Kamala

[c_hawkbob]

While not my 1st choice I think she's a great pick. Conservative enough that many Repubs like her better than Joe and progressive enough to gather in the younger generations of Dems. While I'd have chosen Susan Rice had the choice been mine to make, what I like best about Harris is imagining what the VP debate is gonna be like! I think she'll have Pence talked into a corner in no time and have him crying like a baby afterward.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think this was the smart play. Kamala is very intelligent and political. She's careful. She has a varied background being Indian and Jamaican. She prepares. She doesn't have a lot of gaffes. She's focused. She's from a large state and is used to managing varied interests. She's well-educated. I think she will help Biden quite a bit. I think I'd rather see her debate Trump than Biden honestly and she'll likely eat Pence alive.

Now no major screw ups and the Biden and Kamala ticket should have the best chance of taking Trump down.

I can't take four more years of the crazy on the left and right with Trump in office. I need a nice, quiet president in office. No tweets. Doesn't like to rile people up. Keeps things quiet and the train on time. None of this tweeting, rousing the crowds up, and encouraging conflict and divisiveness. I'm tired of it.

I need a president who speaks carefully. Keeps the peace. And doesn't have followers or worshipers interested in some cultural battle. He understands it's not about him, it's about running the nation in a way we can all prosper without requiring worship or ego stroking.

Please get rid of this idiot Trump without making things worse.

[Hawktawk]

Kamala was a great pick, my first choice once Biden indicated he would choose a woman . People like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity as well as trump and his campaign are losing their sh1+ already , careening from one attack strategy to the next . It doesn’t help that Trump said 2 weeks ago she would be an excellent choice . The campaign contributions to her previous campaigns by not only DJT but Svetlana herself .

They know the veep selection was a potential land mine for Biden and had he selected someone like warren it could have tightened the contest greatly . Harris has backed away from single payer which was the mistake that had forced her too far left in the primaries .

Note to Democrats . Biden is your nominee because America is not ready for a leftist . I plan on voting for Joe and Kamala because I want Trump gone . I want stability and confidence. If they go to their virtual convention with a bunch of wild rhetoric they could remind people of why Trump got elected in the first place . I truly don’t think America can take 4 more years of the clown . Don’t blow it . Then govern as a moderate . It’s what America wants and needs .

[RiverDog]

While not my 1st choice I think she's a great pick. Conservative enough that many Repubs like her better than Joe and progressive enough to gather in the younger generations of Dems. While I'd have chosen Susan Rice had the choice been mine to make, what I like best about Harris is imagining what the VP debate is gonna be like! I think she'll have Pence talked into a corner in no time and have him crying like a baby afterward.

Kamala Harris is conservative enough that R's will like her better than Biden? Ha! She's one of the most liberal politicians in the Capitol. But I agree with you about Susan Rice. Of those on Biden's short list, she was my first choice, too.

Harris is the safe choice. She is well vetted as she's ran for national office and shouldn't have some unknown skeleton drug from her closet and I don't think she'll distract from the ticket such as a person like Karen Bass or Elizabeth Warren would have done. Harris is as smart as a whip and will hold her own on the campaign trail.

[c_hawkbob]

I didn't say "will" like her better than Joe, I'm quite sure that now that she's on the opposing ticket most will take a firmly adversarial position. I said many already "do" like her better than Joe; Watching an interview with an analyst on the news - probably NBC national news as they have a half hour sandwiched between the 2 segments of my local news and I haven't been watching much other news lately (12/13 hour days at work, it's that time of year). I believe what said specifically was that Kamala currently polls better than Joe among moderate Republicans.

[Hawktawk]

I love how “sleepy” Joe turned Trumps attacks on Kamala against him immediately , pointing out Trump had called her “ nasty” and that he was “ whining about her being too hard on his nominees “ it’s not surprising since whining is what he does best”. These are simple true attack lines that everyone gets . Sleepy joe is doing just fine so far .

[RiverDog]

I didn't say "will" like her better than Joe, I'm quite sure that now that she's on the opposing ticket most will take a firmly adversarial position. I said many already "do" like her better than Joe; Watching an interview with an analyst on the news - probably NBC national news as they have a half hour sandwiched between the 2 segments of my local news and I haven't been watching much other news lately (12/13 hour days at work, it's that time of year). I believe what said specifically was that Kamala currently polls better than Joe among moderate Republicans.

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd be interested in seeing those polls (plural?), when they were taken, what kind of questions they were asking, etc. It sounds counter intuitive as Harris is almost without question one of the most liberal Senators on the hill.

