quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
They had to pick someone so it was either her or Warren. The lesser of the evils I think.

But they have to know they don’t have a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

As soon as Biden announced that his VP would be a black women, the talent pool was awfully shallow.

He couldn't pick Rice, he couldn't pick Bass and he wasn't going to select Abrams. It's almost like Harris was the last one standing.

I honestly don't know any "true" blue-dog, old-fashioned Liberal Democrats, like those from the 70's. For those that do, what are they saying about this year's picks for P/VP now that the ticket has been completed and are they in agreement with their party taking such a hard, radical turn to port? Will they cast their vote for President Trump or just abstain from voting for President altogether?

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
The ONLY way that cognitive deficits are clinically diagnosed is through extensive neuropsychological testing .... the rest is conjecture.

For anyone who had a parent or grandparent go through it, you can spot it. I may not be able to give a clinical diagnosis, but it's clear as day. Just the same as you may not be a mechanic, but if your car starts burning oil; running through coolant; misfiring; smoking; sounding rough; etc. You can tell you have a problem. You may not know the exact diagnosis, but you've had cars in the past and you know what happened right before they shit the bed.

It's kind of like that, he's not right, it's clear as day. Just because I don't know the medical lingo or degree, I can understand something is not right.

If he has a hard time making speeches or holding up his end of debates, then that may well be enough. I don't mean to be dismissive, but I want Trump to win regardless of what state Biden is in.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
I don't mean to be dismissive, but I want Trump to win regardless of what state Biden is in.

Yeah, well, I don't think Biden knows what state he's in. Could be Delaware, could be Arizona, could be Kentucky,... and I could continue for 47 more states...

I guess I am a bit curious re Biden's handlers. Can you imagine the enormity of the task to come up with a winning game plan, given what they have to work with?

I see there's already "birther" rumors around about Kamala, along with the inevitable conspiracy theories.

A little surfing shows the usual Democratic Media Mouthpieces swearing up and down she was born in Oakland, CA.

Does anyone have a link to a more authoritative, less biased source?

Listen to the man who knows Joe best...


“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f--k things up,” one Democrat who spoke to the former president recalled him saying.

When lamenting his own diminishing relationship with the current Democratic electorate, particularly in Iowa, Obama reportedly told one 2020 candidate: “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden.”


https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ensions-2020-primary

Australian newspaper cartoon of U.S. candidates Harris and Biden criticized as racist

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - A cartoon in Australia’s biggest national newspaper was denounced as racist by some top government figures on Friday for a portrayal of U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris that critics said was racist.

The cartoon by Johannes Leak in The Australian newspaper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and is known for its conservative views, depicted a beaming Biden saying, “It’s time to heal a nation divided by racism.”

The drawing then showed him pointing to Harris, the first Black woman on a major-party U.S. presidential ticket, and saying, “So I’ll hand you over to this little brown girl while I go for a lie-down.”

The 77-year-old Biden would be the oldest president ever if he wins in November.

The cartoon drew immediate criticism from some officials, and other critics. “It’s offensive and racist,” Andrew Giles, an Australian Labor politician and shadow cabinet minister, said on Twitter.

https://www.reuters.com/articl...racist-idUSKCN25A18A

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
I see there's already "birther" rumors around about Kamala, along with the inevitable conspiracy theories.
A little surfing shows the usual Democratic Media Mouthpieces swearing up and down she was born in Oakland, CA.
Does anyone have a link to a more authoritative, less biased source?

Paul,
The issue isn't where she was born, assuming she was born in Oakland, CA. She is a citizen.
The issue is the meaning of the term "natural-born" citizen, vs. "native born".
Most early scholarly writing on the subject defines "natural-born" citizen as born of citizen parents. Neither of Kamala's parents were US citizens. The same argument was made against Barack Obama [father from Kenya, not a citizen], but the Senate [which must determine eligibility] must bring it up for debate but clearly won't raise the issue. So.... forget about it. It's a distraction.

Prof. John C. Eastman, Chapman University School of Law, Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence has written widely on this topic.
He recently penned an article in Newsweek that stirred it up...

Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility
https://www.newsweek.com/some-...lity-opinion-1524483

https://krisannehall.com/index...n-citizen-limitation

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chellim1,

Ben Shapiro having a field day

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
The ONLY way that cognitive deficits are clinically diagnosed is through extensive neuropsychological testing .... the rest is conjecture.

For anyone who had a parent or grandparent go through it, you can spot it. I may not be able to give a clinical diagnosis, but it's clear as day. Just the same as you may not be a mechanic, but if your car starts burning oil; running through coolant; misfiring; smoking; sounding rough; etc. You can tell you have a problem. You may not know the exact diagnosis, but you've had cars in the past and you know what happened right before they shit the bed.

It's kind of like that, he's not right, it's clear as day. Just because I don't know the medical lingo or degree, I can understand something is not right.

