2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI'm sorry, but a Kaine pick feels too much
like a Lieberman pick to me. Kaine does not shore up Hillary's weaknesses, imo. This feels more like a pick acceptable to Wall Street than it does to Main Street. I am posting this now, because after the pick, if it is Kaine, this post would violate the TOS.
If the ticket doesn't reach out to the anti-establishment crowd we could be in trouble, imo.
Yeah, I know, the first response will be that my concern is noted. But, I am with Elizabeth Warren, who said last night that Democrats are underestimating Trump.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)"more acceptable to Wall Street than Main Street"? What specifically in his record do you find concerning?
rateyes
(17,438 posts)anything else?
rateyes
(17,438 posts)That called for two dollars cut for every dollar of revenue brought in.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)WASHINGTON ― Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is on Hillary Clintons short list of potential vice presidential nominees. Hes also actively pushing bank deregulation this week as he campaigns for the job.
Kaine signed two letters on Monday urging federal regulators to go easy on banks ― one to help big banks dodge risk management rules, and another to help small banks avoid consumer protection standards.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is believed to be weighing Kaine among a handful of other potential VP choices. Her pick is widely viewed in Washington as a sign of her governing intentions. The former secretary of state has spent weeks attempting to woo progressive supporters of vanquished primary challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Choosing from one of the handful of names on her short list ― Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) or Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), for instance ― would signal that her camp is taking progressive concerns seriously.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tim-kaine-clinton-vp_us_578fc8e3e4b0bdddc4d2c86c
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)Fortunately, that is not Clinton's position. She's has had a specific regulation program on her website for many months now.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)lastone
(588 posts)LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)for you doubters.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)She's given extensive details on her policy. People who are bullshitting don't take the time to develop specific and practical policy details. Liz Warren also supports it.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)need you to be correct.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)of developing an extensive policy, full of details, just to fool people? Clinton has leveled with voters about what she thinks she can accomplish rather than promising what she knows she cannot. Getting anything through congress in the current climate is a challenge, but we all have a role to play in that.
Now I understand that some people believe integrity is determined by not changing one's mind on anything in a half century. I disagree, both as a matter of personal, intellectual growth and certainly for elected representatives whose job is to represent the electorate. Clinton pays attention to what voters care about. I understand some see that as a detriment. I do not. I see it as essential to their responsibility in government.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)What does Joe Biden do?
aintitfunny
(1,421 posts)away from the Presidency.
glennward
(989 posts)BainsBane
(53,137 posts)You stop ascribing nefarious motives to her and actually listen and read what she has to say. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Hillary Clinton is not Eve. She bears no resemblance to the caricature created about her by her detractors. Intellectual integrity requires an examination of evidence.
In my view, the majority of anti-Clinton rhetoric says far more about those who engage in it than Hillary Clinton herself.
People of course are free to vote as they choose, but voting against her entails a decision to move the country to the right: toward greater racism, tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of business, and rolling back equal rights of everyone but straight, white men. The contrast couldn't be clearer.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)annavictorious
(934 posts)Clinton praised the TTP when she was SOS because her job was to advocate for the President's proposals. She was largely quiet about it during the early primaries because she didn't want to embarrass a sitting Democratic president.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)😂😂😂😂😂
Arkana
(24,347 posts)zenabby
(364 posts)Wilms
(26,795 posts)I agree that community banks shouldn't have gotten banged around like they did. They tend to be pretty good, if I am not mistaken.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)marriage as between one man and one woman. He did this after promising to veto it during his election. Remember that he's 'personally opposed to abortion and promises to keep his personal feelings out of legislation' and then chew on that 'promised to veto but signed it' part. He opposed civil unions, opposed marriage equality and he did so until every other Democrat had started to use the word 'bigot' for those who oppose equality. That's Tim.
FSogol
(45,595 posts)a public referendum and never signed by the Governor. The courts threw it out. Stop spreading misinformation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall-Newman_Amendment
csziggy
(34,140 posts)The governor did not sign it and could not have stopped it.
Constitutional amendment (voter referendum); marriage. Provides for a referendum at the November 2006 election on approval of a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage. The proposed amendment provides that "only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions." The proposed amendment also prohibits the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage." Further, the proposed amendment prohibits the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." This bill is identical to HB 101.
