KCRag Forum

Yes, at this point it seems like a Biden Vs Trump rematch which just makes me want to puke. Biden’s been doing this too long to not want 4 more years and Trumps ego will want to avenge his loss. Absolutely pathetic.

Mary Trump made a good point on TV. She said she didn't think Donald would run in 2024 because he would never risk losing a second time.

https://people.com/politics/mary-trump- ... n-in-2024/

I think Biden will attempt a second term, but it will likely depend on his health in early 2024. He was seen out riding bikes today with his wife. I doubt Trump could make it 10 blocks on a bike, and he's younger.

I could also see Biden handing the reigns over to Kamala after four years.

^One possible scenario is that Biden doesn't intend to play out a full second term but may still run for second term and then resign and hand over to Kamala, depending on who he/DNC views are more electable before next election. If GOP has a strong relatively moderate contender, Biden may have a better shot than Kamala. Lots of dependencies, his health, etc.

earthling wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 2:44 pm ^One possible scenario is that Biden doesn't intend to play out a full second term but may still run for second term and then resign and hand over to Kamala, depending on who he/DNC views are more electable before next election. If GOP has a strong relatively moderate contender, Biden may have a better shot than Kamala. Lots of dependencies, his health, etc.

It's four years out. The last two democratic party presidents were not all that known 4 years prior to their election (Clinton and Obama) and I suspect we could see something similar 4 years from now although one has to figure Harris will have to be part of the equation (unless the next 4 years are a total disaster). The republicans that get elected, on the other hand, tend to be candidates with already established names. So perhaps Trump could run again and while he has a large following, he also has a tremendous amount of baggage. A 78 year old Trump, however, may not be even what the republican party wants. I could see some sentiment among Trump supporters for Don Jr (kind of like enlisting George W) but Trump Jr has no political savvy whatsoever.

A lot will depend on if there are prosecutions that lay bare criminal activity. I've read that New York State and the Manhattan District Attorney are doing investigations that might result in RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) prosecutions. A successful conviction might result in seizure of the Trump Organization assets, and imprisonment of its' members/ownership. These would be state charges, not federal, so any federal pardons might not protect them.

That might prevent them from participating in politics for a long time.

Highlander wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 5:43 pm

earthling wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 2:44 pm ^One possible scenario is that Biden doesn't intend to play out a full second term but may still run for second term and then resign and hand over to Kamala, depending on who he/DNC views are more electable before next election. If GOP has a strong relatively moderate contender, Biden may have a better shot than Kamala. Lots of dependencies, his health, etc.

It's four years out. The last two democratic party presidents were not all that known 4 years prior to their election (Clinton and Obama) and I suspect we could see something similar 4 years from now although one has to figure Harris will have to be part of the equation (unless the next 4 years are a total disaster). The republicans that get elected, on the other hand, tend to be candidates with already established names. So perhaps Trump could run again and while he has a large following, he also has a tremendous amount of baggage. A 78 year old Trump, however, may not be even what the republican party wants. I could see some sentiment among Trump supporters for Don Jr (kind of like enlisting George W) but Trump Jr has no political savvy whatsoever.

I keep hearing Don Jr’s name mentioned as well and that would suck!

Buttigieg nominated for Transportation Secretary in the Biden Administration.

Why does Pete Buttigieg want to be transportation secretary?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics ... index.html

FangKC wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 5:55 pm Buttigieg nominated for Transportation Secretary in the Biden Administration.

Why does Pete Buttigieg want to be transportation secretary?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics ... index.html

Is this good news or not? From what I understand he’s got little experience outside of the municipal level of transportation.

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:15 am

FangKC wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 5:55 pm Buttigieg nominated for Transportation Secretary in the Biden Administration.

Why does Pete Buttigieg want to be transportation secretary?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics ... index.html

Is this good news or not? From what I understand he’s got little experience outside of the municipal level of transportation.

80% of the country lives in an urban area. Having experience at the city level is completely relevant since it would cover many modes.

