The APL and MSM have been in quite the tizzy since the debate last week. The consensus seems to be that Biden should withdraw from the race and allow someone else to take his place. What I think we've seen is that Biden is basically incapable of engaging in a public event without a prompter.
As I've thought about it, I've reached some tentative conclusions.
1. It seems like the only way for Biden to exit the race with some dignity would be for him to "suffer a stroke" or some other medical malady that would render him unable to continue his run.
2. If #1 happens, then it opens the door for a 25th amendment situation and Kamala Harris as POTUS going into the election.
3. If #'s 1&2 happen, and Harris isn't the nominee then it might erode the black vote even further. No matter what happens, I'd guess that not putting Harris in would alienate lots of black voters.
4. No matter what, the DFL bench is pretty thin. All the names put forward have significant negatives and don't seem to be particularly strong candidates.
5. It appears as though Jill and Hunter are the strongest voices pushing for Biden to continue.
6. Let's not forget that Biden was found to be incapable of standing trial for the crimes that special prosecutor acknowledged that he'd committed.
7. Speaking of that, now we know why Garland is trying so hard to keep the tapes of Biden's testimony hidden.
I think that we are going to see some political maneuvering like we thought was relegated to the past, and it will probably be interesting.
24 comments:
All the names put forward have significant negatives and don't seem to be particularly strong candidates.
Setting aside that you disagree with Democratic policies for whatever reasons, are you kidding me?
1. Kamala Harris -
A. She's the vice president!
B. Before that she was a successful senator and before that, a respected lawyer.
C. All of which is to say she is highly educated, smart and has political history and savvy.
D. Additionally, she's been an inspiration to girls, women, women of color and their allies in reaching the heights she has. She is the first woman vice president. She's the first person of color in that role.
E. Relatively young, so no worries of her being "too old."
F. And, of course, she's not irrational nor does she talk like an idiot or make promises of prosecuting her political enemies.
For 1,000 reasons, she's an extremely qualified candidate and far and away better than the idiot/pervert she'd be opposing. I'd love to see her debate Trump.
2. Andy Beshear (I'm sort of hoping if there's a shift away from Biden, it would be a Harris/Beshear ticket, but then, I'm prejudiced for the Kentuckian)
A. Governor of Kentucky
B. The very popular Democrat governor of a very red state. Kentuckians, by and large, love Andy.
C. Highly educated, clearly intelligent, well-spoken and familiar with and experienced in politics.
D. Like Harris, although he is a highly intelligent and skilled lawyer, he has never promised to use the justice system to prosecute his political enemies.
E. Like Harris, I would love to see Beshear dismantle the orange idiot in a debate.
F. Also quite young and yet, educated and experienced with a clear history of wise political leadership.
3. Pete Buttigieg
A. Another highly educated, clearly intelligent, very experienced politician
B. All of the above points about Beshear are true for Buttigieg, as well
C. Military service
D. Multilingual (maybe not completely fluidly in all cases, but clearly familiar with multiple languages and able to answer questions in multiple languages - that compared to Trump, who can barely speak English and only does so at about a 3rd to 5th grade level).
E. Would destroy the idiot you have repeatedly voted for in a debate.
That's just three super strong candidates right off the bat.
In ALL of these, it would be nice to have intelligent, respectful, respectable adults in office. In each of these people, they have lovely and supportive marriages and are actually part of and relatively faithful to their particular faith tradition. They each have demonstrated that they know the Bible better than your candidate (not that knowing the Bible is a prerequisite to being president, but if you're going to present yourself as a religious person, you should actually be familiar with that religion - Trump is clearly not, although he is willing to shill a poorly-made, overly-expensive Bible to people willing to lose their money in Trump's name).
None of these very intelligent, very experienced leaders have any scandals or arrest records, whereas their opponent is NOT intelligent and is a moral disgrace for many reasons and is clearly corrupt and a felon, to boot.
You don't think they'd mop the floor with the person you'd vote for?
What does DFL mean?
It's the local version of the Democrat party. At this point, I'm so used to it it's my default.