<SNIP>
03/15/06 House: Signed by Speaker
03/16/06 Senate: Signed by President
04/10/06 House: Bill became law without Governor's signature, Chapter 828 (effective 7/1/06)
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+sum+SB526
Emphasis added by me.
Damn, you must have this lie on some kind of bot to keep this up!
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)His command of Spanish is a large benefit and he will definitely secure Virginia, a hugely importantly state. He will also draw in a lost of centrists and moderate Republicans who cannot stand the monster that is Trump. The Sanders left will stamp their 5 for 5 minutes and then 90% fall in line to stomp the Republicans come November.
I also am sure that the TPP can be fixed to assuage many of the fears that people have. It may take several years but we cannot go isolationist in a global economy. I live in London and I am shuddering what Brexit will mean for my firm.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)The only option Congress has now is a straight up or down vote.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)If it takes a few years, it takes a few years. I can wait.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)Sorry, but that just is not true.
KPN
(15,679 posts)would alleviate concerns about subjugating national, domestic interests to corporate interests?
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)KPN
(15,679 posts)What I see in TPP is putting corporations ahead of American people. Free trade has not been fair to the American workforce. We have a structurally unsustainable economy in part as a result of free trade agreements. How would TPP be fixed to not simply contribute further to that?
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)For too long, U.S. trade policy has benefited transnational corporations at the expense of workers rights, consumer safety and the environment at home and abroad. The pending TransPacific Partnership (TPP) represents the most significant opportunity to learn from the mistakes of past NAFTA-style trade agreements, and build a new international consensus around trade policy for the 21st Century.
First introduced by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the 21st Century Trade and Market Access Act would delegate authority to the President to negotiate the TPP and other trade agreements, while reasserting Congressional and public oversight into the substance of the negotiations. The legislation sets a number of binding negotiating requirements regarding labor rights, the environment, food safety and other trade provisions, while also establishing commonsense compliance reporting mechanisms and the streamlining of trade and export promotion activities in order to maximize the job creation potential of U.S. trade agreements.
The 21 st Century Trade and Market Access Acts basic provisions:
Section 3 (Presidential Report): Requires the President to make findings to Congress on a countrys form of government, labor standards, environmental standards, religious freedoms, human trafficking and currency manipulation prior to initiating trade negotiations with it (and within 30 days of the bills enactment for any existing negotiations)
Section 4 (Market Assessment): Requires the U.S. International Trade Commission to assess the market access potential of any country prior to the President initiating trade negotiations with it (and within 30 days of the bills enactment for any existing negotiations)
Section 5 (Access Commitments): Requires the U.S. Trade Representative to report annually to Congress on the market access commitments of countries with which the U.S. has trade agreements and how those obligations have been or will be met
Section 6 (Policymaking): A Sense-of-the-Congress provision that describes criteria for trade policymaking procedures that should replace Fast Track.
Section 7 (Standards): Sets mandatory criteria for what must and must not be included in trade agreements regarding labor, the environment, product safety, agriculture, public services, government procurement, investment, intellectual property, anti-dumping, dispute resolution, national security, states rights and more.
Section 8 (Coordination): Amends the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 to improve coordination of export enhancement activities among federal agencies.
Section 9 (Resource Allocation): Amends the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 to mandate a global assessment of the Foreign Commercial Service and redeploy personnel and other resources based on the assessment.
Section 10 (Diplomacy): Amends the Foreign Service Act of 1980 in order to expand diplomatic efforts to reduce barriers to increased U.S. exports
The 21st Century Trade and Market Access Acts new standards:
Labor: Countries must adopt into domestic law and effectively enforce the International Labor Organizations core labor standards. Failure to do so subjects parties to dispute resolution and enforcement mechanisms that are at least as stringent as those for commercial claims.
Environment: Countries are prohibited from eliminating, weakening or failing to enforce domestic environmental protections for trade purposes. Trade in illegally-harvested resources is banned. Countries must fully implement and enforce all multilateral environmental agreements to which they are party. Failure to do so is subject to dispute resolution and enforcement.
