Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Democratic VP candidates - Kamala Harris Is The Choice


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, The General said:
10 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

Because the main two are doing such a bang up job.

But, hey keep rooting for "your" side.  It's the American way.

 

What issues aren’t starkly enough drawn between the two choices we have that a 3rd party would address?

What would a 3rd party do to alleviate the issues our government has at the moment?

Once this 3rd party actually had to govern and not just say things like “through pragmatic problem solving and reduced paperwork we will lessens healthcare costs by 75%” you are telling me people wouldn’t find them to suck as well?

We'll never know because "they" have us just where they want us.  Two choices that are already bought and paid for.  But, again as long as my side wins that's all we care about.  We continue to look past the egregious warts because we don't have a choice and we believe our side is better than the other side.  Newsflash:  They are the same.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

We'll never know because "they" have us just where they want us.  Two choices that are already bought and paid for.  But, again as long as my side wins that's all we care about.  We continue to look past the egregious warts because we don't have a choice and we believe our side is better than the other side.  Newsflash:  They are the same.

I believed this talking point when I heard it from Ralph Nader in 2000.

And I may still believe it, in theory. But after seeing Trump botch the US response to the coronavirus, I am convinced that it doesn't matter if the "sides" are the same; I just want a leader who will listen to scientists.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hov34 said:

We'll never know because "they" have us just where they want us.  Two choices that are already bought and paid for.  But, again as long as my side wins that's all we care about.  We continue to look past the egregious warts because we don't have a choice and we believe our side is better than the other side.  Newsflash:  They are the same.

 

They aren’t the same. This is just ridiculous. Take environmental issues. You are telling me that there is no difference? Take how we will be taxed, no difference? What kind of judges are picked, no difference? How a different president would handle COVID?  How immigration would be handled? How “trade war” with China would go down? Agree to disagree.

There are no perfect candidates. Any person who actually has to govern will be torn apart just as these candidates are. These 3rd party people have the benefit of not having actually done anything. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I believed this talking point when I heard it from Ralph Nader in 2000.

And I may still believe it, in theory. But after seeing Trump botch the US response to the coronavirus, I am convinced that it doesn't matter if the "sides" are the same; I just want a leader who will listen to scientists.

Take Nader in 2000.

People that I’d have to think would while not perfectly aligned with Gore would have been much closer to him on many issues than W.

A few hundred of those people vote Gore instead of Nader in Florida.

There’s little chance we invade Iraq. We very likely begin taking climate change much more serious. The nation, world really, is drastically different.

There’s your difference between these 2 parties. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The General said:

They aren’t the same. This is just ridiculous. Take environmental issues. You are telling me that there is no difference? Take how we will be taxed, no difference? What kind of judges are picked, no difference? How a different president would handle COVID?  How immigration would be handled? How “trade war” with China would go down? Agree to disagree.

There are no perfect candidates. Any person who actually has to govern will be torn apart just as these candidates are. These 3rd party people have the benefit of not having actually done anything. 

Ok, you win.  The D vs. R way is the best way.  And they get so much done when they are in office.  Clinton to Bush to Obama was pretty much the same and got nothing accomplished (except for making rich people richer) for 30 years, but you keep accepting this and let's see what changes.  Our political system is broken.

I'm not going to change anyone's minds in here.  You all are firmly entrenched on "your" team - and we all want to be winners! (Even though you both lose in the long run)

Disclaimer: I will again "waste my vote" and support a 3rd party because both of "your" candidates are horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

Jesus, how are "progressives" ok with her.

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) defended Sen. Kamala Harris on Sunday, saying that despite Democratic Party infighting over policy proposals, a majority of progressives understand the importance of defeating President Donald Trump come November.

Sanders spoke highly of Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick, noting that she’s “incredibly smart [and] incredibly tough.”

 

“I think she's an asset for the Biden campaign, and I think she's going to do great on the campaign trail,” he said of the California senator on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

Ok, you win.  The D vs. R way is the best way.  And they get so much done when they are in office.  Clinton to Bush to Obama was pretty much the same and got nothing accomplished (except for making rich people richer) for 30 years, but you keep accepting this and let's see what changes.  Our political system is broken.