1. Kamala Harris -
A. She's the VP primarily because she's a black woman.
B. She was a senator and a prosecutor who sent large numbers of black men to jail for minor drug charges
C. She continually says ridiculous things and started her political career trading sex for power.
D. SO, the fact that she's "inspired" some girls and is pretending to be black is hardly a presidential resume.
E. Yes, she is relatively young.
F. And, of course, she's irrational she does talk like an idiot.
"For 1,000 reasons, she's an extremely qualified candidate and far and away better than the idiot/pervert she'd be opposing. I'd love to see her debate Trump."
I'd also love to see her debate Trump. I'd really love to see her debate Ramaswamy.
2. Andy Beshear. A name I've heard no one mention as a serious option to replace Biden and someone with very little national appeal.
3. Pete Buttigieg
A. He's been a small city mayor and appointed SecTrans. Not much resume.
B. OK
C. Coming from someone who's not a big fan of the military, this is weird.
D. I was unaware that being "multilingual" was a big deal.
E. The problem with him in a debate is that he'd have to why he spent 7 billion dollars for 7 public charging stations. He'd also have to explain how his experience as a small city mayor and SecTrans (not a prime cabinet post) qualifies him for POTUS.
"That's just three super strong candidates right off the bat."
That's three candidates. I'll note that you've simply ignored their negatives.
"In ALL of these, it would be nice to have intelligent, respectful, respectable adults in office."
Yes, it would.
"You don't think they'd mop the floor with the person you'd vote for?"
"Mop the floor", no. Squeak out a win, possibly.
There are no serious negatives for any of those candidates.
They are not convicted felons, your boy is.
They talk like reasonable, respectful adults. Your boy doesn't.
They are clearly incredibly intelligent. Your boy ain't.
They have experience and surround themselves with intelligent people with experience and listen to those people. Not so much with Trump.
WHAT possible negatives? You stated that all potential replacements have "significant negatives and don't seem to be particularly strong candidates."
I'm giving you three strong candidates, reasonable options, smart, experienced, rational candidates.
WHERE are the "significant negatives" for any of them?
I tried looking up scandals for all three. I found that Harris dated an older man (ooh, scandalous!) and you've mentioned the racist-sounding, "She has the position because she's a black woman." Those are not serious negatives. That she was a criminal prosecutor might be considered a negative in the minds of some and some of her actions in that role may not be appreciated by some, but prosecuting people is what prosecutors do. It's not a serious negative.
With Beshear (who I've heard as a potential replacement), the main "scandal" I saw with him was he was photographed with some drag queens in the state capitol and then was attacked for taking a photo. His clear-headed, decent response? "I am the governor for ALL Kentuckians and you will not shame me for standing with my citizens. You should apologize for demonizing these good people." Just the sort of even-handed, rational, moral response the US is looking for in our leaders.
The main "scandal" with Buttigieg? That he's gay and married? Nope, your side has lost that war. IF that's the "scandal" you want to try to paint as a "significant negative," you'll lose.
Look, no one is saying any of these people are perfect and they certainly will espouse the values and policies of the Democratic party, but disagreeing with your GOP opinions is not a "significant negative."
You're just wrong on this front.
And "Squeak out a win...?" With them not even RUNNING each of these options that have been talked about are running almost even with the GOP convict and idiot.
I see no evidence that they would not win and certainly you're presenting no "significant negatives."
D. I was unaware that being "multilingual" was a big deal.
It is a sign of intelligence, of being worldly (in the sense of connected to the world) and a significant boost in dealing with allies to speak to them in their language. I'm sorry you're not aware of these great advantages.
E. The problem with him in a debate is that he'd have to why he spent 7 billion dollars for 7 public charging stations.
He didn't. $7.5 billion has been set aside and seven have been built as of May, but infrastructure tends to be slow-moving. Nonetheless, he didn't spend $7 billion on seven stations. Period. Now, shall we criticize the US and Buttigieg for not moving more quickly on societal change? Perhaps. Is failure to "move more quickly" a "significant negative?" I can't see how.
Trump had four years to get Congress to pass infrastructure building bill. How many bills did Trump manage to get Congress to pass (let alone implement)?
Oh, that's right. None.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_policy_of_Donald_Trump
So, making progress slowly? That's making progress. Doing nothing? That's the GOP.
Again, where is the "significant negative..."?
C. She continually says ridiculous things and started her political career trading sex for power.
What a sexist, vulgar, racist thing to say. Especially given the idiot/pervert you champion/vote for. The pervert who abused his power to ogle teenage girls and get away with being a serial harasser of women of all ages. Almost certainly a deviant who abused his power to try to get away with sexual assaults multiple times.
