Suddenly Dole's comment about the Brooklyn Dodgers doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
"I'm going to have a choice in the first week in August," Biden said. "I promise I'll let you know when I do."

But since Old Slo Joe doesn't know where he is or when it is, August could be virtually any time.

"Build back better"???

WTF dumbass thought that slogan up?

LOL, compare that to marketing genius like MAGA, "Build back better" neither rolls off the tongue, nor abbreviates well. Bee-cubed? Triple bee?

What an asshole that Biden guy is.

The Dumbocrats are running scared sh*tless. They are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to make the public believe that Joke Biden not only has a chance at winning the White House, but that he's double digits ahead in all the polls. There are two kinds of Biteme campaigners: the True Believers, who are convinced the man is right for the office, and the cynics (the "Trump haters") who will go all-out to see that Trump isn't re-elected. They are the dangerous ones.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
The Dumbocrats are running scared sh*tless. They are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to make the public believe that Joke Biden not only has a chance at winning the White House, but that he's double digits ahead in all the polls. There are two kinds of Biteme campaigners: the True Believers, who are convinced the man is right for the office, and the cynics (the "Trump haters") who will go all-out to see that Trump isn't re-elected. They are the dangerous ones.

I think you have accurately characterized a number of my neighbors.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
"Build back better"???

WTF dumbass thought that slogan up?

"Lean forward-er"

I can't wait for Biden to try to use the slogan "Build back better" in public and have it come out "Baby got back!"

What kind of language does creepy joe speak?

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
What kind of language does creepy joe speak?

Scrabble.

I'd say it's more like Scrambled. Not a coherent thought or phrase has passed from him in a long while.

He's stuck in his basement because he forgot where they parked the NO MALARKEY bus.

Well, miracle of miracles- Chris "douchebag" Wallace actually did something right. Sorry, Chris, but I thought you had forgotten how to call out anyone but President Trump.

Chris Wallace challenges Biden to follow Trump on 'Fox News Sunday,' says ex-VP must 'get into game shape'

Wallace says Biden needs to experience 'vigorous, persistent questioning' from Sunday news shows


"Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace called out former Vice President Joe Biden Friday over the presumptive Democratic nominee's apparent reluctance to appear on Wallace's program or any of the Sunday morning news shows.

"We asked last week for an interview [for] this past Sunday with Joe Biden," Wallace told "Bill Hemmer Reports" host Bill Hemmer, "and they [his campaign] said that he is not available for that Sunday. That’s not saying that he will not do an interview from now until Election Day, and we will ask every week, but, you know, we'll see."

Wallace's request to have Biden on the program came on the heels of a wide-ranging and occasionally contentious interview with President Trump that aired July 19.

"The fact is," Wallace told "Special Report" host Bret Baier the following Monday, "the president is out there. He's out there in this broiling heat with me for an hour, he took all the questions. You can like his answers or dislike them but he had answers and Joe Biden hasn’t faced that kind of scrutiny, hasn’t faced that kind of exposure."

Biden last appeared on "Fox News Sunday" March 1, the day after his decisive victory in the South Carolina primary rescued a campaign seemingly headed for oblivion.

Wallace warned that if Biden doesn't subject himself to "the kind of vigorous, persistent questioning that you get on any Sunday show, especially, I think, on 'Fox News Sunday,' I think that he runs a risk going into that first presidential debate at the end of September.

"You know, you have to get into game shape like you would for a sports season or anything else," he added, "and I think that if you haven’t, you may be a little rusty -- which is not a good thing when 80 million people are watching."

And if Biden isn't mentally capable of "game shape", what is the Dem Plan B??

I feel your disdain about Wallace, Para. I gotta believe, though, that Chris the Douchnozzle is all hat and no cattle. Yeah...he might be talking a tough game right now to get Biden in the interview arena, but then what kind of questions will he REALLY ask him? Will he turn them into softball questions and ask Ol' Joe things like what his favorite flavor of pudding cup is? Or what's the biggest fish he ever caught?

Trust but verify, when it comes to Wallace.

Side note...I think Wallace and Mike Gallagher must have parted ways since the election of President Trump. I remember when The Anointed One, The Krimson Kenyan was occupying the White House, Wallace and Gallagher would yuck it up every Friday on Gallagher's show talking about what was coming up on Wallace's Sunday show. Since President Trump's success, however, I noticed Gallagher no longer has Wallace on his show and I just wonder if Gallagher called Wallace out on his Leftist ways and they agreed to part company. Just a casual observation...

