• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The US Presidency 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hamish Seggie said:
I know virtually nothing about her but then again we knew very little about Obama. It seems she fits the profile.
Does she speak French?

Possibly. She went to school in Montreal. From Wikipedia:

When she was 12, Harris and her sister moved with their mother to Montreal, Canada, where their mother had accepted a research position at Jewish General Hospital and teaching at McGill University.[19] Harris attended Westmount High School in Westmount, Quebec, graduating in 1981.
 
Anyone in Westmount will tell you in no uncertain terms that while they may well be on the Island of Montreal, they are in the City of Westmount.
 
QV said:
I think you miss the point.

If you had watched the Republican Primaries in 2016 you'd know he stated he understood how politics worked and that he specifically wasn't for sale and didn't owe anyone any favours.  Yes, he said he knew the game and played it.  Take that how you want to.  I stated that as the counter to your suggestion he once supported Harris because he donated to her.   

If you only get your information from CNN and you've never actually listened to the endless hearings, debates, testimony, personal interviews for yourself to hear what is actually said than I'd suggest you have some catching up to do for an informed opinion.  Doesn't the abuse of intel and law enforcement powers for political purposes bother you? That's rhetorical. 

With respect to "Canadian supporting".  What I am against is corruption in high office or positions of public trust, and the Trump term has shown in ugly detail how bad that was in the last administration and most importantly the media shirking their fourth estate responsibility.  SNC, WE, etc have shown those problems to exist up here too.       

While I certainly appreciate your intimations that because I disapprove of Trump I must be uninformed, only watch CNN and didn’t watch the primaries (so possibly also a Lib?), you’re way off. But thank you for directing the discusdion towards a more personal nature simply because you practically blindly defend all Trump has said and done (as evidenced by your posts) since day one of his most glorious win. (Sarcasm)

Your attempts to draw attention to the issues of the previous US administration while (mind-bogglingly, albeit indirectly) purporting the current admin to be of some righteous example of how a proper administration should run?...while then also using misdirection to bring up asinine events of the Cdn government is typical behaviour of the majority of Trump supporters/Cdn Trump supporters.

Pretty sure ‘whataboutism’ has been brought up a lot recently. Very apt example.


Edit to add:

On another note:

Varying levels of concern/contempt and analysis for where the GOP finds itself now

Veteran GOP Strategist Takes On Trump — And His Party — In 'It Was All A Lie'

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901274491/veteran-gop-strategist-takes-on-trump-and-his-party-in-it-was-all-a-lie

  Veteran political consultant Stuart Stevens has spent years working as a strategist for Republican campaigns, including the presidential bids of Bob Dole, George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. But Stevens didn't support the party's candidate in the 2016 presidential election — and he wasn't alone.

"In 2016, when I went out and attacked Trump on television," he says, "I would say maybe a third of the party hierarchy would email me and thank me for doing this."

But Stevens notes that many of the Republicans who had privately voiced concern about Trump changed their tune on election night. "I started getting emails like, 'Could you maybe delete that email?' " he says.

"It's an extraordinary contradiction," Stevens tells Fresh Air in an Internet interview.

He notes, "I've never heard any Republican officeholder speak of President Trump as if he should be president. ... They know he shouldn't be president. [But] he is president, and they still support him."

In his new book, It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump, Stevens argues that the party's support for Trump isn't just a pragmatic choice. Instead, he says, it reflects the party's complete abandonment of principles it long claimed to embrace, such as fiscal restraint, personal responsibility and family values.

Stevens acknowledges his own role in the party's shift: "One of the things that drew me to the Republican Party was the concept of personal responsibility. So I don't know where to begin with personal responsibility except to take responsibility personally."


Interview highlights

On why he believes the leaders of the Republican Party became more extreme and anti-intellectual

It's an abdication of leadership on behalf of Republican Party leaders that have allowed these kooks and lunatics and anti-intellectuals to become dominant in the party.