Ms Harris, on the other hand, as a 30 year old decided to date of her own free will a 60 year old man. "Trading sex for power" is just the sort of piggish thing your pervert king would say.
Don't be a sick deviant yourself, repent. Apologize to VP Harris.
You see, the problem is you can't point to any serious negatives (especially when compared to the idiot pervert you keep voting for) and when you try, you fall back on racist, sexist stereotypes, as opposed to listing any actual "significant" negatives.
Saying, "I wish at 30 that VP Harris had not chosen to date an older man" just makes you sound awful. Making the claim that you made (I'm not going to repeat your vulgar rapist-sounding assault) makes you sound evil.
I'm guessing you may not even recognize this. Open your eyes to what you're saying. Listen as if you were a young woman hearing your own words.
As to Beshear and Buttigieg coming from smaller cities/states, that's only a negative if you devalue those places. Tell the people of Kentucky that Beshear isn't qualified because he's from Kentucky. Very elitist sounding.
Also, how many large political jobs did your pervert have going into office? What? NOTHING? NO political experience? But he was an alleged billionaire from NYC, so he was qualified?
"Significant negatives?" Or elitist biases?
"It is a sign of intelligence, of being worldly (in the sense of connected to the world) and a significant boost in dealing with allies to speak to them in their language. I'm sorry you're not aware of these great advantages."
You literally claimed that Pete's being "multilingual" (although not fluently) was some magically awesome qualification for president. It's not. I'd have to see some sort of actual proof that being multilingual is a definitive sign of "intelligence".
"He didn't. $7.5 billion has been set aside and seven have been built as of May, but infrastructure tends to be slow-moving. Nonetheless, he didn't spend $7 billion on seven stations. Period. Now, shall we criticize the US and Buttigieg for not moving more quickly on societal change? Perhaps. Is failure to "move more quickly" a "significant negative?" I can't see how."
Gotcha, just an excuse for being slow to fulfill promises. If you can't see how that'll be a negative in a campaign, then your partisanship is blinding you.
"Trump had four years to get Congress to pass infrastructure building bill. How many bills did Trump manage to get Congress to pass (let alone implement)?"
How does this have any relationship to Pete being qualified to be president? It doesn't. FYI, Trump also had a hostile congress, or does that excuse only work for Biden and P-BO?
Significant negative. Lack of high level executive experience, months long sabbatical from his job, ignoring significant railroad accident. Literally zero accomplishments of note.
"What a sexist, vulgar, racist thing to say. Especially given the idiot/pervert you champion/vote for. The pervert who abused his power to ogle teenage girls and get away with being a serial harasser of women of all ages. Almost certainly a deviant who abused his power to try to get away with sexual assaults multiple times."
It's not my fault Kamala has a reputation of using sex to gain power.
"Ms Harris, on the other hand, as a 30 year old decided to date of her own free will a 60 year old man. "Trading sex for power" is just the sort of piggish thing your pervert king would say."
If that "dating" enabled her to gain positions of power, then I guess you're OK with that.
"Don't be a sick deviant yourself, repent. Apologize to VP Harris."
I'll pass.
"You see, the problem is you can't point to any serious negatives (especially when compared to the idiot pervert you keep voting for) and when you try, you fall back on racist, sexist stereotypes, as opposed to listing any actual "significant" negatives."
When you choose to enter the realm of fantasy, I don't know how to help you. Harris has a history if using the Biden written '94 crime bill to jail large numbers of young black men for minor drug charges, has given the appearance (at minimum) of trading sex for power, and has a history of repeating nonsense phrases over and over again in lieu of actually saying things of substance.
"As to Beshear and Buttigieg coming from smaller cities/states, that's only a negative if you devalue those places. Tell the people of Kentucky that Beshear isn't qualified because he's from Kentucky. Very elitist sounding."
Again, you seem confused about the topic here. But much like people bashed Trump for his "lack of experience" when he first ran, noting the reality that running a small city or a relatively small state isn't a ringing endorsement to be thrust into a presidential campaign without the support of primary voters. I'm not suggesting that these two don't have the theoretical potential to someday go through the primary process, I'm suggesting that anointing them is a bad plan. The fact that Beshear is a name that absolutely no one but you has mentioned (that I've heard), tells me that it's the DFL that doesn't consider him worthy, not me. As for Pete, he's a somewhat likeable non entity who failed to get traction in a previous run, and hasn't done anything to distinguish himself since.
