You heard it here first, Joe Biden will NOT be the nominee...…...

Unless Biden becomes seriously ill within the next few months, there would be so much controversy not nominating him that the Dems have not other choice but to nomimate Biden who essentially won in a landslide (after taking South Carolina).

Assuming your long shot prediction is correct, who would the Dems nominate in place of Biden?

Really? I am guessing this rotten, soul-less, pond scum of a human being has the best shot.

---

I think Biden will use health concerns to step down. The DNC has a clause that will let them choose his replacement in the case of debilitating health problems. It would be best if he already has chosen his VP, which would quash some concerns about the democratic process. This isn't a conspiracy theory, but rather a bold prediction.

---

I'm perfectly capable of interpreting what I read, as are you.  It doesn't take much intellect to see what is below is just bullying.  But in case you don't see it, in case the mirror is foggy, let me show you.

[quote pid='1302785' dateline='1588726918']

You should let Gabe speak for himself.  Don't speak

World view is not a sneaky word. I prefer to use "world view" to "ideology" when speaking broadly. I like to use the word ideology when we are speaking about something that is or should be clearly defined. There is a way in which all of us perceive the world that affects our rationale. It's important for people to examine the circumstances that helped shaped the way they think about the world. Our biases can cause us to believe we are making logical choices when we are not. 

For example, at some point in your life, you started thinking that because you were able to google information that you were also able to interpret it. I think I can reduce your life to a simple and meaningless story because I'm just that much of a jerk /. This created a bias within yourself that believes you contribute something useful to the conversation when you don't. Don't talk. Until you can acknowledge that you're a pretentious blowhard, you're going to have this warped view of the way you are interacting with others. And if you ever do come back groveling, admitting to being a pretentious blowhard, I'll just use that as my newest excuse to ignore and dismiss what you have to say, not because it's right or wrong, but because it's from you. In other words, I'm trying to manipulate your behavior by offering you approval that I don't actually intend to give at any point Whether you have democratic or republican ideologies, all of us will continue to be tormented, because you are insufferable. But not only am I always right about politics and personal relations, I'm also very well liked. So I definitely have room to talk about who is insufferable and who is not Unfortunately, no amount of evidence will convince you this is the truth. We're just going to have to keep reading your inane drivel, while you go on having a high opinion of yourself. Everyone loses, really. You see why examining your world view is important? Adopt a low opinion of yourself and go away

---

You first, chum.
[/quote]

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Well, you got about half of that correct.

---

Gotta lump you in with CrownyTrump, MBJ. The above statement is truly disheartening, even coming from you.

Do you disagree? Have you not noticed the delight in their reporting of US deaths while they find a way to blame it on Trump?

---

My guess is the socialist communist "progressive" democrat VP candidate is going to be Gretchen Whitmer.  She has been in the news quite a bit lately and is loved by the socialist communist "progressive" media.  Meanwhile I think that Hillary is waiting to swoop in and "save" the socialist communist democrat party.

They're both in Biden's binders full of women.

Still as disheartening this morning, perhaps even more so. Delight? I've seen anger, frustration...but delight? Jesus, dude 

Gotta lump you in with CrownyTrump, MBJ. The above statement is truly disheartening, even coming from you.

Come on Gabe, you're better than that.  Have you watched any of the MSM?  News4jax keeps a running total and breathlessly reports any new deaths.  Tell me.  Why is The House not going back to work while The Senate is?  Safety?  Or the fact that it gives Nancy Pelosi more power?

Why are deaths covered so much but not people that have recovered or have tested asymptomatic?  What about the suppression of good news as opposed the the new number of deaths?

Why is it not being reported that most deaths come from people that had pre-existing conditions rather than the "average person"?