Stuart Stevens

I think one of the conclusions you have to come to is that leaders really matter in helping shape the party. And I think that it's an abdication of leadership on behalf of Republican Party leaders that have allowed these kooks and lunatics and anti-intellectuals to become dominant in the party. It didn't have to be that way.

There was a time when there was an intellectual core to the Republican Party. We used to say we were the party of big ideas and there was some truth to that. And one of those big ideas was opposing Communism. One of those big ideas was the role of society in helping people become less dependent on government. ... So you can make a good case that the Republican Party was a victim of its own success: We won the Cold War. Bill Clinton passed welfare reform.

And so around 2000, it was a question of how do you formulate a new policy? And we never really came to grips with that. And it has allowed those with the loudest voices to become dominant in the party. I compare it to sports teams. Who is it in the stands that gets the most attention? It's the person that takes their shirt off and runs out on the field. And that's really what's happened in our politics, but particularly in the Republican Party. And the leaders have not stepped in and stopped it.

On the GOP doing an "autopsy" after the 2012 election when Mitt Romney lost to Obama

I think Reince Priebus, who was the chairman of the party then, and there's a lot of credit for initiating that so-called autopsy. It's always difficult to be self-critical. And what's fascinating about that is the conclusions were fairly obvious. You had to appeal more to nonwhite, yet appeal more to younger voters who had to appeal more to women. But it was presented not only as a political necessity to win elections — because we'd only won the popular vote once since [the] 1988 presidential votes — it was presented as a moral mandate, that if you are going to deserve the right to be the governing party of this big, confusing, loud, changing country, you needed to reflect that. So then Donald Trump comes along, and you can almost hear this audible sigh of relief and all that got thrown out and go, "Well, thank God we don't have to pretend we care about this stuff. We can just win with white folks and we can just be comfortable with that." And I mean, it just showed how phony it was.

On Trump's campaign strategy for the fall

It is going to be the ugliest campaign we've ever seen by a desperate man.

Stuart Stevens on Trump's 2020 presidential campaign

It's going to be a racial grievance campaign unlike we have ever seen on the national stage. I think it is going to be the ugliest campaign we've ever seen, by a desperate man. So Donald Trump is behind now and he's talking about suspending the elections. Think about a week out if he's behind: If I was a Canadian minister of defense, I'd be worried he's going to invade Ottawa. This is an unstable man who is headed to potentially a historic defeat. And I think he's going to wave the bloody shirt and try to scare white voters, and I think they're going to do everything they can to suppress nonwhite votes. Legal, illegal, quasi-legal. That's what they're going to try to do because they think that's the only way they can win.

On what he believes is next for the Republican Party

I really am extraordinarily negative on the prospects of the party, and it's an unusual position for me because I've always been sort of the eternal optimist and always thought that we could come back from any deficit. I came across a statistic recently that just absolutely blew my mind: Of Americans 15 years and under, the majority are nonwhite. ... And what does that mean for the Republican Party? It's just a stage 4 cancer warning and the party gives no reason that it's going to change.

So I see the Republican Party, [what will] happening nationally, as what happens to the Republican Party in California. So California was the beating heart and soul of the Republican Party. It was an electoral citadel that we based all victory on. And now where's the Republican Party? It's in third place, not second, third [in registration]. ... And the Republican Party, really, for the most part, became irrelevant in the debate of policy in California. They've made themselves irrelevant. And I see the same thing happening with the national Republican Party.