I'm not going to change anyone's minds in here.  You all are firmly entrenched on "your" team - and we all want to be winners! (Even though you both lose in the long run)

Disclaimer: I will again "waste my vote" and support a 3rd party because both of "your" candidates are horrible.

I notice you didn’t answer my question about the differences between the 2 parties. There are very stark differences. 

I agree that the system is a mess. Governing isn’t easy. Inject billions of dollars into anything and it is going to be problematic. I question what this 3rd party does to address that. 

Hopefully you get a chance to vote this year. Depending on your state it may be made difficult. 

Edited by The General
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Gator said:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) defended Sen. Kamala Harris on Sunday, saying that despite Democratic Party infighting over policy proposals, a majority of progressives understand the importance of defeating President Donald Trump come November.

Sanders spoke highly of Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick, noting that she’s “incredibly smart [and] incredibly tough.”

 

“I think she's an asset for the Biden campaign, and I think she's going to do great on the campaign trail,” he said of the California senator on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

Far left progressives have already moved on from Bernie. He’s now a sell out as well and part of the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Gator said:
41 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

Jesus, how are "progressives" ok with her.

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) defended Sen. Kamala Harris on Sunday, saying that despite Democratic Party infighting over policy proposals, a majority of progressives understand the importance of defeating President Donald Trump come November.

Sanders spoke highly of Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick, noting that she’s “incredibly smart [and] incredibly tough.”

 

“I think she's an asset for the Biden campaign, and I think she's going to do great on the campaign trail,” he said of the California senator on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

This solidifies my point.  She's not the best candidate (not even close) but because she's all we have (on the left) we have to grit our teeth and support her to defeat the evil orange man.  Our political system is sad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hov34 said:

This solidifies my point.  She's not the best candidate (not even close) but because she's all we have (on the left) we have to grit our teeth and support her to defeat the evil orange man.  Our political system is sad.

 

And, yet you have not proposed a viable alternative.

:shrug:

 

But, I would love to hear who you think would be "the best candidate" for VP for Joe Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The General said:

I notice you didn’t answer my question about the differences between the 2 parties. There are very stark differences. 

I agree that the system is a mess. Governing isn’t easy. Inject billions of dollars into anything and it isn’t going to be problematic. I question what this 3rd party does to address that. 

Hopefully you get a chance to vote this year. Depending on your state it may be made difficult. 

In message and rhetoric yes, but nothing gets done!!!!  But you keep supporting the message and I'll keep complaining (with no clear solution).  Again, you aren't going to convert me and I'm not going to open your eyes.  So have a great life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Gator said:

And, yet you have not proposed a viable alternative.

:shrug:

 

But, I would love to hear who you think would be "the best candidate" for VP for Joe Biden.

Tulsi, not even close.

But she won't toe the line.

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The General said:

Far left progressives have already moved on from Bernie. He’s now a sell out as well and part of the problem. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Retweeted

Elizabeth Warren @ewarren

@KamalaHarris will be a great partner to @JoeBiden in making our government a powerful force for good in the fight for social, racial, and economic justice.

 

:shrug:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hov34 said:

Tulsi, not even close.

But she won't toe the line.

 

In what world is Tulsi Gabbard a viable VP candidate for Joe Biden?

I don't think you have a full appreciation for how a President - VP partnership works, and how little influence a VP has over just about anything.

 

You even noted "She won't toe the line" - that is one of the fundamental requirements for any VP candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hov34 said:

In message and rhetoric yes, but nothing gets done!!!!  But you keep supporting the message and I'll keep complaining (with no clear solution).  Again, you aren't going to convert me and I'm not going to open your eyes.  So have a great life.

 

I totally disagree with you saying nothing gets done but regardless the world moves on despite what Congress does. 

We get attacked, there is a response. We have a pandemic, there is a response. Judges retire, new ones are picked .

How these people respond is dramatically different.

Oh and spare me the opening my eyes stuff :lol:  TIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hov34 said:

Tulsi, not even close.

But she won't toe the line.