Consumer Safety: Food, feed and all consumer products may only be imported into the U.S. if they meet or exceed U.S. safety standards. The FDA and CPSC are instructed to review the regulations of trading partners and ensure that products entering the U.S. meet this requirement.
Services: Trade agreements cannot be used to require privatization or deregulation of services.
Investment: Countries maintain the right to regulate foreign investment according to their own priorities, and to place restrictions on speculative capital. Foreign investors must not be given greater rights than domestic investors, and the concepts investor, investment, expropriation and national treatment are all clarified to protect governments ability to regulate.
Procurement: Procurement provisions in trade agreements must not undermine prevailing wage, recycled content, sustainable harvest, renewable energy or human rights policies or project labor agreements. Procurement obligations cannot apply to local governments, and only to states that specifically agree.
Intellectual Property: Drug patenting requirements must not undermine the access to medicine standards set in the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, and patents on traditional knowledge must be consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity. Internet service providers may not be generally obligated to monitor electric information that they transmit or store.
Agriculture: Countries are allowed to develop strategic agricultural reserves and enact policies allowing for fair remuneration for growers and farm workers. Countries may maintain antidumping policies and U.S. anti-trust laws cannot be preempted.
State-Owned Enterprises: Requires that countries party to a trade agreement report annually on state-owned enterprises that invest or conduct operations in other countries party to the agreement. Prohibits countries from giving subsidies or other benefits to these enterprises that provide a competitive advantage.
States Rights: States can only be required to comply with procurement, services or investment provisions with their explicit prior informed consent.
KPN
(15,679 posts)Response to Grey Lemercier (Reply #4)
Chan790 This message was self-deleted by its author.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)Setsuna1972
(332 posts)I live here in Virginia, and to be honest I haven't seen anything supporting what you've just said .
KPN
(15,679 posts)you are "shuddering [about] what Brexit may mean for my firm". I may be totally wrong about this, but it just seems to me that we are too influenced by impact on "firms" as opposed to people, and a focus on "my" as opposed to "we". Living, governing and operating within these two constructs has created much of the economic travail we face today.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)I guess I need to put that in my profile, I am new to this site
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)KPN
(15,679 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Those who say such things rarely have anything to lose..
KPN
(15,679 posts)Actually, I think your question is a good example of what I am concerned about. It sounds to me like you are saying that the only people who want to effect real change regarding corporatism/globalism are those who've been marginalized by it. Whether I personally gain or lose is --and should be -- irrelevant if the goal of distributing economic benefit more widely is genuine, no? However, if one prefers to looks at things more egocentrically, that probably is not the case. If you are implying that I must have nothing to lose financially, I would simply say I think you are wrong.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)KPN
(15,679 posts)Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)It also will affect dozens of our employees if we go under.
KPN
(15,679 posts)to the degree to which all others are affected. Everything has an effect. All I'm saying is that when we place corporate goals above all else, the interests of average people get lost ... and they are affected negatively. Over the past 35 years, this has been epidemic.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)You sound like you are chastising me for being concerned for the future of our business and concerned for our employees. Of course I am concerned for all involved, including myself. We have sweated, pushed, pulled, bled out tears (of joy, of anguish and of stress) to make what we have today. Having created and having run a successful firm that puts food on the table for close to 60 people in various degrees is not an act of "placing corporate goals above people". It's a labour of love and of revenue that sustains our lives.
I never can understand some people's inherent hostility toward SME owners like myself. It just drives me bonkers at times. If small firms start to fail at significant numbers, if redundancies pile up too high, it throws a spanner in the works for the whole bloody economy at a macro level.