The major problem with the selection is that Harris's positions don't align well with Biden's, who's biggest asset is his centrism. The Trump people will use Harris's nomination as proof positive that the Democrats have shifted far to the left side of the political spectrum and will paint her as the Ghost of Christmas Future if she's elected VP as she would be the heir apparent to the nomination in 2024 or 2028. And the sad thing is that they won't have to make up lies and fake news as Trump is so famous for doing. She has plenty of statements, ratings by liberal advocacy groups, her voting record, etc, to provide the opposition with plenty of legitimate ammunition. Some of the groups that Biden and the Democrats were making inroads into, such as evangelicals, may be driven back to the Trump camp.

[RiverDog]

I love how “sleepy” Joe turned Trumps attacks on Kamala against him immediately , pointing out Trump had called her “ nasty” and that he was “ whining about her being too hard on his nominees “ it’s not surprising since whining is what he does best”. These are simple true attack lines that everyone gets . Sleepy joe is doing just fine so far .

He's had his moments. A week or so ago, he really took some poor reporter to task over what was in my opinion a legitimate question as to why he won't take a cognitive test as Trump supposedly done, got pissed and practically called the kid a junkie. He needs to watch himself.

[Aseahawkfan]

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd be interested in seeing those polls (plural?), when they were taken, what kind of questions they were asking, etc. It sounds counter intuitive as Harris is almost without question one of the most liberal Senators on the hill.

The major problem with the selection is that Harris's positions don't align well with Biden's, who's biggest asset is his centrism. The Trump people will use Harris's nomination as proof positive that the Democrats have shifted far to the left side of the political spectrum and will paint her as the Ghost of Christmas Future if she's elected VP as she would be the heir apparent to the nomination in 2024 or 2028. And the sad thing is that they won't have to make up lies and fake news as Trump is so famous for doing. She has plenty of statements, ratings by liberal advocacy groups, her voting record, etc, to provide the opposition with plenty of legitimate ammunition. Some of the groups that Biden and the Democrats were making inroads into, such as evangelicals, may be driven back to the Trump camp.

Kamala is political. She will align with what values are necessary to win much as Romney did during his run. Kamala's stances were in line with her California liberal base, but she'll adjust to fit into the political landscape of the nation's Democrats if that is who she is appealing to. That's why Biden chose her. She's adaptable and knows the politics game.

Much like Dumb as Dirt started going to church for the first time I've seen in 30 plus years of following Trump. When I saw Trump in church, I had to laugh. How can you worship a god when you believe yourself to be a god? I don't know how that works. If Donald Trump got to Heaven and had a conversation with God himself, he'd be talking over him and telling God how great he was. God could say, "I created the world" and Trump would be talking about how he made Trump Towers and banged pornstars.

Kamala will do what Kamala needs to do to appeal to the wider Democratic base she's dealing with. I could tell this is how she operates watching her the few times I did and reading on her political career. She's a political animal that is adaptable, smart, and knows how to win elections and hold power in a Democracy.

[c_hawkbob]

I didn't say "will" like her better than Joe, I'm quite sure that now that she's on the opposing ticket most will take a firmly adversarial position. I said many already "do" like her better than Joe; Watching an interview with an analyst on the news - probably NBC national news as they have a half hour sandwiched between the 2 segments of my local news and I haven't been watching much other news lately (12/13 hour days at work, it's that time of year). I believe what said specifically was that Kamala currently polls better than Joe among moderate Republicans.

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd be interested in seeing those polls (plural?), when they were taken, what kind of questions they were asking, etc. It sounds counter intuitive as Harris is almost without question one of the most liberal Senators on the hill.

The major problem with the selection is that Harris's positions don't align well with Biden's, who's biggest asset is his centrism. The Trump people will use Harris's nomination as proof positive that the Democrats have shifted far to the left side of the political spectrum and will paint her as the Ghost of Christmas Future if she's elected VP as she would be the heir apparent to the nomination in 2024 or 2028. And the sad thing is that they won't have to make up lies and fake news as Trump is so famous for doing. She has plenty of statements, ratings by liberal advocacy groups, her voting record, etc, to provide the opposition with plenty of legitimate ammunition. Some of the groups that Biden and the Democrats were making inroads into, such as evangelicals, may be driven back to the Trump camp.

I don't care whether you believe me or not, I know what I heard and it's not the only time I've seen the argument made that the Trump team would rather have had someone farther to the left to villainize. Google it, you might just surprise yourself.