I have. I still have not been presented with any substantial evidence that democrats are hoping for more death and economic destruction - taking delight in it. And I'm seriously shocked, JIB - you know as well as I do why deaths are reported vs. recoveries...and it isn't rooted in politics. It's the "Why doesn't MTV play music videos anymore?" question - because the average consumer is a mindless moron stimulated by violence, death, catastrophe. Fun, feel-good news is bad for ratings and doesn't allow people to take any side. See any accident-caused traffic jam for justification in that assertion.

Gabe, everyone suffers from bias, you would agree to that, right? I don't think he's implicitly incorrect in his assumption. In my opinion, this is not dissimilar from the roll-out of universal health care. Conservative politicians wouldn't actively "wish" for people to get sick and die. It would be political suicide to do so, but  that doesn't mean they wanted the system to succeed. It clashes with their world view. They don't trust it. Can you not agree that this, at the very least, MIGHT be a possibility for some democratic politicians? Anyone who is a socialist (and let's face it, it's a growing force in the democratic party) does not trust our capitalist system. They think it's inherently broken. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant. They enjoy the deaths, not because they want individuals to die, but, rather, that it creates justification for changing policy that fits their world view. This shouldn't be surprising, nor should it be a reach to suggest this is a possibility.

Additionally, there are radicals (on both sides) who do literally wish for their opposition to die for no other reason that political differences. I frequent a progressive message board and have, on more than one occasion, had it made clear that they hoped I die of Coronavirus because I think the Sweden model might be the most effective way of handling this. I have heard it said, on more than one occasion, that they hope the red states die of coronavirus. Now, this is the hardcore base, so we can take that with a grain of salt, but does that at least open up the probability that some politicians could be aligned with that kind of thinking? This should not be taken to mean that ALL democratic politicians share these thoughts, but, rather, there is at least a very high probability that some do. The more there is  a socialist "creep" in the democratic party, the more I think it's fair to suggest that there is an active wish for any capitalist system to fail (by any means necessary), because it directly conflicts with a socialist world view.

Everything does not need to be explicitly stated.

Democrats and Republicans can share a world view, more or less, but not if socialism is in the mix. This is going to be a reoccurring theme for a while.

---

Side note: I don't believe Elizabeth Warren isn't a socialist. I think she's an opportunistic politician, and would moderate super quickly if she was the Presidential nominee.

Also, to the conservatives, I don't think the media highlights death as part of some great conspiracy or socialist agenda, I think they do it to make money. Death sells. It's why were talking about Giant hornets. It's why we have wall to wall hurricane coverage now. Coronavirus is no different.

Out of anything provided to me since I reiterated what Trump said, yours is the most eloquent, L42. What I read out of everything you stated is that just as much as republicans, democrats are opportunists. The mishandling and continued mishandling of this crisis represents a possibility for a change in political power (on either side, taking into consideration states like NY, Florida, Georgia, Colorado, Michigan, etc.). That's just how the political system works. However, you present a false equivalence of opportunity vs. systemic political desire for continued death, for continued economic instability, wrapped  in socialism. I do not discount the fact that yes, there are likely people who want Trump to fail, justified by any means necessary, including American deaths and economic depression. I do not think they are representative nor come even close to a majority. It's irrational to purport that they are and by association, all democrats wish the same, even take "delight" in discussing said topics. THAT is bias. 

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised to hear idiots have wished CV19 on you. I've heard it myself wished on everyone from the President to Pelosi to Hillary to democratic & republican governors, mayors & neighbors. The vocal minorities are more often than not, morons.

Grain of salt, sure - but not representative of the whole and definitely not evidence to support Trump's and SC's/MBJ's assertions: "The Democrats want more deaths". Yes, you're correct: everyone has a certain bias - but to subjectively ignore said bias and assert "truth" is irresponsible and, as I've previously stated, disheartening coming from several board members I (more often than not) respect.  

Gotta lump you in with CrownyTrump, MBJ. The above statement is truly disheartening, even coming from you.

I'm not very active here but I have been a reader for at this point, almost half my life. You might as well lump me into this category as well.