KPN
(15,679 posts)I can see how it could sound that way. My comment about matter of degree was meant as amount of skin in the game. I can see how a small business owner would have more to lose ... but that doesn't mean I and a lot of other folks who don't work for multi-nationals don't have something to lose. I am equally frustrated by what seems to me like a dismissive attitude toward working class economic issues and concerns by corporatist and neoliberal apologists. Brexit and the nationalism that suppirted it happened for a reason. Small businesses are indeed vital, but there is plenty of room in the realm of economic policy to protect and foster business AND people. We haven't been doing so well at that the past 40 years ... the existing trade agreements haven't helped on balance.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)and I detest Asymmetrical Investor Protection. We are socially responsible and pro-worker SME owners. We strive for a democratic workplace through a "learning organization" model, along the lines championed by Peter Senge. When we bring in a new potential placement, all the relevant people from that sphere of operations get to meet them and give input into the hiring process. We will soon give our employees profit sharing and currently have incentives laid out to help green their lives. Examples being a no-car ownership bonus, and discounts on bicycles from 3 different EU firms we cut deals with over the course of our professional/educational careers.
KPN
(15,679 posts)Small businesses are the backbone of economic communities in my view. I wish you much success.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)This is someone who could become president sometime over the next 8 years. Probably not, but it's not exactly an uncommon occurrence.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)After the election, I'm guessing she'll be for it again.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)had an air of entitlement.
Oh, well, if YOU don't approve I guess we really can't go forward with this.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)"I'm sorry. but .... " is something a parent or a store clerk says, implying it's your ultimate decision and you just know better.
It's passive aggressive.
Look at DU and it's a regular trope of the Debby Downers.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to live with whomever Clinton picks or vote for someone else.
All this Sturm und Drabg over a vice presidential pick is absurd anyway. The VP does nothing.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)is the only type of aggression allowed here on this topic. After the pick, that won't be allowed.
"I'm sorry, but" picking a blue dog TPP supporter, is not a pick progressives will be excited about.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)I'm snarking at everyone who suggests a VP pick is decisive or some kind of deal breaker.
Can't even think of the last VP who became president. I guess it was HW Bush, and he only lasted one term.
They do nothing.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)and most of those became president through succession rather than election. One heartbeat away. We don't need a blue dog in that chair.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)was in 1988.
It hasn't happened since then, unless you count Gore as "wwinning."
And you know what Tim Kaine is inaruguably well qualified to be a good president. And Elizabeth Warren actually less so.
A freaking tempest in a teapot. If you can't vote for Clinton after last night's Nurember Rally because she didn't pick the right symbolic sidekick for your progressive fee fees not to get an owie, you go right ahead and vote for Jill Stein with your friends Cornell West and whoever else is left to be perfect and pure.
This is the essence of concern trolling.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Are you serious?
Ever hear of Lyndon Baines Johnson?
rateyes
(17,438 posts)Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush. That's approaching 50%. I was born the year Kennedy was elected.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)rateyes
(17,438 posts)MLK was assassinated on my 8th birthday. I do remember 1968 well. Tough time for this country.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)rateyes
(17,438 posts)in the NE corner.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)or maybe a couple nights before, downtown.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Thing anything might have changed?
Could it happen? Yeah. Likely? No.
And I'm ok with Kaine as president of it does.
Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #9)
Post removed
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)You're gonna go bye bye if she picks the mean boring banker loving guy?
You saw the alternative last night. You just be very privileged indeed.
If you can say you're not voting for her because she picks Kaine over Warren or whomever you never were in the first place.
Vice Presidents do nothing. Nothing.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)Cheney.
And be reminded that VPs often become POTUSs.
Kaine is a terrible pick.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Hasn't happened since 1988 but who's counting?
They do nothing.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)The lottery, and I'm buying more than a few tix. Like it or not, just because it hasn't happened since 1988 didn't mean it won't happen again.
VPs are important.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Not a future projection.
The forces that used to make the VP a successor in waiting are gone.
But it is true that Trump has about a 33 percent chance of winning, thanks to ideological purists.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)than you think. Johnson became president after assassination. Nixon was elected. He was the VP of the last decent Republican who served. Ford was POTUS after resignation. Bush was elected. That's four of the last nine presidents who were VP. That's over half. Now, let's talk about the same time period and VPs that became nominees. Humphrey, Ford, Mondale, Bush, Gore. And, I dare say that had it not been for Beau's death we might be taking about Biden right now.
VPs get the party nomination more often than not.
They are important, and Kaine is not a good standard bearer for Dems, imo.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #21)
Post removed
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)At least you admit a Trump presidency won't be any problem for you.
Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #34)
Chan790 This message was self-deleted by its author.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)you must be wealthy, white, straight, and old.
For people of color they are not "the same" at all. For the poor, not the same at all. For religious minorities or transgender youth, not the same at all.
And all this over a completely symbolic appointment.
As I said, privilege is a hell of a drug.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Shameful and childish.
There is a difference of opinion. So what.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)is the childish comment here.
You saw our option last night. If your difference of "opinion" on which figurehead fills the useless and unimportant role of VP affects your decision to vote democratic or not, you're a deeply privileged and childish person. You'll help elect a bigoted fascist.
But of course if wil be Hillary's fault for not being perfect enough for you.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)them childish.
You see, here you are doing the same thing.
I am not saying either of you is right or wrong, but.......
Rate's argument, in my opinion, is a totally different construct.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)saying your vote depends on her VP pick is asinine.
And I suggest you never planned to support her, and are just looking for excuses.
As of tomorrow we stop having this debate. Support the ticket or don't. They make websites for purist ideological holdouts with too much privilege to care. This ain't one of them.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)What?
This isn't about me. It is about rate eyes?
rateyes
(17,438 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)"Kaine's a Reagan and I'll be damned to support any ticket he's on."
So what part of "I won't vote for her if she picks the wrong VP" did I get wrong?
rateyes
(17,438 posts)NBachers
(17,191 posts)We've just seen a four-day hate-fest where the main theme is "Get Hillary." This message will resonate in many hateful and unstable minds as "Kill Hillary." There is a very real danger stalking Hillary Clinton, and we need a vice president who'll be able to fill her shoes if necessary. I'm not only voting for a Presidential candidate, I'm also voting for her replacement, if the unthinkable happens.
And your "Vote for Hillary or you love Trump" shit, your black or white, yes / no equivalencies, are not accurate, either.
I have the choice of full-on campaigning, donating, and participating. I have the choice of losing my enthusiasm and showing up on voting day and merely voting. Multiply this by millions, and it will make a difference. And a dim-bulb, low-wattage, "Oh no, not this again" VP candidate will produce that effect.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)It just seems like that if she chooses Kaine that at least makes Hillary not have more credibility than Trump on those issues.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,460 posts)What trade or financial reform does he stand for? Does he support full LGBT equality (which, of course, Hillary fully supports)? Does he realize what's in the Republican platform in terms of LGBT persons? I feel like you're exaggerating his ability to appeal to anybody outside his xenophobic, far right-wing base. I mean, most establishment Republicans don't even want to have anything to do with him and barely any of them are even attending their OWN PARTY'S CONVENTION.
Efilroft Sul
(3,586 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)that's the goal. Kaine will be forgotten next week. It'll be all concern about the Democratic convention, how it's not being handled right, the mistakes being made and how they hand the election to Donald. You know it's coming.
Logical
(22,457 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)much to the table other than Virginia. Other than that,he's boring. I would have preferred Warren or Brown.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Means you deliver that state is a naive notion that needs to be buried.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)appeal to any other groups though.
Response to sufrommich (Reply #23)
Chan790 This message was self-deleted by its author.
JudyM
(29,294 posts)onenote
(42,847 posts)Because I don't think you do.
JudyM
(29,294 posts)Here his approval is 44%. Not exactly popular.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/poll-gop-has-edge-in-va-senate-races-among-likely-voters/2015/09/25/f81cb4a6-6377-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html
Response to sufrommich (Reply #13)
Chan790 This message was self-deleted by its author.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)which arguably does more good for Clinton nationally than any one state.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)So what?
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Dubya only knows a few phrases, but he did *much* better with Hispanic voters than any subsequent Republican.
eppur_se_muova
(36,317 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I not enthusiastic about a Kaine pick. He's boring and bit to the right of where I am. But Lieberman? Nah dude. Not even close. Kaine isn't the best pick, IMO, but he's not the worst. He WILL need to sharpen his knives though. He's a bit too soft spoken with this WWE version of an election. He's going to need to fillet Trump, and particularly Pence. I'm not 100% convinced he can, but HRC thinks he can, and I'm willing to give him a shot.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)to give him a shot.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Kaine is one of the least LGBT friendly Democrats in the entire Party. Many nasty action and more nasty words against us. He should not even be considered because of that. If his history was that of attacking any other minority group he'd not be considered.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)What's not to like about the guy?
