona.
Click to expand...

People tend not to make logical choice, especially when it comes to voting. We have minimal control on events and they tend to follow emotive rather than logical course.

Being charismatic of course is a requirement. We'll see soon enough if she can work a stump speech.
 
Raoul said:
Hillary was a white woman who lost the election because too many women voted for Trump, so I don't think Harris being a woman will be some sort of advantage. If there's one thing we've learned the hard way from the past campaign its that the establishment choice doesn't necessarily have an advantage, and when you throw in a few other barriers (ie. being a woman, being ethnic etc), then it really becomes difficult. My view is that the candidate who can effectively channel the Bernie policies and enthusiasm, but not be Bernie, will have an advantage. Harris doesn't strike me as being in the Bernie camp, she's more in the establishment Hillary camp.
Click to expand...

1. Hillary still won a lot. For all here uninspiring party hack persona, she nearly pulled it off. 227 votes plus 10-12 other states where she lost marginally. A fresh candidate in line with Party establishment, but without the baggage Hillary had should swing much more votes than her easily.
2. And Harris at least in her senate role comes across much more hard/fiery than Hillary.
3. You have the anti-incumbency factor. He just didn't deliver anything he promised. This won't matter much with his core supporters, but those who were swayed by his 'drain the swamp' might be open to be swayed back again after being bored by his antics.
4. Relationship with GOP is strained. Lots of senators/representatives are not really enamoured. I won't be surprised if they field a heavyweight candidate on their own.

The big hurdle for Harris would be if Sanders or Bien drop their hats in the ring. If she fairly beats those two in the primaries, then I think she has a good shat at the big one.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
1. Hillary still won a lot. For all here uninspiring party hack persona, she nearly pulled it off. 227 votes plus 10-12 other states where she lost marginally. A fresh candidate in line with Party establishment, but without the baggage Hillary had should swing much more votes than her easily.
2. And Harris at least in her senate role comes across much more hard/fiery than Hillary.
3. You have the anti-incumbency factor. He just didn't deliver anything he promised. This won't matter much with his core supporters, but those who were swayed by his 'drain the swamp' might be open to be swayed back again after being bored by his antics.
4. Relationship with GOP is strained. Lots of senators/representatives are not really enamoured. I won't be surprised if they field a heavyweight candidate on their own.

The big hurdle for Harris would be if Sanders or Bien drop their hats in the ring. If she fairly beats those two in the primaries, then I think she has a good shat at the big one.
Click to expand...

Trouble is Hillary was running against a vile non-politiician and still managed to lose. If Trump is still around in 2020, you can bet he will employ identical tactics and is already relishing the chance of running against a woman so he can dismantle her with his usual propaganda. Right now, the only candidate on the Dem side who can go toe to toe with Trump is Gavin Newsom, but he needs to first win the CA governorship then start a Presidential campaign based on being in charge of the world's 6th biggest economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.