 

Elaborate please.  How do you feel her being on the ticket with Biden instead of Harris is politically "better" outside of your personal preference of course.  I'll take three things she would bring to the ticket to electrify the base that Harris doesn't.  

Actually, this question goes out to anyone who doesn't agree with the Harris pick.  I'd like to hear who you think would have been better politically and why.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the 2 party system is the inherent problem.  While it would be nice to see what a 3rd party would accomplish, I'm pretty confident it would end up being not much different.

Reason being that our entire political system is beholden to corporations and organizations with money. And that money, which funds these candidates, buys policies that benefit those entities at the expense of most everyone else.

If we want to fix the system, I think the only way to do so is to eliminate the ability for these groups to fund candidates and eliminate their ability to "buy votes and policies". That's easier said than done, but as long as that is in place, it doesn't matter if we have a 1 party, 2 party, or 10 party system because ultimately money will win out.

Along those same lines, salaries and benefits for politicians (especially those lifelong benefits) need to go away. Too much incentive to get in and stay in without being held truly accountable.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Gator said:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Retweeted

Elizabeth Warren @ewarren

@KamalaHarris will be a great partner to @JoeBiden in making our government a powerful force for good in the fight for social, racial, and economic justice.

 

:shrug:

 

Just another sellout! AOC clearly isn’t far enough left or hasn’t done anything or is part of the problem. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Elaborate please.  How do you feel her being on the ticket with Biden instead of Harris is politically "better" outside of your personal preference of course.  I'll take three things she would bring to the ticket to electrify the base that Harris doesn't.  

Actually, this question goes out to anyone who doesn't agree with the Harris pick.  I'd like to hear who you think would have been better politically and why.  Thanks.

Without knowing the role Biden wants to use the VP in - its hard to answer this question.

I believe having a woman VP is an important qualification (when its a male presidential candidate).

I believe having a person of color as a VP candidate is an important qualification (when you have a white presidential candidate)

Beyond that, I can think of many backgrounds that make sense - again depending on what the presidential candidate is looking for in a partner.  

From a practical sense, I think a VP candidate who has been vetted by press and oppo research, helps a campaign avoid unknown skeletons.

 

Biden was not my top presidential candidate.  I think I preferred Susan Rice to Harris as a VP, but that was mostly based on shared experience in Obama administration.  I have no problems with Harris as a candidate.

Together, I am moderately excited about the ticket.

I am 100% confident in the competency of the ticket - and in the end, that is all that mattered to me.  I just want some normalcy back to the executive branch.  We can quibble over the details, but we should not be this far astray from competent governance.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, The Gator said:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) defended Sen. Kamala Harris on Sunday, saying that despite Democratic Party infighting over policy proposals, a majority of progressives understand the importance of defeating President Donald Trump come November.

Sanders spoke highly of Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick, noting that she’s “incredibly smart [and] incredibly tough.”

 

“I think she's an asset for the Biden campaign, and I think she's going to do great on the campaign trail,” he said of the California senator on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

This guy has totally debased himself with Biden and now Harris, it's clear that his "movement" was about sheepherding genuine progressive energy behind corrupt establishment.  Just lays down in the most pitiful way for the ruling class while extracting zero tangible concessions for his support.  A total humiliation for the left.  What a joke.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How often do far-right conservatives ever say "There's no way we can get what we want from the current two-party system, so we shouldn't support the Republican party!"?

I mean, I guess it's similar to what some Libertarians believe, but they're not really on the far right, are they? They are ideologically opposed to many facets of the Republican party, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a German word for “quit letting perfect be the enemy of good”. This thread recently is a good example of that. But I feel like I’m always saying that nowadays when I’m arguing with friends over pandemic response (cloth mask doesn’t even do much compared to an n95!!) and what our local schools are doing.

Edited by Hugh Jass
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

We need a German word for “quit letting perfect be the enemy of good”. This thread recently is a good example of that. But I feel like I’m always saying that nowadays when I’m arguing with friends over pandemic response (cloth mask doesn’t even do much compared to an n95!!) and what our local schools are doing.