Look at everything that the dems do. Immigration, welfare, even politicizing good things for the US such as the killing of Soleimani or meeting with Kun Jung Un. Even when the economy is doing well they find some way to make it sound bad by claiming that only the rich are getting richer. 

I travel frequently, I visit Texas several times a year for work purposes. Visit Houston and drive through the less desirable parts of Houston, of Miami, even a city as north as Chicago. These cities have enormous of what appears to be illegal immigrant communities, and I only assume at least partially illegal since we allow 1 million immigrants per year and the numbers just don't add up for all of these people to be legal. Drive through these areas and tell me that somehow immigration and open borders are overall beneficial for this country, these areas are a reflection of the people that live there which are a reflection of the place that they came from, and it ain't pretty. It feels like you are in Mexico. I'm not sure if you have areas that you grew up in that you have now visited that now look like [BLEEP]. I sure as hell do and once again these areas now look like Mexico. This is true of basically every large city that I have visited, outside of a certain few states like Tennessee, Indiana, and Kentucky. Believe what you want but I don't see this as a positive for this country. 

You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think that the Democrats do not want what is best for this country, in order to gain power. These people are literally the epitome of evil, they will go where a person of any morals will not go. They are the biggest hypocrites on the face of earth, there are countless examples with perhaps the Joe Biden Tara Reade thing being one of the best and the most recent. They will stop at nothing to gain power, they are persistent, look at medical marijuana. On the ballot in 2012, gets voted down. 2016, ouh whats this? Medical marijuana on the ballot again? It passes.

After re-reading all of the above, I really just feel sorry for you and others. I don't know or even suggest to understand where in your past someone hurt/wronged some of you so much that it resulted in the shaping of a drastically narrowed and pessimistic perspective, it just sucks to see it manifested into good and evil this way. Hurts to see it, knowing that extrapolating, many on the left and right feel the same and it's not surprising why we still have a two-party system. Honestly, I only wish more positive things in your lives. 

For me, I take no pleasure in seeing CV19 death totals and new cases rise exponentially - nor am I delighted to report that my initial, pessimistic estimation that we'd hit 80k by end of June was apparently way too conservative as we'll absolutely surpass it by next week. We haven't hit any peak nor flattened the curve. It sucks and there is no winning in this situation, only losing - including rational discourse.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Well, you got about half of that correct.

You call me insufferable because you disagree with me.  You imagine that there are people who could disagree with you and offer informed opinions that you would enjoy discussing things with, so when you find yourself not enjoying our conversation, you blame me, rather than blaming yourself.  

I try to find the good in people and try to keep the discussion on the politicians and their policies and away from us.

But your first resort is to use big words and complex sentences when someone disagrees with you.  I know.  That's what I do too.  The difference is, when it doesn't work, you blame the other person.  I just try again.  I'm an eternal optimist that people can be persuaded.  You're just a bully.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Unfortunately, the stuff you got right wasn't taken directly from what I said, so thanks for proving my point.

---

Yeah, I was pretty amazed at how the numbers went up, right up until they told us that they COVID death numbers are counting more than just deaths by COVID and that the revised IHME projection is based on "cell phone data that shows people are interacting more." Talk about worthless fuzzy math, might as well just throw the chicken bones in a bowl of blood.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You heard it here first, Joe Biden will NOT be the nominee...…...

Unless Biden becomes seriously ill within the next few months, there would be so much controversy not nominating him that the Dems have not other choice but to nomimate Biden who essentially won in a landslide (after taking South Carolina).

Assuming your long shot prediction is correct, who would the Dems nominate in place of Biden?

The Sex assault thing is going to do him in..... I'm Looking for Cuomo to fill the void

---

Unfortunately, the stuff you got right wasn't taken directly from what I said, so thanks for proving my point.

No one else wants to read this petty back and forth between us.  I promise to bury the hatchet and stay out of your way if you promise the same for me.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Unless Biden becomes seriously ill within the next few months, there would be so much controversy not nominating him that the Dems have not other choice but to nomimate Biden who essentially won in a landslide (after taking South Carolina).