There is a market for a center-right party and a need for it in America. I think something else will evolve. But to get a sense of how deep Trumpism is instilled, there's another Republican Party out there and that's these governors. So if you look at these very popular governors in blue states like [Larry] Hogan in Maryland, Charlie Baker, Massachusetts, Phil Scott here in Vermont, I work for all these guys. And if the Republican Party had any sense, I'd say, look, these guys are wildly popular in the hardest market. What can we learn from them? Instead, the party kind of treats them with benign neglect. But each of these governors, wildly popular as they are, they can't pick their own party chairman. They're Trump people, and the idea that a governor couldn't pick a party chairman is so mind-boggling, it just shows how deep Trumpism has become in the party.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/08/a-never-trumper-finally-admits-its-time-to-burn-the-gop-to-the-ground/

  As Elizabeth Kolbert documented a few years ago, human beings don’t change their minds about much of anything very often. That goes a long way towards explaining the durability of some of Trump’s support. It is also why I have been pretty fascinated with many of the Never Trumpers. Some of them have managed the incredibly difficult task of examining their loyalty to the Republican Party and changing their minds.

No one has done that more courageously than Stuart Stevens, who spent most of his adult life not only supporting the Republican Party, but being one of their major political consultants. David Corn recently interviewed Stevens, who takes the whole idea of personal responsibility very seriously.

He once believed in GOP ideals and ideas. Now he saw it all as a huge con. His new book is a confession and cri de coeur. The first line is blunt: “I have no one to blame but myself.” In these pages, Stevens self-flagellates, calling himself a “fool” for his decades of believing—and lying to himself—that the Republican Party was based on “a core set of values.” Acknowledging his role, Stevens writes, “So yes, blame me. Blame me when you look around and see a dysfunctional political system and a Republican Party that has gone insane.”

That is what gives Stevens’ analysis of how the GOP went insane some credibility.

“The Republican Party has been a cartel,” Stevens said excitedly. “And no one asks a cartel, ‘What’s your ideological purpose?’ You don’t ask OPEC, ‘What’s your ideology?’ You don’t ask a drug gang, ‘What’s your program?’ The Republicans exist for the pursuit of power for no purpose.”

He huffed that the Republican Party had not merely drifted away from its core positions, as sometimes occurs with political parties: “Fair trade, balanced budgets, character, family values, standing up to foreign adversaries like Russia—we’re all against that now. You have to ask, ‘Does someone abandon deeply held beliefs in three or four years?’ No. It means you didn’t ever hold them.”…

He rejected the common view that Trump had hijacked the GOP. No, he explained, the triumph of know-nothing Trumpism marked the culmination of an internal conflict that had existed for decades between the party’s “dark side” and its professed ideals. Even William F. Buckley Jr., often hailed as a grand public intellectual and the founding father of the modern conservative movement, was “a stone-cold racist” in the 1950s, Stevens pointed out…

“And it’s all about race. The Republican Party is a white party and there still are more white people than non-white people.” So that is whom the party aims at—even if this will eventually be a losing proposition as the nation’s demographics continue to shift.

Robert P. Jones, chief executive and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), said something similar when he was interviewed by Jennifer Rubin.

It’s important to note that the Republican Party has a decades-long history of deploying, in various degrees, what has been dubbed “the Southern Strategy,” a racist dog-whistle politics that fuels white grievances and exploits racial divisions to win elections. In 2005, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the NAACP for these tactics. But that was 2005…

The one enduring, animating issue that fueled white flight from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party has been civil rights for African Americans. This was the issue that originally pulled Jerry Falwell Sr. out from behind the pulpit and into organizing the Christian right political movement. This white-supremacist undercurrent, tied to White Christian identity, is the key to understanding our current political polarization and the transformation of our two political parties over the last few decades.

It is, however, important to recall why Republicans adopted the so-called “Southern Strategy.” It was in order to avoid the development of a coalition of working class whites and people of color that would threaten their hold on power. As Tim Wise eloquently explained, that tactic of divide and conquer has a long and sordid history in this country. So it should come as no surprise that during the 60s and 70s, when liberals were threatening the status quo, Nixon was able to win by dividing. When something works, why change course?

It is also important to understand that the Republican Party needed a cover for their actual agenda. David Roberts nailed that one when he dubbed them the “post-truth” party.