Need the German word for 'quit using Trump as an excuse to support evil'.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

Ok, you win.  The D vs. R way is the best way.  And they get so much done when they are in office.  Clinton to Bush to Obama was pretty much the same and got nothing accomplished (except for making rich people richer) for 30 years, but you keep accepting this and let's see what changes.  Our political system is broken.

I'm not going to change anyone's minds in here.  You all are firmly entrenched on "your" team - and we all want to be winners! (Even though you both lose in the long run)

Disclaimer: I will again "waste my vote" and support a 3rd party because both of "your" candidates are horrible.

You and I aren’t far out of alignment.  I’ve been banging the 3rd party drum around here for a long time.  The stairs broken and needs a change.  But I do find it interesting that you stopped your POTUS comparisons at Obama.  Trump is clearly different then the previous 3 (in a bad way for many of us and not so for others).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

You and I aren’t far out of alignment.  I’ve been banging the 3rd party drum around here for a long time.  The stairs broken and needs a change.  But I do find it interesting that you stopped your POTUS comparisons at Obama.  Trump is clearly different then the previous 3 (in a bad way for many of us and not so for others).  

Regardless of how a 3rd party would make any change in the process life continues.

The reactions and results by who we have in charge is very different. 

Ignoring this and saying there isn’t a difference is kind of nuts to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dkp993 said:
1 hour ago, Hov34 said:

Ok, you win.  The D vs. R way is the best way.  And they get so much done when they are in office.  Clinton to Bush to Obama was pretty much the same and got nothing accomplished (except for making rich people richer) for 30 years, but you keep accepting this and let's see what changes.  Our political system is broken.

I'm not going to change anyone's minds in here.  You all are firmly entrenched on "your" team - and we all want to be winners! (Even though you both lose in the long run)

Disclaimer: I will again "waste my vote" and support a 3rd party because both of "your" candidates are horrible.

You and I aren’t far out of alignment.  I’ve been banging the 3rd party drum around here for a long time.  The stairs broken and needs a change.  But I do find it interesting that you stopped your POTUS comparisons at Obama.  Trump is clearly different then the previous 3 (in a bad way for many of us and not so for others).  

Oh, I agree.  I don't know what Trump is.  (A disaster?)  He has the illusion of being an "outsider" and not part of the establishment, but in the end he's just as much a shill as the others, with even less leadership.  And in that respect he's far more dangerous leading the "right" to think they have their savior to "drain the swamp".  How'd that work for you Republicans?

P.S. I'm going to ask the same question in 4 years (hopefully) to the Democrats. 

Spoiler alert: the answer will be the same.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Gator said:

Without knowing the role Biden wants to use the VP in - its hard to answer this question.

Clearly,  it's not.... he seemed pretty confident it's true. So I'm asking for his list/reasons. I doubt he'll answer (telling imo) but i think it's a valid question to those who aren't happy with the pick. 

Edited by The Commish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hov34 said:
On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 PM, The Gator said:

I'll try this one more time.

Harris, the candidate, is pretty strong.  She is very well spoken, and carries herself well in public.

 

:oldunsure:

:shrug:

 

I find her to be very well spoken

It may be that not everyone likes what she has to say - but I think she speaks confidently and competently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Clearly,  it's not.... he seemed pretty confident it's true. So I'm asking for his list/reasons. I doubt he'll answer but i think it's a valid question to those who aren't happy with the pick. 

I agree.

And, quite frankly, I have not seen any pro-Biden people overly concerned with this pick.  Sure, there are a few Trump supporters that don't like the pick, and I can understand the far-left supporters using this as a reason to not like Biden.  But, if you are supporting Biden - this was a home run for a pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Commish said:

Actually, this question goes out to anyone who doesn't agree with the Harris pick.  I'd like to hear who you think would have been better politically and why.  Thanks.

Barbara Lee.  She opposed the AUMF when it mattered the most.  She stood on the right side of history when it wasn't easy to do so.  It would signal that Biden is somewhat regretful of his mistakes for supporting the Iraq War, and interested in supporting a black woman in a position of power beyond just a token gesture to identity.  