Assuming your long shot prediction is correct, who would the Dems nominate in place of Biden?

The Sex assault thing is going to do him in..... I'm Looking for Cuomo to fill the void

This is actually a decent option (which I never thought of) but I think we were saying the same thing about Trump and the GOP 4 years ago.  NDAs and $130,000 in hush money goes a long way in attempt to conceal transgressions.

---

Unless Biden becomes seriously ill within the next few months, there would be so much controversy not nominating him that the Dems have not other choice but to nomimate Biden who essentially won in a landslide (after taking South Carolina).

Assuming your long shot prediction is correct, who would the Dems nominate in place of Biden?

The Sex assault thing is going to do him in..... I'm Looking for Cuomo to fill the void

Cuomo is a total fraud, like his brother. The guy has been a total disaster and is only looked to as a hero in the ultra blue states.

Trump would crush this guys soul. He wants no piece of that action.

---

Dems should run Warren. Safe play. She can moderate and bring in some progressives. If Biden picked her as VP and stepped down, she'd have a lot of flexibility with her VP pick. It's the smart play.

---

Dems should run Warren. Safe play. She can moderate and bring in some progressives. If Biden picked her as VP and stepped down, she'd have a lot of flexibility with her VP pick. It's the smart play.

I think Warren is on his short list for VP but I don't think he steps down.
I don't think there is a process in DNC rules for him to step down and pick someone else without opening the floor to a debate that the party definitely wishes to avoid.  
And once the convention closes, I don't think there is a mechanism to replace his name on the ballot.  Maybe in some states, but probably not most.
So the only possibility I see is Biden promising to resign after both he and whichever VP have taken their oaths.
And I think that's exceedingly unlikely, unless Biden is admitted to a hospital first.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Dems should run Warren. Safe play. She can moderate and bring in some progressives. If Biden picked her as VP and stepped down, she'd have a lot of flexibility with her VP pick. It's the smart play.

Bigger picture, Warren has the appeal of an anal wart. Joe (Hillary) is the best bet to take down Trump as this point.

---

Unfortunately, the stuff you got right wasn't taken directly from what I said, so thanks for proving my point.

No one else wants to read this petty back and forth between us.  

Sez you...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Are we still pretending Joe Biden gets to choose his VP? His options are more along the lines of which flavor of pudding tonight.

---

Dems should run Warren. Safe play. She can moderate and bring in some progressives. If Biden picked her as VP and stepped down, she'd have a lot of flexibility with her VP pick. It's the smart play.

Warren is a good debater but she would get crushed in a general election because Bernie supporters don't like her and she doesn't have what it takes to get minorities to embrace her to the extent they will absolutely go to the polls.   Biden has this appeal and I really don't think Dems care about any accusations given the transgressions of the current President.  A Joe Biden/Kamala Harris ticket may be in the best interest of the Democratic Party to make it competitive in November.

---

Dems should run Warren. Safe play. She can moderate and bring in some progressives. If Biden picked her as VP and stepped down, she'd have a lot of flexibility with her VP pick. It's the smart play.

Warren is a good debater but she would get crushed in a general election because Bernie supporters don't like her and she doesn't have what it takes to get minorities to embrace her to the extent they will absolutely go to the polls.   Biden has this appeal and I really don't think Dems care about any accusations given the transgressions of the current President.  A Joe Biden/Kamala Harris ticket may be in the best interest of the Democratic Party to make it competitive in November.

My bet is Harris, but I've also seen a large clamoring for Katie Porter, though she falls short on expertise. I don't mind her no BS approach

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

I think Harris would also be a strong choice.

---

I don't share the same opinion of Warren. I think, once the media got behind her, it would offset a lot of her shortcomings. I also think the Bernie bros would come back around. She was at least spouting progressive values in the primaries (even though I see her as an establishment candidate).

---