I hear you. it would be nice if we could just snap our fingers and make someone like George Clooney or Katy Perry the President. Unfortunately, we have to operate with the parameters of a BINARY Choice (among pro politucians, representing the 2 major parties). It is what it is.
I know his record on gay marriage and it was better than most Republicans and in line with most democrats in 1996. That bill got a supermajority in the Senate, and that was not thanks to republicans alone. Most Dems voted in favor of DOMA and that was in line with the majority of democratic voters who also opposed same sex marriage. Some did not but even they were very reticent to discuss the issue in terms of gay rights. They couched it in terms of 'states rights' He 'evolved' a little more publicly around 2011-2012 than most national democrats , including Carter, Clinton and Obama. It was in 2012 on Meet the Press Biden endorsed same sex marriage as a Vice President. "In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Biden said, "I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one other are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties." He actually screwed up because Obama had not finished his evolution, and was forced to backtrack through a spokesman. But that interview was crucial in pushing Obama and the rest of the administration to take an openly strong position before the 2012 election. LOL Typical Biden. Obama forgave him and gay rights activists were thankful. His statement had nothing to do with any of his efforts to gain the presidency. Obama was running for re-election in 2012. Biden ran in 1988, and in 2004.
Well, we have no realistic choice but that of a Democrat or a Republican in office. That much is correct. But he (or she) does not have to be a professional politician. Certainly, our current president is not.
If Joe Biden feels that he cannot make it for four years (I am a political junkie; and I have not heard this), the responsible thing to do would be to withdraw from contention. Failing that, the next most responsible thing to do--and the first, I am sure, simply will not happen--would be to appoint, as his running mate, someone who (presumably) could carry out the duties of the presidency, if necessary. But why would it be necessary--or even desirable--to narrow the field of that selection to the also-rans of the Democratic primaries?
The mere fact that "[m]ost Dems voted in favor of DOMA" is hardly on point. If Joe Biden truly thought that DOMA was wrong, why did he not stand up and vote against it? In any case, can you seriously deny all these other flip-flops? (You have seized upon only one--while blithely ignoring the rest.)
Unfortuneatly I am a political junkie. I don't write down time and date of everything I hear, but I do remember Creepy Joe saying something to the effect his pick for VP is critical because after all he is no "spring chicken"......and we know that. His blunders and gaffs are bad and only increase under pressure. Sunday night we're gonna see a hint of that with comrade Bernie. It is just a taste of what we'll see when he's up against "The Donald".
It is exactly the point. His views then were in alignment with the larger culture's views and he reflected them in that vote. He ended up being slightly ahead of the curve on same sex marriage. As I said earlier if you don't have any 'flip-flops' that means over the course of a political career you don't evolve, or change. You want to keep electing Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms for their consistency, go for it. I will take the flip flops on social issues thanks..
I will not digress into the question of whether Donald Trump is good, bad, or a mixed bag--that is certainly a legitimate question; but it is not a question for this thread--but he does, at least, prove that it is not necessary to be a professional politician in order to achieve high office.
Like you, I do not write down the "time and date of everything I hear"; so I can certainly understand that. But the mere fact that he "is no 'spring chicken'"--by his own admission--does not mean that he is likely to leave his term in office unfinished. (It does make it more likely than it would be for, say, a fortysomething or a fiftysomething; but it is still not likely, in my opinion.)
Why, exactly, should his views be molded by "the larger culture"? Do we really want someone in high office--especially the presidency!--who cannot think for himself?
So you do want to vote in a Jesse Helms and make sure he stays a Jesse Helms for 30 years, right. He certainly did not let the larger culture mold him did he.
I think you are guilty of using the ad hominem fallacy here. But not everyone who is consistent is a racist. Moreover, I have no reason to believe that Joe Biden has just naturally (and harmlessly) "evolved." Rather, it seems much more likely that he has (cynically) acted in his own political self-interest.
No some are stubborn homophobes. You need to check out the record of Helms on gay rights and HIV research and drug access money. The man cannot be accused of changing his mind for political or any other reason that way there can be no debate about the why or the sincerity. Just say 'NO!' to anything that might resemble a 'flipflop' no matter how many are dying because of your 'NO!' Own your model for statesmanship, pjohns. That's what you demand, definitive proof that such a creature does not exist in politics, is to punish all change and reward the lack of any change.
righteousness demands some things NEVER change. I know you don't agree....that is a given. You just like to try new things.
Ah, but I did not make Jesse Helms my model. You did. Your argument seems to be that any change must--just by definition--be from a wrong position to a right (and even righteous) one. But why do you believe that it is impossible (or even rather difficult) for the opposite to be the case? (Oh, an addendum: It was only very recently--during the current campaign season--that Joe Biden renounced his former position as concerning the Hyde Amendment. Do you not find that timing to be at all suspicious?)
Knock it off. You want me to condemn Biden for changing his stance on same sex marriage before Obama did, before Carter did and either Clinton ever did, because that's not supposed to be good enough or pure enough and you want me to find it 'convenient' that when evolved, he was not running for office, but already held office as VP. You are wrong on literally all counts and refuse steadfastly to admit it. Its your narrative for your political agenda. You'll have to prove it using something other than DOMA, or same sex marriage. I prefer my politicians to grow in office, to evolve and not be afraid to change. You want to punish them. I thought this was a serious conversation. I was wrong. Talk about the Hyde amendment with someone else. You have proven this a waste of time.
Okay. Just run away, if you prefer. The fact remains that Joe Biden did not change his stance as concerning the Hyde Amendment until the current campaign season. Perhaps you do not find that at all suspicious...
She was being vetted for VP, but, then this: FINALLY! Amy Klobuchar Admits Trump Miracle Drug Hydroxychloroquine Saved Her Husband’s Life
Klobuchar is a better pick than Stacy Abrams who is nothing more than an unaccomplished professional victim.