I think Wallace is just doing what Wallace does - if he doesn't get the interview he wants, he squalls and dresses up his squalling with abstract tactical arguments. By the same token, his interviews are always about making whoever he's talking to look bad - in fact, that's how he tries to distinguish himself in the market.

In this case, his self-serving horse manure actually provided something useful by pointing out a potential (to be polite) weakness in a candidate. Heck, if Biden went on his show, Wallace might even make the playing field a little more fair depending on how he chooses to make Biden look bad. There'd be more than an element of chance in that, though, just because Wallace is firmly focused on feeding his own ego and nothing more.

Maybe this is part of the reason why they're keeping him at 'presumptive nominee' status...plus we're under a 100 days and no VP pick...seems a little malarkey-ish...

$.02 worth...

Boss

quote:

plus we're under a 100 days and no VP pick...seems a little malarkey-ish...

Two things:
1. Michelle Obama. I think she's the wild card. She has said she doesn't want it... but she's been awfully quiet lately. She's Biden's best chance at winning.

2. Is Kamala Harris even eligible?

****
So it’s Senator Kamala Harris? Want to bet?

Former Vice President Joe Biden seems to have announced Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate. There was an inquisitive photographer's shot of his notes suggesting just that. But there's also some question about whether she's really qualified. The media has already seeded the ground with quotes from some of the dumbest lawyers in America to state she is a “natural born citizen” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and is therefore, eligible to be vice president or president.

Is that really true?

Kamala Harris’ mother was Shyamala Gopalan, born in British India (present-day Chennai in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu). Ms. Gopalan never became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Donald Harris, Senator Harris’ father, is a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Jamaica. There are no provisions in the U.S. Constitution that qualifies a child born of a foreign national as a natural-born citizen and Senator Harris is not eligible to hold the office of the vice president.

It's possible the Trump campaign will not allow this nomination to go forward without a court challenge. There will be a full court press by the media to claim Senator Harris is eligible to the office of the vice president. The media and the Democrats will call President Trump every name in the book to get him to back off his call for legal action.

The media did a bang-up job keeping Barack Obama, a child born of a foreign national, out of the courts and into the White House. The Democrat Party believes they can do it again.

Let’s review the primaries of the 2008 election. Hillary Clinton and John McCain couldn’t afford politically to take Obama with his questionable eligibility to court. A court win would have been the classic pyrrhic victory. Whichever candidate had “standing” at the time of the lawsuit would have won the argument (the law and the facts were not on Obama’s side) and disqualified Obama to be eligible to be president, but they would have lost the election (war). A U.S. Supreme Court decision (either Clinton vs Obama, or McCain vs Obama) would have been viewed as a racist attack on a black man and the African-American community would have responded by throwing their support to the other candidate (an Obama replacement) or not voting at all.

Virtually everything written on the topic of “natural born citizen” since the Founding documents were drafted and signed, falls into one of three categories:

(1) As Alexander Hamilton explained, the “natural born citizen” requirement was expressly placed into the Constitution to ward off “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils” by “raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.”

Some doubters questioned the supremacy of U.S. law over the laws of other nations, that being born abroad meant that person was a citizen or subject of that country. However, the Naturalization Act of 1790 reaffirmed a person born abroad of American citizens is also a “natural born citizen.”

(2) The vast preponderance of law review articles focused on the “natural born citizen” requirement. Authors challenged the Framers’ logic, decision, and promulgation (and subsequent Naturalization Laws) that foreign-born children of American citizens are inherently natural-born citizens. One paper which is referenced extensively by other law school students and researchers has been Who Can Be President of the United States: the Unresolved Enigma. Gordon’s article was written at a time when Governor George Romney ran for president. George Romney was born to American citizens in a “Mormon colony” in Colonia Dublán in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico.

Gordon argued that Romney should not be considered eligible to run for president. He tried to revive the legal concept of jus soli (Latin: right of the soil), commonly referred to as birthright citizenship, as the right of a person born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship. Gordon and other legal scholars rejected Romney’s claim of Constitutional presidential eligibility as a “natural born citizen” based on jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood), the principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state.