When my mom was in the early stages of Alzheimers, a lot depended on what was going on around her. If everything was nice and calm, she was sitting in her chair and watching Leave it to Beaver, she could do pretty good. But get a few grandkids running around, people moving around getting supper ready, strange surroundings, having to make a decision, things like that really messed her up. She just couldn't handle it.

I don't think Uncle Joe will ever make it to a debate. His bad days will catch up to him. The stress of being in front of 10s of millions of viewers, across a stage from President Trump, in a strange location, and having to answer questions are going to mess him up. I don't think his handlers will want the American people to watch that.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
I honestly don't know any "true" blue-dog, old-fashioned Liberal Democrats, like those from the 70's.

Yeah, you do, FSVO (1) "know": Me.

I'm a "classical" liberal. Given the definition of a "Blue Dog Democrat," I guess I qualify. Voted for Democrats more often than not, way back when, but have always been a fiscal conservative. The Democrat Party has gone so far off the rails that, other than voting for Bernie in the last two Democrat primaries (2), I can't recall the last time I voted for a Democrat.

What do I think? The Democratic Party was once a party of ideas and ideals. Many here may not have agreed with many/most/any of them, but at least they had them. And most of them actually were truly liberal. Now the Party relies on dogma based on bankrupt, corrupt narratives that have little to no basis in reality. It is permeated by mindless hate and vitriol. It has become the party of "by any means necessary" and the antithesis of liberalism.

This is no more readily apparent than in the Party's picks for President and VP. Biden was chosen, not because Democrats believed him the best candidate, but because they believed him the most likely to beat the Bad Orange Man in November. They chose their VP pick, not because she was the best choice to work with their Presidential nominee or because she would've been the best to take over the reins should it be necessary, but because she's a woman, and black.

Like I said: Bankrupt. Thoroughly and utterly bankrupt.

I have never been more disgusted by politics and politicians than I am by what the Democratic Party represents today--whatever that is.

(1) FSVO: For Some Value Of
(2) Because voting for Bernie amused me

@chellim1 - Thanks, that seems like an accurate assessment.

quote:

Originally posted by Muddflap:. . . I don't think Uncle Joe will ever make it to a debate. His bad days will catch up to him. The stress of being in front of 10s of millions of viewers, across a stage from President Trump, in a strange location, and having to answer questions are going to mess him up. I don't think his handlers will want the American people to watch that.

That was somewhat my point in an earlier post. Imagine being one of Biden's handlers, trying to create and implement a strategy that will win the election, given the biggest barrier is the reality of Biden.

I am still dumbfounded at people I know (and once respected) who honestly believe Biden is the cure for America.

Kimberly Strassel of WSJ tweets about Kamala Harris:

Everyone from Julian Castro to Cory Booker to Deval Patrick to Tulsi Gabbard to Elizabeth Warren to Pete Buttigieg, to Amy Klobuchar to Andrew Yang to Tom Steyer to Michael Bennet had more appeal and staying power than Harris. But now we are told she is unbeatable?

The NYT last year as Harris dropped out, describing her "unraveled" campaign and explaining her aides had become “given to gallows humor about just how many slogans and one-liners she has cycled through.”

A letter leaked in November 2019 from her veteran Iowa operations manager, resigning, saying she'd “never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly” and expressing dismay at its ability to make “the same unforced errors over and over.”

This is the veep pick who is today being described as vetted, seasoned, awesome, masterful, etc. Harris ended her bid--broke, with tanked poll numbers-- two months before Iowa caucuses. The only person to flame earlier, more spectacularly, was Beto.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...h-one-tweet-n2574359

Today's whistling-past-the-graveyard fever dream, presupposing Biden could handle a first term.

Biden shouldn't rule out a second term if he wins


Given Biden's age, this makes intuitive sense. At 77, he is already the oldest person ever to be a major party candidate for President. Although his doctor says he's in good health for a man his age, there is no guarantee that he will remain so for another four years, let alone eight.

This reality framed Biden's decision about choosing a running mate. Because of his age, Biden needed to choose somebody who would be ready to govern right away. This meant that Biden could not consider candidates who may have been dynamic and brilliant but were also younger and inexperienced.

Stacey Abrams, for example, might have been in play for vice president with a younger nominee, but Biden could not have picked somebody with her limited experience. Other candidates whose lack of experience hurt them included Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Biden's eventual choice, Kamala Harris, has the experience and ability to assume the presidency right away if something were to happen to Biden.

Although there may be many good reasons why Biden should only serve one term as President, announcing that decision could badly undermine Biden's presidency. An effective President must be able to cajole, negotiate and even threaten both the legislature and various elements of the executive branch and the bureaucracy.

The ability of any President to do that depends on people in Congress and government believing he will be in power for a few more years.

Once Biden signals that he is definitely not seeking reelection, members of Congress from both parties, as well as others throughout the government, do not need to engage with him as much and have much less reason to fear him.

Additionally, as soon as it is clear that Biden is not seeking reelection, the race to succeed him, particularly within his own party, will begin in earnest. This would create disunity and competition within the Democratic Party at a time when it is essential to unify the party behind the new President's agenda.