"Also, how many large political jobs did your pervert have going into office? What? NOTHING? NO political experience? But he was an alleged billionaire from NYC, so he was qualified?"
Which was exactly what everyone he ran against said about him. IT WAS A HUGE FUCKING NEGATIVE when he ran the first time. It's a HUGE FUCKING NEGATIVE as the DFL tries to change presidential horses in mid stream.
You seem confused by the fact that it's the DFL and the MSM who are calling for Biden to step aside, and ignore the will of the people expressed in the primaries.
"Significant negatives?" Or elitist biases?
My point in raising this is that while the DFL is in some degree of disarray, and Biden is more concerned with demonstrating that he's able to speak in public without a prompter or script, that Trump has chosen an action which doesn't help him at all. This is a chance for him to have improved his position, but instead we've got abolitionists going anti Trump. Trump could have made a big deal about a VP who was strongly pro-life, but he chose this.
On Multilingual advantages:
You literally claimed that Pete's being "multilingual" (although not fluently) was some magically awesome qualification for president. It's not. I'd have to see some sort of actual proof that being multilingual is a definitive sign of "intelligence".
I, of course, did not literally claim that. I pointed to being multilingual as a positive aspect of Buttigieg (or anyone) especially in political offices, especially in a multilingual world. Nothing magical about it.
I'm not sure why you are seizing on this one clear advantage that Buttigieg has if he's being considered for political office. Seems a strange thing to complain about. But you're asking, so...
As to intelligence, the research is mixed. According to research, there are simply advantages that come from being multilingual, because of course there are. The US is a multilingual society, the world is multilingual. Any time I meet an immigrant who can speak even a little English, even haltingly, I am impressed. It takes time and study and rigor to become multilingual AND it shows that it's something you value, being able to speak to others in their language. It's a sign of respect. I mean, conservatives regularly insist immigrants become pretty fluent, pretty quickly and I can't tell you the times I've seen conservatives become offended because an immigrant wasn't suitably fluent in a second language. They took it to be insulting and lazy (even though THEY were not multilingual).
Beyond that, learning additional languages requires exercising your brain, it improves plasticity... it increases, for instance, your resistance to dementia. According to research.
Researcher Ellen Bialystok examined the effect of multilingualism on Alzheimer's disease and found that it delays its onset by about 4 years. The researcher's study found that those who spoke two or more languages showed symptoms of Alzheimer's disease at a later time than speakers of a single language. The study found that the more languages the multilingual knows, the later the onset of Alzheimer's disease. Lexical deficit results from second language acquisition.
As to simple intelligence, of course, people of all sorts/levels of intelligence can learn a second language, so it's not a GIVEN that IF you're multilingual, THEN you're more intelligent.
But it's a sign of intelligence. Sound reasonable (given the data)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_multilingualism
The latest evidence shows that being bilingual does not necessarily make people smarter. But researcher Ellen Bialystok says it probably does make you better at certain skills.
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/are-people-who-speak-more-than-one-language-smarter-117617108/115171.html
SPEAKING two languages rather than just one has obvious practical benefits in an increasingly globalized world. But in recent years, scientists have begun to show that the advantages of bilingualism are even more fundamental than being able to converse with a wider range of people. Being bilingual, it turns out, makes you smarter. It can have a profound effect on your brain, improving cognitive skills not related to language and even shielding against dementia in old age.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-benefits-of-bilingualism.html?_r=1
Again, the science is mixed, but it's such an obvious advantage and indicator of global interest and some degree of intelligence that what's there to debate? It is, as in this article, a clear "beneficial condition..."
https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/does-being-bilingual-make-you-smarter
You seem confused by the fact that it's the DFL and the MSM who are calling for Biden to step aside, and ignore the will of the people expressed in the primaries.
Within our system, we have the primaries as you note. BUT, within our system, if a candidate dies or becomes a convicted felon or otherwise incapacitated, it is legal and reasonable within our system to replace said candidate, even after the primaries.
That is not "ignoring the will of the people." It's recognizing that things have changed.