(3) The remaining percentage of law review articles which focused on the question of “natural born citizen” took a different tack entirely. They challenged the Framers’ logic, that the “natural born citizen” clause was discriminatory, that it embodied “…striking unfairness and dangerous ambiguity.”

In What Is the Constitution’s Worst Provision? Robert C. Post argued that the Clause is highly objectionable because it unmistakably and clearly prohibits naturalized citizens from becoming president. And in Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents, James C. Ho argued that “No matter who wins the White House this November [2000], I and millions of other Americans like me once again will have suffered a certain measure of exclusion from the selection process. We have the right to vote, to be sure. But we cannot serve as president.”

Article after article, it is hard to come to any other conclusion what these legal scholars had in mind and it wasn’t that the U.S. Constitution was “ambiguous,” the favorite trope of the left, but that Democrat lawyers tried to disqualify Republican presidential candidates (Governor Romney wasn’t the only one) on the basis that they were born abroad, that they were not “native-born” and thus should not have been qualified as a “natural born citizen.”

In every article the authors argued the “natural born citizen” clause should mean something other than a person born of American citizens; that potential presidential candidates should either be born in the United States (native born) or not have been born in the United States (a naturalized citizen). Alexander Hamilton asserted that a person’s birthplace is immaterial. If they are born to American parents, then they can be born abroad, on the sea, in the air, and maybe one day, in space.

When it pleased them, leftist lawyers wished to exclude candidates they did not like on the basis of where they were born or that the Constitution is discriminatory. Alexander Hamilton’s concern wasn’t where a potential candidate for president was born but rather how he would govern the new United States. The allegiance of a child of a foreign national could rest with another country over the interests of America.

In her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, Jill Pryor wrote, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) brought to the floor Senate Resolution S.Res.511 and “resolved” and reaffirmed Senator John McCain (R)—born in Panama of American citizens—was a natural born citizen.

There are no circumstances in U.S. law that qualifies a person born of a foreign national to be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Senator Harris’ mother was born in British India and never became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Senator Harris is unambiguously ineligible to be vice president of the United States.

In lieu of a court challenge and media malfeasance, I submit the Senate could consider a Senate Resolution to affirm Senator Harris’ constitutional eligibility for the office of the vice president.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...t.html#ixzz6TsStBcyf

^^^ I'm afraid this is one case where Alexander Hamilton is correct.

1. There was never any intention to deny citizenship to the child of one U.S. citizen and, given how active Americans were in international trade, the Founding Fathers were certainly aware of the possibility that one citizen might have a child somewhere other than in the U.S.

2. As a rule, the Constitution doesn't authorize, it prohibits. If there's nothing in there saying Harris isn't a 'natural born citizen', then there's nothing there to contradict her claim to being a natural born citizen.

This is wishful thinking that doesn't even serve a purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Michelle Obama. I think she's the wild card. She has said she doesn't want it... but she's been awfully quiet lately. She's Biden's best chance at winning.

You need to think about it a bit more. First, incumbent Presidents usually are re-elected. Do you honestly think the Obamas are going to put themselves in a position to lose an election to Donald Trump? Really? Obama already embarrassed himself by saying over and over again in the leadup to the 2016 election that Donald Trump would never be POTUS. You think he's going to put himself in the position of embarrassing himself again?

More importantly, do you think Barack Obama is going to allow his wife to play second fiddle to Obama's bumbling VP? Do you think Barack Obama will allow himself ever to be the spouse of a VP, especially under the guy who used to work for him?

Come on

That witch may have political aspirations, but the Obamas are never going to willingly put themselves in a position of losing to Trump or having to be bossed around by Joe Biden.

I think he will choose a relatively unknown black female as a running mate. Someone who is not known on the national stage.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
1. Michelle Obama. I think she's the wild card. She has said she doesn't want it

She doesn't want it. Never did, never will.

To add to Para's post, she loathed the political life, loathed life in the WH. Reportedly she was ecstatic when Obama's 2nd term ended, out and away from the public microscope, while past First Ladies had sadness at the end.

And now she and Kaptain Kenya have a production deal in Hollywood; now they're a bigger deal than their model couple, Jay-Z and Bouncy Girl. They have a million mansions. They have a gazillion dollars, they are loved by the sheep and the media.

And to give all of this up to play Ed McMahon to Shotgun Joe?