Republicans thus talk about “taxes” and “spending” and “regulation” in the abstract, since Americans oppose them in the abstract even as they support their specific manifestations. They talk about cutting the deficit even as they slash taxes on the rich and launch unfunded wars. They talk about free markets even as they subsidize fossil fuels. They talk about American exceptionalism even as they protect fossil-fuel incumbents and fight research and infrastructure investments.

In short, Republicans have mastered post-truth politics. They’ve realized that their rhetoric doesn’t have to bear any connection to their policy agenda.

Being the party of the uber-wealthy wasn’t going to win any elections for the Republicans. But Reagan was able to not only send out enough dog whistles to mobilize working Americans, he actually convinced millions of them that tax cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation of corporations was going to trickle money down to them. The more that didn’t work, the more blatant became the message about how government programs were the problem because they were designed to help “welfare queens.”

By the time Barack Obama was elected in 2008, all of that was beginning to fall apart. Being post-truth wasn’t enough to cover for the Great Recession, two unending wars in the Middle East, and the disastrous response to Katrina. That’s when Republicans became the “post-policy” party and simply decided to obstruct anything Democrats attempted to do. With the first African American president, the dog whistles became fog horns and racism was pretty much all the GOP had left.

Stevens also noted the post-policy positioning of the party by sharing “his fear that young political operatives working for the party have drawn the lesson that a candidate must emulate Trump to win—that what most matters is not policy ideas but the ability to attack and exploit fears, divisions, tribalism, and resentments.” Right on queue Jeremy Peters documents how Trump’s enablers in right wing media don’t defend the president, but simply strive to “own the libs.”

Ms. [Molly] Hemingway is part of a group of conservative commentators — who have large social media followings, successful podcasts and daily Fox News appearances — that has helped insulate the president and preserve his popularity with his base, even as many Americans say they are likely to vote against him in November.

What these writers and pundits don’t tend to do is make the doggedly pro-Trump defenses that appear on Breitbart and erupt from the mouth of Sean Hannity. Often, they don’t bother at all with the awkward business of trying to explain away Mr. Trump’s latest folly.

Instead, they offer an outlet for outrage against those the president has declared his enemies, often by reducing them to a culture war caricature of liberalism.

All of that is why, when Sean Hannity asked Trump to lay out his agenda for a second term, the president rambled about his inauguration and attacked John Bolton. It is also why the folks at MeidasTouch were able to catch Trump in a major lie during his interview with Chris Wallace two weeks ago.

As an aside, it’s not a coincidence that they used the song “I Wish I Was in Dixie” as the background music for that ad. They were sending a not-so-hidden message about Trump’s real agenda.

Having given up on both truth and policy, all the Republicans have left is their desire for power, with racism as their only tool. So what does Stevens recommend as a solution?  “Burn [the GOP] to the ground and start over.”








 
BeyondTheNow said:
Perhaps some are, but the man has done little to negate the flow of activity directed towards him if for no other reason than to simply rile him up to see what he says/does next. He’s a sideshow that, love him or hate him, many can’t get enough of. He’s a form of entertainment.

Yup. Think of the power he wields. I'm not even talking nukes. He can manipulate the behavior of half the country of North America with a stupid tweet.

He says Kamala Harris sucks and people trip over themselves to cheer for her. Did you see the comments from the link MM posted?

"Seeing Harris be mean to Kavanaugh gave me a reason to live".  ::)
Kavanaugh's case was a shit show of a character assassination attempt. Harris's behavior speaks volumes about her own character and likely what the US would have in store if they vote for Biden. Good luck if that happens.

Imagine how shitty it would be for her if Trump would have tweeted support for her? Millions of Americans wouldn't know what the hell to do lol
 
Jarnhamar said:
Yup. Think of the power he wields. I'm not even talking nukes. He can manipulate the behavior of half the country of North America with a stupid tweet.