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)In 2006, Kaine campaigned against an amendment to the Virginia State Constitution to bar same-sex marriage,[142] and in March 2013, Kaine announced his support of same-sex marriage,[143] saying "I believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the full rights to the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage under the Constitution."[144]
In the Senate, Kaine has co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[145]
Kaine's position on LGBT adoption has changed over time. In 2005, Kaine said that "No couples in Virginia can adopt other than a married couple that's the right policy."[146] In 2011, however, Kaine shifted his position, saying "if a judge thinks adoption by an unmarried couplegay or straightmeets that standard, then the couple should be allowed to complete the adoption."[147] In 2012, he stated that "There should be a license that would entitle a committed couple to the same rights as a married couple."[148]
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #22)
Chan790 This message was self-deleted by its author.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)In 2006, Kaine campaigned against an amendment to the Virginia State Constitution to bar same-sex marriage,[142] and in March 2013, Kaine announced his support of same-sex marriage,[143] saying "I believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the full rights to the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage under the Constitution."[144]
In the Senate, Kaine has co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[145]
Kaine's position on LGBT adoption has changed over time. In 2005, Kaine said that "No couples in Virginia can adopt other than a married couple that's the right policy."[146] In 2011, however, Kaine shifted his position, saying "if a judge thinks adoption by an unmarried couplegay or straightmeets that standard, then the couple should be allowed to complete the adoption."[147] In 2012, he stated that "There should be a license that would entitle a committed couple to the same rights as a married couple."[148]
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Why can't we have THE BEST?
global1
(25,298 posts)campaigns don't work with him. Just ask his 16 Repug challengers about that.
The RNC and Trump are defining Hillary and the Dems and a lot going forward is going to be about the perceptions of the electorate of both of the candidates.
Trump has redefined the Repug Party. It's not the same under Trump as it was before Trump. We're hearing things like "it's a movement".
I'm concerned that if Hillary takes him on - using the Repug Party 'before' Trump as the focus - that it will be an underestimate of him.
Trump is positioning Hillary and the Dems of being 'old school' and that we are needing somebody as president - like him - to come in and shake things up.
Whether we like it or not - Bernie created a movement in the Dem Party as well - and to ignore that is IMHO short-sighted.
Yes - as I learned in one of my previous posts - people here think that Hillary being the first woman president and taking advantage of the historical implications of that - is enough to beat Trump.
However you slice it though - Hillary has been around for years on the political scene and her being up on the stage with an establishment white man VP - is going to be perceived by a lot of the American electorate as 1990's style politics.
I believe that has to be taken into consideration in Hillary's choice of VP. Yes it would be nice to leave it up to Hillary to make that decision for the country as to whom she thinks she can best work with - but if it is a choice like a Kaine or Vilsack - the picture that it will portray is one of 1990's style - old school - establishment - Washington insider politics.
Trump and the Repugs will make mincemeat out of that meme as it will play right into their hands as to how they are positioning Hillary and the Dems - and IMHO can sway enough of the electorate away to make it tough for Hillary and the Dems.
We also have to take into account the Millennials - as we have learned - they played an important role in the Dem primaries. How will they perceive the Dem ticket and what's the best way to secure their vote so they don't abandon the Dem Party and get sucked into voting for Trump.
These are some of the things I worry about going forward to November. Though some here on DU think that the VP is a nothing position and doesn't mean much in the whole scheme of things - I happen to think differently and the choice of a VP is an important consideration in defining the tenor of things going forward to the Nov election.
I think that Hillary needs to pick somebody like E.Warren, Sherrod Brown, Perez or Castro - to show that she is a new and future oriented Hillary.
I know that I'm going to get crucified here for stating what I did in this post - but I'm willing to take that chance - as that there is too much at stake in this election and relying on traditional politics and campaigning might just not work with a Trump.