[I-5]

I pretty much agree with eveyrone here. I also wanted Rice, and then Klobuchar, but I always thought Kamala would be the eventual pick, and it's a solid move by Sleepy Joe. Speaking of Joe, I think Trump screwed up by sticking that label on him. After 4 years of absolute mess, sleepy is not a bad thing at all. It's not nearly as effective as 'crooked Hillary' which I think did stick to her. All Sleepy Joe has to do is show that he's calm, cool, and a thinking adult who values stability, and he's got it.

I think Trump is going to be playing defense for the first time in his life. There isn't much they can stick on Harris, and if they want to use the progressive attack line on her that she was unfairly harsh on criminals during her time as California AG, it won't really play well with their 'law & order' mantra. They can say Joe's been in Washington forever and built the swamp, but the swamp has never been as bad as it is now. Lastly, if they want to go back to the Hunter Biden story, unless they have new details, we've all heard it already. I think the one thing Harris has to watch in her VP debate is to not appear overly emotional, because Pence is good at projecting calm. That's definitely his strength.

The biggest factor I see is the voting, whether Trump succeeds in messing up the mail system or creates some other fraud at the last moment.

[RiverDog]

I don't care whether you believe me or not, I know what I heard and it's not the only time I've seen the argument made that the Trump team would rather have had someone farther to the left to villainize. Google it, you might just surprise yourself.

Oh, come on, now. You want to be believed, don't you? Especially by people you consider to be friends? I was trying my best not to challenge your assertation. It was an honest question. But I did as you said and googled it. Here's what I came up with:

In addition, about 25% of Republicans said they had a favorable view of Harris and approve of her choice as Biden's running mate. Only about 20% of Republicans said they have a similarly favorable view of Biden.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/poll-ha ... -1.9070013

5% difference isn't a heck of a lot of daylight when you consider that most polls have around a 3% margin of error, especially considering that she's a first term Senator and still a relative unknown vs. Biden, who's been around for decades. She's in her honeymoon phase right now. Once Trump's campaign starts with their attack ads and people start learning what's behind that attractive, smiling face, expect that percentage to plummet.

[I-5]

Looks like they’ve launched their first Kamala attack (via a Trump interview),and it’s.....another birther conspiracy. She’s born in Oakland CA of course. He is too tired to even come up with something.

[RiverDog]

Looks like they’ve launched their first Kamala attack (via a Trump interview),and it’s.....another birther conspiracy. She’s born in Oakland CA of course. He is too tired to even come up with something.

I saw that. It's not even up there with the Obama claim as they don't even argue that she wasn't born on US soil.

The Trump campaign really needs to get their sh!t together as to how to go about attacking Harris. One official called her a "lock em up and throw the key away" cop while in the next room, Mike Pence said she was weak on crime. I'm amazed that they haven't come up with a coherent plan. She's been in the top 5 candidate for months and as I said earlier, they have plenty of ammo without having to resort to false claims. All of Trump's soldiers should have had a playbook memorized by now. But that's typical Trump. No plan, everything done by the seat of the pants.

[RiverDog]

Kamala is political. She will align with what values are necessary to win much as Romney did during his run. Kamala's stances were in line with her California liberal base, but she'll adjust to fit into the political landscape of the nation's Democrats if that is who she is appealing to. That's why Biden chose her. She's adaptable and knows the politics game.

Kamala will do what Kamala needs to do to appeal to the wider Democratic base she's dealing with. I could tell this is how she operates watching her the few times I did and reading on her political career. She's a political animal that is adaptable, smart, and knows how to win elections and hold power in a Democracy.

I fully expect Harris to do an artful job of keeping the liberal wing of the party at arm's length while not dampening their enthusiasm. She's used to the spotlight and will enter speeches, press conferences, and debates prepared and well versed. But the problem isn't so much with her as it is with her boss. Biden is going to be confronted with some very tough questions. He will be given two seemingly polar opposite statements, one made by her and one by him, and will be asked "which one of you is right?" That's a huge potential pitfall for Biden and as we all know, he has a big problem with foot-in-mouth disease, especially when he's thrust into a stressful situation. That's the main reason why I wanted Biden to take Susan Rice as she's never held an elective office and as such, doesn't have a track record that can be contrasted with Biden's. Sleepy Joe is going to have a tough time defending his running mate's positions.