He says Kamala Harris sucks and people trip over themselves to cheer for her. Did you see the comments from the link MM posted?

"Seeing Harris be mean to Kavanaugh gave me a reason to live".  ::)
Kavanaugh's case was a shit show of a character assassination attempt. Harris's behavior speaks volumes about her own character and likely what the US would have in store if they vote for Biden. Good luck if that happens.

Imagine how shitty it would be for her if Trump would have tweeted support for her? Millions of Americans wouldn't know what the hell to do lol

Well...”half” is debatable, but you’re not wrong.

I don’t envy the positions of Americans, regardless of which end of the spectrum they lean towards. The country is in dire need of firm, ethical leadership that will legitimately place the needs of the majority first in any number of crisis currently facing the population. (That’s not to say other countries aren’t needing them same thing—but this is a US thread.)

The country is hurting, and an individual who inflames underlying issues in the manner Trump does, and with the frequency he does simply doesn’t bode well for a population desperately looking for/needing direction.

His base will hang on his every word and he knows that. (Which, at its core is fine—the base for any POTUS is a fundamental necessity.) But he plays with it. In doing so, it can be argued, depending on the source, that his base isn’t growing, which is what he ultimately needs if he wants to win.
 
>I have yet to figure out how any Canadian can still be in support of his leadership, when, again, he has no loyalty to us in the least.

You'd have to ask each one.  Some obvious possibilities:
1. Prefer Trump to Biden.
2. Prefer Republican administration to Democrat.
3. Doesn't trust Democratic or Republican establishment not to ruin another country in the middle east.
4. Dual citizenship.
5. Wants someone to give the Chinese government a harder time than Canada's does.
6. Has a different idea of what Canada is, or should be.

Point is: there's no "correct" response, especially to statements that sound like the apocryphal version of Pauline Kael.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Did you see the comments from the link MM posted?

Did you see this word in the link, Jarnhamar? Satire.

"The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."
 
Brad Sallows said:
>I have yet to figure out how any Canadian can still be in support of his leadership, when, again, he has no loyalty to us in the least.

You'd have to ask each one.  Some obvious possibilities:
1. Prefer Trump to Biden.
2. Prefer Republican administration to Democrat.
3. Doesn't trust Democratic or Republican establishment not to ruin another country in the middle east.
4. Dual citizenship.
5. Wants someone to give the Chinese government a harder time than Canada's does.
6. Has a different idea of what Canada is, or should be.

Point is: there's no "correct" response, especially to statements that sound like the apocryphal version of Pauline Kael.

Those are indeed reasonable and necessary points to weigh. And of course, it’s normal/common to look at how a situation benefits self before the whole. But ultimately, Cdns need a US leader who engages in actions which promote a beneficial relationship. Of course there comes a time when our (or the US protecting their individual interests) need to take precedent. But blatantly and falsely creating reasons to damage a close trade relationship ultimately serves no one.

(Side note: She’s an excellent critic.)
 
Jarnhamar said:
Kavanaugh's case was a shit show of a character assassination attempt.

Some believed the women. Some believed him. The Senate confirmed Kavanaugh's nomination by a vote of 50–48.

BeyondTheNow said:
I’m not saying he won’t win. (Tbh, I have a horribly sinking feeling he will.

According to 538, the GOP has a plan to do just that:

Five Ways Trump And GOP Officials Are Undermining The Election Process
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/five-ways-trump-and-gop-officials-are-undermining-the-election-process/

And don't forget Kanye.

Kanye West’s presidential bid bolstered by Republican operatives
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kanye-west-ballot-campaign-gop/2020/08/09/bfc8e58a-d8ce-11ea-9c3b-dfc394c03988_story.html


Jarnhamar said:
Think of the power he wields. I'm not even talking nukes.