None of us thought that we would see Trump on that stage at the RNC 'humbly' (and I use that term loosely) accepting the nomination. We can't let him go further than that stage. We need to crush him and the Repugs so bad that they can't recover.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I think that Hillary is running on more than being a woman, but for sure, I thought she would benefit from a bold "new" VP pick. Kaine is reaching back, IMO, and that offers nothing to help her really. I guess it'll lock up VA, but that was already pretty likely blue.
I can't think of another thing I think is a real plus up for the campaign.
She's playing it safe if Kaine is her pick, and while that's not terrible, it's not bold, either.
I'll be disappointed if he's the pick, but not apoplectic.
NBachers
(17,191 posts)on this site lately. It's like shouting "Checkmate!" and jumping up and sweeping the opponent's pieces off the board.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)You listen to Trumps speech last night. He talked about the US worker being fucked by the rich.
He talked about how LGBT people should be protected.
He talked about how minority communities should have better education and have equal protection by the police.
He talked about the banks.
Now we can say he's blowing hot wind, but since Clinton has a history of being to the right of where we are now on those positions, and Kaine does too, that does nothing to bolster Hillary's credibility. Especially since the middle class has not done great during Obama's time either and she was part of that.
So I would like to see somebody like Perez, Warren, etc that have ALWAYS been for the working people.
I think this thing is going to be way closer than anybody thinks and I think Clinton better practice, practice, practice for the debates because Trump can think way better on the fly.
I think we could see a Gore vs Bush debate where Bush would say "I'm for that too" and sort of dumb it down and seem more likeable.
bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Once again the left mistakes itself or a majority.
TwilightZone
(25,517 posts)10%-15% of the left thinks that the entire country is just as anti-establishment as they are.
They also assume that Trump is the nominee simply because he's anti-establishment. He's the nominee in large part because he tapped into fear and bigotry. I don't think that should be our benchmark.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)I usually call it the "campus left" for shorthand but it is just a bit broader than that.
And the thing is that in the few places that vote is (unreliably) concentrated are states Clinton will win easily or where she has no real chance (California, NY, Colorado -- and the rest of the mountain west).
She needs to win dogfights for centrist votes in swing states where far left associations only hurt her.
The few places the far left can swing anything are purple states that she will either lose if she loses the middle or win because she blows the election out in Ohio and Florida and yes, by God, Virginia.
Also the senate is going to be wicked close and important so why risk losing a dem senate seat for a few Sanders die hards?
TwilightZone
(25,517 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)
The target audience is the voters who are still in play, the roughly 20% who haven't solidly picked a side in the states that can help win or lose the election. A solid, reliable (or "boring", to many) choice for VP keeps the focus on the top of the ticket and also helps with down-ticket races in swing states.
People also put *way* too much emphasis on the VP choice. Unless the choice is way outside the box (Palin, for example), it really doesn't do much one way or the other. The bottom line in November was most likely always going to be Trump vs. Clinton, regardless of the VPs.
Squinch
(51,090 posts)And then being insulted by that fact.
We don't WANT him to align with us. We want him to get our candidate into office. WE are already with our candidate.
The VP pick is a relatively painless way to get people who are not already with our candidate. And this one does that without sacrificing a Senate seat.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)The VP doesn't set policy. The VP is a secondary figure that goes to funerals. The underestimation of Trump only comes into play with those that only vote sometimes. Elections Day? Oh, I've got to go get a new phone and don't have time to vote. Or, the lines are too long, and I don't want to wait.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,034 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)What does Joe Biden (a guy I love) do?
Arkana
(24,347 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,034 posts)therefore who is picked (by anyone) is not that important. Sheesh.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It merely cements the Establishment biases of the nominee, at a time when change is needed.
Warren or Brown could not be chosen because of the need to keep them in the SDenate. But someone equivalently progressive wold have made Clinton more credible.
SunSeeker
(51,808 posts)These are the people that put on CPAC. Lower score is more liberal, higher is more conservative.