The amazing thing in all this is that no matter how vile, idiotic, corrupt, dishonest, venal or actually criminal your pervert king is, the GOP stands by him out of fear of a rabid base/minority of the people. That the GOP is not even considering removing convicted felon Trump from the race is a sign of deep dysfunction in your party.
I get that you might want to make excuses and blame the Democrats or something, but you should be honest and alert enough to admit that this is highly irregular to be proudly running and VOTING FOR a convicted felon - never mind the rest of his idiocy and corruption. Never in the past would the GOP have stood for this. There's something wrong with the GOP base and it's not Joe Biden.
"I, of course, did not literally claim that. I pointed to being multilingual as a positive aspect of Buttigieg (or anyone) especially in political offices, especially in a multilingual world. Nothing magical about it."
You literally gave being multilingual, but not fluent, as one of the 5 reasons why Pete would be a good candidate. If you now want to re frame your position that some degree of being multilingual is good in general, I won't argue. But to suggest that it's one of the five reasons Pete should be appointed as the DFL nominee, not so much.
"I'm not sure why you are seizing on this one clear advantage that Buttigieg has if he's being considered for political office. Seems a strange thing to complain about. But you're asking, so..."
I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out that having "multilingual but not fluent" as one of the five best reasons to vote for Pete is a stretch. No, I didn't ask. I have no doubt you can dredge up some random website to somewhat support your claim.
"As to intelligence, the research is mixed."
Therefore you don't have the research to support your original claim.
"According to research, there are simply advantages that come from being multilingual, because of course there are."
Of course, you claimed that being multilingual was a "sign of intelligence". Now you've changed your tune to it's an "advantage". Of course it is. For example Haiti and the DR share the island of Hispaniola. The DR speaks Spanish, Haiti speaks Kreyole. Yet most Haitians speak enough Spanish to get along with those from the DR as well as enough English to get along with tourists. But given the poor education system in Haiti, and the lack of intelligence testing, ether's no way to determine if being multilingual is a necessity of due to intelligence. Admit that you misspoke and stop digging a hole for yourself.
"Within our system, we have the primaries as you note. BUT, within our system, if a candidate dies or becomes a convicted felon or otherwise incapacitated, it is legal and reasonable within our system to replace said candidate, even after the primaries."
1. Being a "convicted" felon is not a disqualification under current US law.
2. At this point we don't have a candidate who's incapacitated despite all appearances.
3. If the DFL changes horses in mid stream when Biden hasn't changed since the primaries, it's literally overturning the will of the people expressed in a primary election.
4. If Biden pulls out, then you have no choice but to field another candidate, yet it's still going against the will of the people expressed in free fair elections.
5. Y'all had the opportunity to make this change before the primaries, or to allow candidates to run against Biden. You minimized Phillips, and ran RFK out of the DFL. This is on y'all.
"That is not "ignoring the will of the people." It's recognizing that things have changed."
Have things really changed? If Biden's one debate performance really some big shock? Wouldn't a primary opponent and primary debate have revealed this situation earlier? Of course, you can say that things have changed that necessitate the overturning the will of the people expressed in free and fair elections, but Biden still won the DFL primaries.
"The amazing thing in all this is that no matter how vile, idiotic, corrupt, dishonest, venal or actually criminal your pervert king is, the GOP stands by him out of fear of a rabid base/minority of the people. That the GOP is not even considering removing convicted felon Trump from the race is a sign of deep dysfunction in your party."
No, it's a sign of a free people freely voting for the candidates of their choice in free and (hopefully) fair elections.
"I get that you might want to make excuses and blame the Democrats or something, but you should be honest and alert enough to admit that this is highly irregular to be proudly running and VOTING FOR a convicted felon - never mind the rest of his idiocy and corruption. Never in the past would the GOP have stood for this. There's something wrong with the GOP base and it's not Joe Biden."
I get that you might want to divert attention from the fact that the DFL and it's willing allies in the MSM are turning on Biden after years of hiding his issues by pointing at Trump, I really do. But the fact is that if given the choice between Trump's policies, and Biden's many of us cannot support Biden's. Leaving aside the multitude of corruptions and lies that you pretend Biden is innocent of.
But, I really do get it. The candidate you've touted for so long as being so much better than anyone else, is being thrown under the bus by the DFL and the MSM, so you need to lash out at someone.