No worry. Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
 
By a former Republican:

https://thebulwark.com/team-trump-hasnt-figured-out-how-to-attack-kamala/

“Team Trump Hasn’t Figured Out How to Attack Kamala

Kamala is a cop? Kamala is a cop!

by TIM MILLER  AUGUST 12, 2020

-snip-

So to sum up:

Kamala Harris is a cop—

—who is an anti-police extremist.

A radical leftist—

—who is causing a “revolt” among Bernie voters.

A phony—

—who was too nasty to Joe Biden.

Got that?

The Trump campaign has 83 days left to figure it out.“

Maybe she’s a radical centrist?




 
I watched some of Biden and Harris today and was impressed.  Maybe it's just that It's been a long almost 4 years of Trump but they both spoke like most people would expect of a leader.  I think they have a strong ticket and pray they win.
 
mariomike said:
Did you see this word in the link, Jarnhamar? Satire.

No I didn't.

I was referring to this.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kamala-harriss-approval-rating-soars-after-trump-reminds-nation-how-nasty-she-was-to-kavanaugh

 
Jarnhamar said:
No I didn't.

I was referring to this.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kamala-harriss-approval-rating-soars-after-trump-reminds-nation-how-nasty-she-was-to-kavanaugh

"Satire from The Borowitz Report"

 
BeyondTheNow said:
While I certainly appreciate your intimations that because I disapprove of Trump I must be uninformed, only watch CNN and didn’t watch the primaries (so possibly also a Lib?), you’re way off. But thank you for directing the discusdion towards a more personal nature simply because you practically blindly defend all Trump has said and done (as evidenced by your posts) since day one of his most glorious win. (Sarcasm)

Your attempts to draw attention to the issues of the previous US administration while (mind-bogglingly, albeit indirectly) purporting the current admin to be of some righteous example of how a proper administration should run?...while then also using misdirection to bring up asinine events of the Cdn government is typical behaviour of the majority of Trump supporters/Cdn Trump supporters.

Pretty sure ‘whataboutism’ has been brought up a lot recently. Very apt example.


Edit to add:

On another note:

Varying levels of concern/contempt and analysis for where the GOP finds itself now

Veteran GOP Strategist Takes On Trump — And His Party — In 'It Was All A Lie'

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901274491/veteran-gop-strategist-takes-on-trump-and-his-party-in-it-was-all-a-lie

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/08/a-never-trumper-finally-admits-its-time-to-burn-the-gop-to-the-ground/

I’m a firm believer you’re free to detest anyone you want to. If the reason you give happens to be untrue, I’ll point that out.  But you can still detest him, I’m not offended.

You argue things such as Trump once supported Harris because he donated to her - you’re wrong to assume that for the reason I stated. 

You also stated he is not treating allies very well. Do you think trying to compel NATO allies to honour defence spending commitments is good or bad for the alliance? 
Do you think Canada’s defence would or wouldn’t benefit from more spending? 
Do you think our relationships with the US and the world would be better or worse if we were a stronger middle power? 
Should we stand firmly with the 5 Eyes on China or should we abstain?

A problem the Dems have, and there are many, some of Trumps policies were also Dem policies such as immigration control.  Obama, Clinton, others are all on video stating such.  But Trump is a racist for it. 

The REAL scandal, is not that Trump doesn’t meet the low bar of character for the office of the presidency (is that at all a surprise?), but that the previous administration, senior serving bureaucrats, and the MSM, attempted a soft coup. And allegedly committed criminal acts doing so.  Since this also carried on well into Trumps tenure, it is very relevant.  Given there are three separate US Attorney probes going on, I expect actual indictments, not the media fuelled hoax that the Mueller probe turned out to be.

If Trump is so terrible and doesn’t know what he’s doing, these seasoned and honourable career politicians should easily beat him on policy at the ballot box without having to resort to the lies and allegedly criminal acts to try and damage or displace him and over turn the last election. That’s all I’m saying. 