Kaine is a lifetime 0 rating. He got a 0 in 2014 and 2015. Some other notable ratings:
Lifetime
0.0 Kaine
.91 Maggie Hirono
1.14 Al Franken
1.17 Tammy Baldwin
1.78 Chris Murphy
2.67 Booker
2.94 Boxer
4 Warren
4.85 Schumer
6.31 Sanders
6.43 Sherrod Brown
8.51 Ron Wyden
100 Cruz
100 Lee
100 Sasse
2015 Ratings
30 Democrats with 0's including Kaine
4 Booker
8 Tester
9 Sanders
33 Manchin
Hillary picked the most liberal senator according to ACU ratings.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2283025
mountain grammy
(26,676 posts)Don Draper
(187 posts)Pro right to work
Pro TPP
Pro wall street deregulation
The man is no friend to working families.
Looks like hillary is doing everything she can to drive away Berniecrats & independents and loose the election.
Ps-I just read that Lena Dunham is going to be a speaker at the democratic convention. its like she's trying to get trump elected.
rocktivity
(44,588 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 23, 2016, 10:27 PM - Edit history (2)
Obama needed a way to offset being black, young, and lacking foreign policy experience. He choose a VP who was white, nearly twenty years older, and had served on a congressional foreign relations committee.
Even the Duh Donald had enough sense not to pick a clone of himself.
rocktivity
bellmartin
(218 posts)Not trying to be a spelling stickler.
It's just that in this case, "pick someone who compliments you" fits so well with what Trump always requires, instead of the usual case of "pick someone who complements you."
rocktivity
(44,588 posts)Welcome to DU, and I compliment you on making the understatement about Duh Donald of the century!
rocktivity
bellmartin
(218 posts)I used to have an account under this same name, but they mothballed me, I guess, after I became just a lurking reader, and I had to re-enroll. Even then, though, I only had a few hundred posts. I compliment you on your over 40,000!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,460 posts)The most important thing to me is competence and the ability to assume the Presidency if, heaven forbids, anything happens to the sitting President. As far as I can tell, Kaine meets those standards just fine.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I find it concerning.
pnwmom
(109,025 posts)democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)At least, he does not go out of his way to say "I'm a Democrat but I agree with the Republicans" constantly like Lieberman did. Lieberman's voting record actually wasn't terrible but he was constantly praising Republicans and going out of his way to distance himself from Democrats even before he endorsed McCain. Kaine is not like that.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)genna
(1,945 posts)I thought supporting the tickets whom ever it was the point. I didn't know questioning the positioning for base politics was a problem.
When I heard the list, I knew the third way would be repackaged into a 'new' thing. Maybe this reaches out to angry trump voters. After he overturned the 50 state strategy, I have wondered how his positions would expand the party? I also wonder if this is a governing choice, how his former Virginia law and order record solidifies the Justice reform agenda one base constituency has been pressing for?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Geography doesn't matter any more, ideas do.
Case in point, a party of mostly rural southerners just nominated a New Yorker because they agreed with his ideas (using the word "ideas" very loosely).
yurbud
(39,405 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)On the other hand, if she had ANY progressive intentions, a progressive VP would be the best protection since she couldn't be removed without putting someone more progressive in her place.
pnwmom
(109,025 posts)by ontheissues.org.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Tim_Kaine.htm
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Kind of like Biden and Biden was pure genius.
NBachers
(17,191 posts)and this DU post from someone with personal experience with Kaine:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512278637
I feel much better about Tim Kaine, and I'm ready to rock 'n' roll.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Great video there! Good find. Thanks for posting!
LuvLoogie
(7,078 posts)Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)awake
(3,226 posts)Tim Kaine is no Joe Lieberman, just read a number of posts on this site from Bernie people who have personal experience working with Tim. Is Tim the person that I was pulling for? No, do I agree with all of his positions that he has taken? No, but I will bet you that Bernie & Elizabeth who work with him in the Senate are going to be backing him! So please move on and enough with the whining, we have a hard race to win and we need all hands on deck. Tim is a strong honest person who will be a good VP and Bernie and Elizabeth will be in the Senate helping to right the laws that we need today if we can get enough people out to vote for our whole ticket.
MBS
(9,688 posts)Look, guys, Kaine is a good man and a great choice. He's been my senator, so I already knew about him, but if you haven't seen him yet, for God's sake, watch his speech today in Miami:
Hillary and Kaine arrive about 41 minutes in; Kaine starts speaking at about 1:00 hours.