That would be interesting to me anyway.  It wouldn't push me over the ledge, but it'd be a good selection that I would gladly give him credit for.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, The Gator said:
3 hours ago, Hov34 said:
On 8/15/2020 at 11:20 AM, The Gator said:

I'll try this one more time.

Harris, the candidate, is pretty strong.  She is very well spoken, and carries herself well in public.

 

:oldunsure:

:shrug:

 

I find her to be very well spoken

It may be that not everyone likes what she has to say - but I think she speaks confidently and competently.

 

Not really what I was alluding to.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Clearly,  it's not.... he seemed pretty confident it's true. So I'm asking for his list/reasons. I doubt he'll answer (telling imo) but i think it's a valid question to those who aren't happy with the pick. 

What's the point?  No one is going to change your mind, are they?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Barbara Lee.  She opposed the AUMF when it mattered the most.  She stood on the right side of history when it wasn't easy to do so.  It would signal that Biden is somewhat regretful of his mistakes for supporting the Iraq War, and interested in supporting a black woman in a position of power beyond just a token gesture to identity.  

That would be interesting to me anyway.  It wouldn't push me over the ledge, but it'd be a good selection that I would gladly give him credit for.  

Elaborate please.  How do you feel her being on the ticket with Biden instead of Harris is politically "better" outside of your personal preference of course.  I'll take three things she would bring to the ticket to electrify the base that Harris doesn't.  Am I to assume that you believe the Iraq war is still front and center in the minds of many Democrats or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Commish said:

Elaborate please.  How do you feel her being on the ticket with Biden instead of Harris is politically "better" outside of your personal preference of course.  I'll take three things she would bring to the ticket to electrify the base that Harris doesn't.  Am I to assume that you believe the Iraq war is still front and center in the minds of many Democrats or something?

I don't know how I'm supposed to define "politically better" if not by personal preferences.  There are no empirical "politically better" metrics that I know of.  

Maybe ending war isn't 'front and center' for Democrats, but it is for a lot of them.  And Republicans and Independents too.  There are millions of nonvoting Americans that are tired of the bipartisan warfare state.  To be honest I don't understand how people can sit here and look at $740 billion dollars being pissed away on war and not center it as a prime issue.

Obama and Trump both won on messaging that was critical of US interventionism abroad, and were able to make that case because of their "outsider" status.  Lee would have been a compelling figure on that front.  

It doesn't matter now but I think she would have been a great pick for a Dem ticket.  A lot of people wanted her for Speaker of the House.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ren hoek said:

I don't know how I'm supposed to define "politically better" if not by personal preferences.  There are no empirical "politically better" metrics that I know of.  

Maybe ending war isn't 'front and center' for Democrats, but it is for a lot of them.  And Republicans and Independents too.  There are millions of nonvoting Americans that are tired of the bipartisan warfare state.  To be honest I don't understand how people can sit here and look at $740 billion dollars being pissed away on war and not center it as a prime issue.

Obama and Trump both won on messaging that was critical of US interventionism abroad, and were able to make that case because of their "outsider" status.  Lee would have been a compelling figure on that front.  

It doesn't matter now but I think she would have been a great pick for a Dem ticket.  A lot of people wanted her for Speaker of the House.  

It's relatively easy.  Simply look at the platform they profess to want to accomplish and start with it as a measure.  If you aren't on board with the platform to begin with, that's a larger issue and sadly, campaigning isn't going to be dialed in on what you want to hear/see.  It's one thing to say "I want Medicare for All", but also understand it's most likely better to shoot for a government run option in the private system already here.  The first is your personal preference.  The later is viewed as what's better for the party at the moment.

I don't know how many people continue to be focused on the Iraq war.  Honestly, I only hear it talked about as an example of how our war machine is costing way too much money (as you do above).  I don't think many on the "left" would disagree that we spend too much on military.  It's often one of the first things they recommend cutting to pay for their other pet projects.  So I guess I'm still not sure why being a voice against the Iraq war from over a decade ago matters or moves the needle with the base any more than the message that we need to cut military spending and invest in ourselves as a nation.  I don't think it takes a unique voice to get people on board with that message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the frustration of those that despise both sides. I was there - and to some degree still am. But why is this stalemate our reality? why do government decisions so frequently benefit the rich? why do we continue to fund seemingly endless war? is it because both parties are in cahoots with each other? is it their donors that drive their decision making? is one side beyond reproach? does the other have the right priorities when they're not in power? and makes poor decisions while in power?