"There are no serious negatives for any of those candidates."
Well, since Dan has spoken, the matter is settled. It's all about Dan making pronouncements.
"They are not convicted felons, your boy is."
We'll see how long that lasts. We'll also see how you respond if the conviction is overturned.
"They talk like reasonable, respectful adults. Your boy doesn't."
If you say so. They both have they're moments.
"They are clearly incredibly intelligent. Your boy ain't."
In the absence of IQ scores from the same version of an IQ test, there doesn't seem to be much grounding for this claim.
"They have experience and surround themselves with intelligent people with experience and listen to those people. Not so much with Trump."
Very little high level executive experience. In the case of Harris and Pete, zero high level executive experience.
"WHAT possible negatives? You stated that all potential replacements have "significant negatives and don't seem to be particularly strong candidates.""
Yes, I've mentioned a few.
"I'm giving you three strong candidates, reasonable options, smart, experienced, rational candidates."
No, you're giving me three candidates who you (in your personal opinion) believe could be somewhat good candidates.
"WHERE are the "significant negatives" for any of them?"
If you're going to ignore the examples I've given, stop asking the question.
"She has the position because she's a black woman."
If that's "racist sounding", then it means that Biden is a racist. He literally was quite clear that he was looking for a black woman above all else in his VP choice. Of course, she's literally not black and comes from a family that owes reparations...
"That she was a criminal prosecutor might be considered a negative in the minds of some and some of her actions in that role may not be appreciated by some, but prosecuting people is what prosecutors do. It's not a serious negative."
That she jailed large amounts of black young men for minor drug crimes, under Biden's racist '94 crime bill might be a problem.
"With Beshear (who I've heard as a potential replacement),"
Since I've heard no one on a national outlet even mention his name, and he sounds like a nonentity who brings little to the electoral map, I see no reason to invest any effort in him until he's actually on the radar.
"Look, no one is saying any of these people are perfect and they certainly will espouse the values and policies of the Democratic party, but disagreeing with your GOP opinions is not a "significant negative.""
It goes without saying that any of them will continue our country down the economic path we've been on since Q1 of 2021.
"You're just wrong on this front."
No, I look at what information is available through a lens that isn't hyper partisan toward the DFL and reach a different conclusion.
"And "Squeak out a win...?" With them not even RUNNING each of these options that have been talked about are running almost even with the GOP convict and idiot."
Biden's numbers are down drastically from 2020, and against Trump. Bringing in someone new, who's not going to do anything different and all you've got is "running even". That sounds like a close election either way.
"I see no evidence that they would not win and certainly you're presenting no "significant negatives.""
If you say so. I say that you cling to your overconfidence.
"I do not pretend to be a genius when it comes to politics..."
Nor should you Dan. To place yourself anywhere near the word "genius" on any subject is laughable, and when it comes to politics...as with Christianity...even more so.
I was going to respond to this goofy crap Dan transposed from his Blog of Lies and now I don't have to do it at my own blog. Thanks, Craig.
1. Harris
A. Being selected for VP to check off as many boxes as possible is not a legit qualification for president, particularly when the person who chose you as his running mate is an abject moron. Biden's entire career is loaded with examples of his incompetence and corruption.
B. As a US Senator, Harris...
a) Joined bipartisan bills the least often compared to Senate Democrats
b) Ranked most politically left compared to Senate Democrats (thus, an extremist)
c) Wrote the fewest laws compared to Senate Sophomores. Harris introduced 1 bill that became law in the 116th Congress.
d) Got her bills out of committee the least often compared to Senate Sophomores.
e) Held the fewest committee positions compared to Senate Sophomores.
f) Was 2nd most absent in votes compared to All Senators.
g) Got bipartisan cosponsors on the 2nd fewest bills compared to Senate Democrats
h) Cosponsored the 10th most bills compared to All Senators. (Makes it easier to look like one's been busy)
In addition to these less than stellar "accomplishments" would be the bills themselves. Getting a crap sandwich passed doesn't make one a good senator or politician and certainly not more worthy of the presidency than an actual person of beneficial accomplishment like Trump. As to her work as a lawyer:
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2020/08/12/kamala-harris-ex-prosecutor-a-friend-of-justice/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/kamala-harris-record-district-attorney-san-francisco/
C. Clearly this opinion is in stark conflict with her record as a lawyer, senator and VP.
D. Not really sure this can be supported in any way. Really? Girls are pointing to this joke as an inspiration? What a wildly stupid and unsupported claim!