If Biden becomes President his success could depend largely on his ability to persuade Congress, the media and the rest of Washington that he is going to seek a second term in office. If he can do that, he will have the full array of tools at his disposal as he seeks to pass what will likely be an ambitious legislative agenda.

This will be particularly important with regards to the Senate, where after the election it is likely that the Democrats will either have a very slim majority or be just a few votes short of that majority.

In either case, Biden will need every vote he can get in the upper chamber. If members of the Senate think the President might be in office for eight years, they will be more vulnerable to whatever political hardball Biden, who knows the Senate well, can play.

Moreover, if even four or five Democratic senators are already focusing on their own possible presidential runs shortly after Biden takes office, squabbling in the Senate will be inevitable and make it more difficult for Biden to get his legislation passed.

The problem facing Biden is the widespread belief that he will be a one-term President, not least because he has all but said that himself. Biden must find a way to change this perception.

The reality of his age makes this difficult. Convincing the American people that an 81-year-old man could plausibly run for president in 2024 would not be easy.

To put this in perspective, when Ronald Reagan was reelected in 1984, he was 69 years old on Election Day and was, at that time, the oldest person ever elected President. Donald Trump was a few months older and had already turned 70 when he was elected in 2016.

While increased life spans and different attitudes about aging between the 1980s and today may play a role, we still question the ability of an older candidate to withstand the rigor of the campaign, let alone the presidency. When Barack Obama was choosing a running mate in 2008, one of the reasons he was drawn to Biden was because it was assumed that Biden would be too old to run in 2016.

Despite his age, it is possible that Biden can run for a second term, but to do this he must manage his presidency extremely well and delegate authority very clearly.

A Biden presidency where he is deeply involved in the day-to-day challenges of governing is not sustainable over eight years. But could work is a two-term presidency where his time is used judiciously, where he is well staffed and where much of his role is mobilizing public opinion, conducting foreign policy only at the highest levels and functioning as a closer when negotiating with Congress.

The model for this from a managerial, although not ideological, perspective would be Reagan (though there were certainly questions about Reagan's mental acuity in his second term).

Biden ultimately could change his mind about running for a second term down the road. However, if he is elected in November, he cannot squander his political power by immediately making himself a lame duck and incentivizing internal attacks on his administration.

Harris brings a lot to the ticket and can help unify the party, but if she is seen as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2024, Democratic unity will not last long.

If Harris is not expected to run until 2028, other prominent Democrats will not see themselves as in competition from the start of the Biden administration. Otherwise that is precisely what will happen the moment Biden announces he only plans to serve a single term.

Moderate or liberal? Harris co-sponsored single-payer healthcare, Green New Deal, reparations bills

https://justthenews.com/politi...s-enact-single-payer



California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee, has co-sponsored a host of controversial bills in the U.S. Senate in areas including health care and environmental policy.

Harris, who is in her first term as a senator, co-sponsored Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" single-payer health care bill in 2017 and 2019. Opponents of the bill, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, argue that it would eliminate the existing private health insurance system.

In 2019, Harris was also a co-sponsor of Sanders' Green New Deal, which is estimated to cost $16 trillion over 10 years. She recently introduced a climate equity bill incorporating elements of the Green New Deal with New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Harris co-sponsored a bill with New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker to set up a federal commission to study providing reparations to African-American descendants of slaves and "make recommendations on reparation proposals for the descendants of slaves."

Harris also supports the Marijuana Justice Act of 2019, which "removes marijuana from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act and eliminates criminal penalties for an individual who imports, exports, manufactures, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute marijuana."

The former California attorney general is a co-sponsor of a bill introduced by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Markey that would "authorize the admission of climate-displaced persons" from other countries into the U.S.

Harris is listed as a co-sponsor of the Save Voters Act, which would prevent states from purging from voter files the names of individuals who are inactive or have changed addresses. The bill was introduced before the coronavirus pandemic, but if it were signed into law, ballots could be sent to inactive voters at the wrong addresses, given that some states are automatically mailing ballots to registered voters due to the pandemic.

Harris, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also supports a bill to "prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for any violation of federal law and for other purposes." Under its terms anyone "sentenced to death before enactment of this bill must be re-sentenced."

During the course of her first term in the Senate, Harris has voted against bills including the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would establish "requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion."

In addition, Harris cast a no vote on legislation to amend "the federal criminal code to make it a crime for any person to perform or attempt to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more."

She also voted against legislation that would prohibit "the use of federal funds for abortions or for health coverage that includes abortions.” During the presidential primary debates, Harris slammed Biden for supporting the Hyde Amendment during his Senate career. The Hyde Amendment is included in appropriations bills to prohibit federal funds from going toward abortion.

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:
Today's whistling-past-the-graveyard fever dream, presupposing Biden could handle a first term.

Biden shouldn't rule out a second term if he wins

Why would anyone here care about this article from *CNN* speculating about Biden running for a second term?

^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for posting. I thought the article was frankly bizarre and then I noted it was from the Commie News Network.