Much like Dumb as Dirt started going to church for the first time I've seen in 30 plus years of following Trump. When I saw Trump in church, I had to laugh. How can you worship a god when you believe yourself to be a god? I don't know how that works. If Donald Trump got to Heaven and had a conversation with God himself, he'd be talking over him and telling God how great he was. God could say, "I created the world" and Trump would be talking about how he made Trump Towers and banged pornstars.

That's been one of the strangest parts of the Trump effect. I can't understand how the evangelical community can embrace Trump in the manner they have. Those same folks went ballistic when it was Bill Clinton that was the immoral heathen, and his sins pale in comparison to our chief pornstar banger. It's the exact same hypocrisy expressed that various women's groups did when they gave Slick Willy a pass for using his cigar on a 21 year old intern. Our country no longer has a moral compass. Everything is political.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't care whether you believe me or not, I know what I heard and it's not the only time I've seen the argument made that the Trump team would rather have had someone farther to the left to villainize. Google it, you might just surprise yourself.

Oh, come on, now. You want to be believed, don't you? Especially by people you consider to be friends? I was trying my best not to challenge your assertation. It was an honest question. But I did as you said and googled it. Here's what I came up with:

In addition, about 25% of Republicans said they had a favorable view of Harris and approve of her choice as Biden's running mate. Only about 20% of Republicans said they have a similarly favorable view of Biden.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/poll-ha ... -1.9070013

5% difference isn't a heck of a lot of daylight when you consider that most polls have around a 3% margin of error, especially considering that she's a first term Senator and still a relative unknown vs. Biden, who's been around for decades. She's in her honeymoon phase right now. Once Trump's campaign starts with their attack ads and people start learning what's behind that attractive, smiling face, expect that percentage to plummet.

I didn't say to what degree and neither did the fellow talking on the news, but it still proves out to be true. And while you call it "5% difference" it's also true to say that 20% more republicans have a favorable view of Kamala than Biden.

And no, I don't care whether you believe me or not, but I do bristle a bit at being called a liar. Just in case anybody else here is so inclined:

She is clearly not in the mold of a Sanders or even an Elizabeth Warren. The conventional wisdom about why Harris’s presidential primary campaign faltered, in fact, was that it did not have a defined message and it was not clear what she was about. You can spin that in a positive way as pragmatism, or you can spin it in a negative way as a lack of principles. But to suggest she’s some kind of radical socialist infiltrator is difficult to square with the idea that she has got nonradical principles that she has abandoned out of expediency and is also beholden to Wall Street

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... nt-decide/

“Kamala Harris is brilliant, tough and can readily take on all the fascists running the show,” she later told The Denver Post. “Is she as progressive as I’d like? No ... Harris faced some pushback from the left during the vetting process because of her record as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general, which some characterized as furthering policies that disproportionately harm Black and Latino defendants.

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/08/11/kamala-harris-vice-president-herod-gardner-polis-hickenlooper-colorado/

NORMAN SOLOMON: For Joe Biden, he doesn't want the so-called big tent of the Democratic Party to be big enough to include, really, authentic progressive activists and progressive voters. And I think that's disturbing.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/12/901592063/californians-react-bidens-decision-to-name-kamala-harris-his-running-mate

Look, I'm not and never was saying Kamala is not progressive, only that I had seen her portrayed as considerably less so than others, most notably anyone on "The Squad" and I'm sure Trump would have greatly preferred to have Elizibeth Warren as a foil than a VP choice that many true progressives see as soft on Police or worse, a cop herself (https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre ... 9a20252b23) during this national movement to defund or even abolish police.

And now just for fun: https://mashable.com/video/trevor-noah- ... -reaction/

[RiverDog]

And no, I don't care whether you believe me or not, but I do bristle a bit at being called a liar.

Well, I care if people believe me or not, and for heaven's sake, I wasn't in any way, shape, or form suggesting that you were untruthful and on two different occasions went to great lengths to make that apparent. All I wanted to do was to see your source of information.

Harris might not be as liberal as Sanders or Warren, but she's obviously out in the 90%+ region on the spectrum. Plus she's from California, specifically San Francisco, the epicenter of the liberal movement. It would be easier for her to shake that image if she were from a red or purple state.

Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal advocacy group that compiles ratings based on major votes, gave her perfect scores in 2017 and 2018.

Harris’ record is anathema to conservatives. The American Conservative Union gives her a 3.03 lifetime score out of 100.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 08657.html

According to GovTrack.us, Harris was more liberal than even Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, which seems like an impossible feat.

https://www.westernjournal.com/senate-a ... en-bernie/

[c_hawkbob]

And no, I don't care whether you believe me or not, but I do bristle a bit at being called a liar.