E. Age is not a factor. It's not a factor in removing Biden or keeping Trump and Harris' age does not mitigate her crappy record of few accomplishments
F. As anyone can tell by listening to her talk or try to dance around questions she hasn't the "savvy" to bullshit around, she's totally irrational and as VP I can't think of a time when she hasn't spoken like an idiot.
And of course Dan continues with this lie about Trump prosecuting his political enemies while continuing to ignore he's been a victim of that very action since he became president in 2016. No. Trump's not talking about political opponents, but about those who happen to be political opponents who have abused their positions for personal or party gain. That's legitimate and something a good prosecutor would do. Don't ask Kamala, though. She was a crappy prosecutor.
"For 1,000 reasons, she's an extremely qualified candidate..."
One would think that were there 1000, one could find six actual qualifications instead of these stupid and laughable "non-qualifications" listed by Dan. But then, he's no political genius!
I'll get to the other two poor choices later.
One more thing about Harris. She was sleeping with a married man when she was "dating" Willie. He may have been estranged, but if he was at least divorced, they'd use that word instead of "estranged". Thus, like Biden and Trump, she's an adulterer.
And of course, as she supports all the moral atrocities so beloved by the Dem party and their voters...like Dan...she's every bit the morally bankrupt scum Dan needs to believe Trump is when pretending he cares about such things
Art,
I can't think of any topic Dan could be described as a genius at.
The biggest problem with Harris is the Biden bragged about the fact that she was a diversity hire. She was hired to check a couple of demographic boxes, black (which she's not), and woman (which the left can't define. Her repeated quotes where she repeats various catchphrases repeatedly certainly don't make her seem like some genius level intellect.
I've heard the argument advanced that having someone who is "too intelligent" as president would be a poor choice. I can't recall specifically why, but I can see how it could be difficult for a real genius to do the job.
Don't know if one can legitimately be called a "genius" while not being able to do the job. I would think an actual genius would do it well by virtue of being a genius. A genius would figure out how to make good policy proposals appealing to the left.
Whomever thought having some "too intelligent" would be a poor choice most likely put forth that nonsense due to a distinct lack of intelligent candidates. Sounds totally like a leftist to me.
I think that there is a point where intelligence might distract from the ability to do the job, relate to the electorate, and to compromise. I think the point is not that you want someone stupid, but that there might be a point where intelligence above a certain level might not be a good fit.
In the case of this discussion, I fail to see any of our current options as a "genius" in any real sense.
Yeah, that's a pretty high bar I don't think too many can clear. Most who can are too intelligent to get into politics, though we need some true geniuses now and then to have some input at least. It's funny how many believed Obama to be "the smartest guy in the room". That was either a room full of imbeciles or false praise. Given Obama's a marxist, it doesn't even rise to false praise. It's a straight up lie. He's proven it often enough, but geniuses would not favor Dem policies, and promote worse, like Obama did.
"Yeah, that's a pretty high bar I don't think too many can clear. Most who can are too intelligent to get into politics, though we need some true geniuses now and then to have some input at least."
No not many can. Those who are truly highly intelligent, seem to go into fields or invent fields that are of more value than politics anyway.
I'm not sure that "genius" is the right word for what you are getting at. Clever, innovative, or something in that realm seem better. I do think we need people to shake things up, but I'm not sure that requires a genius.
"It's funny how many believed Obama to be "the smartest guy in the room"."
I think that too many, especially on the left, equate most/best educated with smartest. I'm not sure that our education system really rewards intelligence as much as conformity.
"That was either a room full of imbeciles or false praise. Given Obama's a marxist, it doesn't even rise to false praise. It's a straight up lie. He's proven it often enough, but geniuses would not favor Dem policies, and promote worse, like Obama did."
Given the prevalence of Marxist or Marxist adjacent people in higher education, it's not surprising that conforming to the views of the intelligentsia receives praise. P-BO always struck me as kind of a well spoken (negro) empty suit. He could give a good speech, he could orate well, but he never sounded like any of the ideas he expressed were his own. It always sounded like he was simply regurgitating what others expected or what his followers wanted to hear.
Post a Comment