Americans have two choices:

Dems/Antifa/BLM/riots/assault on 2A/excused corruption/defund police/CHAZ/corrupt establishment insiders
or
Trump/defend police/AG Barr/conservative judicial appointments/checking China, Iran, Russia, NK/record of economic success/America first policies/actual reduction in GHG/crazy but entertaining tweets/a no f’s given personality/ a political outsider

So yeah, I hope he wins and I get to watch the wrecking ball (or train wreck, depends on your view) for another four.
 
stellarpanther said:
I watched some of Biden and Harris today and was impressed.  Maybe it's just that It's been a long almost 4 years of Trump but they both spoke like most people would expect of a leader.  I think they have a strong ticket and pray they win.

Even notable progressives like Tim Poole don't agree with that sentiment.  In fact, some of these former democrat supporters believe the DNC is purposely trying to lose the election with the Biden/Harris ticket. Poole suggests the DNC would rather not ruin young up and comers in a losing election race this year and save their stars for the 2024 race.  Biden and Harris are expendable.  Considering Harris' dismal performance during the primaries, I tend to agree. 

 
QV said:
Even notable progressives like Tim Poole don't agree with that sentiment.  In fact, some of these former democrat supporters believe the DNC is purposely trying to lose the election with the Biden/Harris ticket. Poole suggests the DNC would rather not ruin young up and comers in a losing election race this year and save their stars for the 2024 race.  Biden and Harris are expendable.  Considering Harris' dismal performance during the primaries, I tend to agree.

I thought she did quite well in the primaries.  I watched everyone of those debates and while I started watching with my mind made up that I wanted Biden to be the nominee, I started thinking that she would also make a great President.  I disagree that they are expendable and certainly disagree that that they would rather lose than ruin up and comers.  If Trump wins, there may not be a 2024 election.  I thinking of a war with China.
 
QV said:
Even notable progressives like Tim Poole don't agree with that sentiment.  In fact, some of these former democrat supporters believe the DNC is purposely trying to lose the election with the Biden/Harris ticket. Poole suggests the DNC would rather not ruin young up and comers in a losing election race this year and save their stars for the 2024 race.  Biden and Harris are expendable.  Considering Harris' dismal performance during the primaries, I tend to agree.

It's my belief that the Reps did the same with McCain/Palin. They knew they were going to get their asses handed to them no matter how good a candidate JM was, so they saddled him with an expendable running mate that they could hang the defeat on.
 
Target Up said:
It's my belief that the Reps did the same with McCain/Palin. They knew they were going to get their asses handed to them no matter how good a candidate JM was, so they saddled him with an expendable running mate that they could hang the defeat on.

Ultimately, the choice of a running mate is that of the presidential candidate.

McCain then announced plans to reveal his running mate the day following the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention, and just a few days before the start of the Republican National Convention. During the running mate deliberations, McCain had favored Joe Lieberman,[7] who shared his romantic sense of righteousness and honor.[8] But the opposition from social conservatives, who objected to Lieberman's pro-choice views, was too strong,[7] and a Lieberman pick might have caused a floor fight at the upcoming convention.[8] McCain wanted someone who would shake up the race and reinforce his image as a maverick, so he decided against more conventional choices on his short list including Romney and Governor Tim Pawlenty.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_presidential_candidacy_of_Sarah_Palin#:~:text=McCain%20wanted%20someone%20who%20would,Romney%20and%20Governor%20Tim%20Pawlenty.

:cheers:
 
stellarpanther said:
I thought she did quite well in the primaries.  I watched everyone of those debates and while I started watching with my mind made up that I wanted Biden to be the nominee, I started thinking that she would also make a great President.  I disagree that they are expendable and certainly disagree that that they would rather lose than ruin up and comers.  If Trump wins, there may not be a 2024 election.  I thinking of a war with China.

I'm curious to know what you find appealing about Biden?  I felt Tulsi Gabbard had the best chance to defeat Trump. 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top