I'm skeptical of Kamala. I'm not enthused by Biden. I don't know where he was in my primary season list, but it wasn't in the top 3. But I also knew who I was voting for sometime on March 3rd. Because my lack of enthusiasm is heavily influenced by what they (may?) have to deal with on the other side. A side that over the last decade...two...plus...will not compromise...listen when it to comes to problem solution. It takes two to tango - and one is sitting in the corner with its arms crossed avoiding eye contact instinctively muttering to themselves 'but what about.' Biden has a history of collaboration, but not so much in the latter part of his career. And it isn't because fundamentally he changed. He doesn't always make the right decisions, but they're usually driven by finding a middle ground within our current power structure. So our control function? Reassembling those in power he is tasked with collaborating.

Some are predictably going to twist those words or just hit the laugh emoji or already stopped reading...I'm not talking to them. I don't care what they think. So - anyone else, there are problems within the democratic leadership structure that need reformed for us to go forward, but prioritizing that does not fix our problem. It just reassembles the group tasked with trying to compromise with the group that is...unwilling to compromise. Single issue voters aren't changing. Neither are the less gov't is more. And especially all the different subsets that make up the pwning the libz crowd. I may fundamentally disagree with the former, but I don't take issue with them. Own your politics - and they do. That one in the middle actually best fits my own beliefs; it's more nuanced than just that, but if I were asked to summarize them in 4 words those would be it. But the latter group? They must be muted. They alone don't represent nearly enough data points to maintain power. But when enough of the rest of us are divided you have what's transpired over the last 3+ years. A representative at the top of the food chain who is driven by three things: himself, re-election, and pwning the libz. And has a party that enables that behavior with willful ignorance - so, annex them because of that silence.

I do not expect those with progressive leanings to be happy about a Biden/Harris ticket. But if you ever want your goals to be serious considerations then in this particular election I think you need to support them. And barring unusual circumstances, congressional reps down ballot. On a similar note, for those that align with Biden/Harris and have more progressive reps on their state ticket - follow the same path. You may not align with their goals, but if you want our country to get out of a 'bipartisan war state' then the GOP as currently constructed must die. We can go back to our 3 party arguments sometime after that happens.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2020 at 12:43 PM, Hov34 said:

Oh, I agree.  I don't know what Trump is.  (A disaster?)  He has the illusion of being an "outsider" and not part of the establishment, but in the end he's just as much a shill as the others, with even less leadership.  And in that respect he's far more dangerous leading the "right" to think they have their savior to "drain the swamp".  How'd that work for you Republicans?

P.S. I'm going to ask the same question in 4 years (hopefully) to the Democrats. 

Spoiler alert: the answer will be the same.

For about ten years we hear constantly about how first candidate and then president Obama's rhetoric about how he couldn't do much of anything but we could do just about anything if we get together is evidence of Obama's "messiah complex".  Now we have had five years of Trump and his supporters proclaiming that "only Trump can do" this or that.   So the answer is only the same if you believe that anyone* believes that Biden is the "only one" that can save us. 

*Okay, I'm sure there is someone out there that believes this if you want to get carried away with being literal.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2020 at 12:31 PM, The Gator said:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) defended Sen. Kamala Harris on Sunday, saying that despite Democratic Party infighting over policy proposals, a majority of progressives understand the importance of defeating President Donald Trump come November.

Sanders spoke highly of Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick, noting that she’s “incredibly smart [and] incredibly tough.”

 

“I think she's an asset for the Biden campaign, and I think she's going to do great on the campaign trail,” he said of the California senator on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

I mean what's he supposed to say really? He made a deal to run as a Democrat now he's living up to it. We get it.

For what it's worth I don't think he's wrong in what he said, she is smart and tough... she's just not a progressive (despite that calculation the Fox News crowd keeps passing around about how she's more lefty than Bernie)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...