I'm more than open to counterarguments, but it definitely seems to me like Rahm Emmanuel, ghoulish though he is, would be a better choice for DOT. I don't really know Chicago super well, but people I know there who otherwise rightfully hate him seem to grudgingly admit that he was pretty good on the CTA (and it sounds like Chicago has been pretty successful at implementing modernization/upgrades that NYC's MTA was claiming would take decades and I suppose now are probably just not going to happen at all in the wake of covid). The Elon Musk vaporware tunnel project wasn't a great look, but I don't anticipate that the sentient McKinsey Powerpoint presentation would be especially more resistant to that particular brand of charlatanism anyway. Buttigieg's main qualification for the job seems to be that he already has experience tearing down poor minority neighborhoods in the name of "economic development."

Sometimes it comes down to who the president is comfortable with. Biden may not be comfortable with someone divisive like Emmanuel. Buttigieg was a valuable proxy for Biden during the campaign -- especially on forums like Fox News. In fact, Buttigieg is probably a better communicator than Biden.

I wondered if Emmanuel might get a cabinet post as well, but there might have been some concern if he could get Senate confirmation.

I'm not really talking about the politics of it or who Biden likes more (obviously the only reason we're talking about any of these terrible people in the first place is that Biden isn't going to pick anybody decent for anything), just who seems to me like they'd be better at the actual job out of the names that have been floated. Being a better communicator than Biden isn't a high bar to clear anyway, the ape that learned sign language is a better communicator than Biden.

phuqueue wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:44 am I'm not really talking about the politics of it or who Biden likes more (obviously the only reason we're talking about any of these terrible people in the first place is that Biden isn't going to pick anybody decent for anything), just who seems to me like they'd be better at the actual job out of the names that have been floated. Being a better communicator than Biden isn't a high bar to clear anyway, the ape that learned sign language is a better communicator than Biden.

It's also never announced that someone was asked and they turned it down. The person who is publicly announced for a role could be a third or fourth choice in some cases.

That your attacks are so lazy shows you aren't taking the time for critical thinking.

However many mystery choices there might have been who turned it down or whether Rahm turned it down or was never offered it in the first place doesn't really have any bearing on the question that was actually raised, which was "is Pete at DOT good news?" or the opinion that I offered, which was "the other person who was specifically rumored to be under consideration would have been better." "Is Pete at DOT good news?" is a notably different question from "is Pete the very best person who would have accepted DOT?"

Pete was picked for one reason only, to keep him on TV and elevate his status as the future democratic nominee for POTUS.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:30 am Pete was picked for one reason only, to keep him on TV and elevate his status as the future democratic nominee for POTUS.

I don’t think the secretary of transportation is as famous a position as you think it is.

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:46 am

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:30 am Pete was picked for one reason only, to keep him on TV and elevate his status as the future democratic nominee for POTUS.

I don’t think the secretary of transportation is as famous a position as you think it is.

Traditionally it’s not. Most people don’t even know who it is but Biden’s entire economic plan “build back better” is built around infrastructure. Pete will be the face of this plan and will be the most visible and interviewed SOT we’ve ever had.

While not my first choice for the presidency, I do appreciate the acknowledgment by him that federal infrastructure projects are a solid way to both boost the economy directly through employment opportunities, and indirectly boost economic growth with overall increases in efficiency with improved/expanded infrastructure. I’m one who’s rather for limiting government, but I feel as though this is an area the feds should have a little more involvement in more often than they do.

Pete was thrown a bone as a reward for dropping out of the primary when he did and becoming a Biden surrogate, that's all.

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:32 pm While not my first choice for the presidency, I do appreciate the acknowledgment by him that federal infrastructure projects are a solid way to both boost the economy directly through employment opportunities, and indirectly boost economic growth with overall increases in efficiency with improved/expanded infrastructure. I’m one who’s rather for limiting government, but I feel as though this is an area the feds should have a little more involvement in more often than they do.

A per capita funding formula.

A state can fund all the lane miles it wants, but past four lanes if the state goes beyond a certain amount of lane miles relative to how many congressional districts it has it's ability for federal funding decreases and each year it comes back a little. Basically keep the money for more populated states.