Well, I care if people believe me or not, and for heaven's sake, I wasn't in any way, shape, or form suggesting that you were untruthful and on two different occasions went to great lengths to make that apparent. All I wanted to do was to see your source of information.

Harris might not be as liberal as Sanders or Warren, but she's obviously out in the 90%+ region on the spectrum. Plus she's from California, specifically San Francisco, the epicenter of the liberal movement. It would be easier for her to shake that image if she were from a red or purple state.

Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal advocacy group that compiles ratings based on major votes, gave her perfect scores in 2017 and 2018.

Harris’ record is anathema to conservatives. The American Conservative Union gives her a 3.03 lifetime score out of 100.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 08657.html

According to GovTrack.us, Harris was more liberal than even Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, which seems like an impossible feat.

https://www.westernjournal.com/senate-a ... en-bernie/

I don't care about degrees of progressivism, that's not what I said. I made a simple, clear statement and I told you what my source was and you chose not to believe it and asked me to prove it. That's BS and don't appreciate it. I even told you that I didn't have time to chase it down or to watch much news recently due to my schedule at work (0700 to 2000 today for instance) so telling you I saw it on the news should have sufficed. It's not as though I have a track record of untruthfulness here.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's been one of the strangest parts of the Trump effect. I can't understand how the evangelical community can embrace Trump in the manner they have. Those same folks went ballistic when it was Bill Clinton that was the immoral heathen, and his sins pale in comparison to our chief pornstar banger. It's the exact same hypocrisy expressed that various women's groups did when they gave Slick Willy a pass for using his cigar on a 21 year old intern. Our country no longer has a moral compass. Everything is political.

I told you why, but you don't believe me. Trump is charismatic. He has always had this powerful ability to persuade and sell others on what he desires. If he could talk like Reagan, Biden would have little chance of winning. But he can't. He has powerful charisma, but a rude, narcissistic, divisive nature which attracts mostly a sort of people that buy into American narcissism or want to believe that Trump is the only thing standing in the way of America falling to Satan or something along those lines. If you have some fearful weakness that Trump can use his charisma and selling skills to play upon, then you will be susceptible to Trump's charismatic personality and selling skills. If you don't, then you won't. The reason you don't fall for him is because you don't in general fall for charismatic leaders period, but you also don't align with his talking points or feel engaged in some huge culture war with the Democrats he can exploit.

I love America. But I don't go for BS. Americans have some narcissistic qualities that Trump likes to exploit like this idea of being great or the best. I could really care less about either of those things myself. I'd rather see America following our beliefs to the best of our ability without worrying about being "the best" whatever that means to whoever is listening. But there are a lot of Americans who believe standing for the flag, believing we're the best at everything, and having an almost worshipful love of this nation means you're a better American than someone else. But it's not how I think.

America has a particular set of values that makes us America. Those values are defined in our Constitution and the underlying philosophy upon which those values are built. They do not align with this MAGA idea or what not of American superiority that Trump is tapping into. I'm not sure when the idea of the American Dream became one of wealth and excess, but it's tiresome. The American Dream is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We need to get back to that, not this BS the modern politicians are selling like the American Dream is wealth and power on the right and the American Dream is no longer attainable so we should just become socialist that the left is pushing.

I can't support the left because men like Robert Reich saying ludicrous things like the "era of the self-made man is over" or other such rubbish as they try to push us towards collectivism. I've never much liked the right's idea that we need to love the job creators that provide all the prosperity like we're supposed to bow down to corporate ownership. Both ideas are just rotten and we can't seem to get a political party going that is really for working people. They're either pushing victimhood like the left or narcissistic wealth like the right. It's damn sad.

[NorthHawk]

I think the evangelicals agreed to a Faustian deal with Trump in that they would look the other
way regarding his transgressions if he delivered conservative Supreme Court judges.
I think it's really that simple.

[c_hawkbob]

I think the evangelicals agreed to a Faustian deal with Trump in that they would look the other
way regarding his transgressions if he delivered conservative Supreme Court judges.
I think it's really that simple.

I agree with this, whether it was a written or even verbally expressed deal or not (more likely not of course), it is in function what likely has taken place.

[RiverDog]

I don't care about degrees of progressivism, that's not what I said. I made a simple, clear statement and I told you what my source was and you chose not to believe it and asked me to prove it. That's BS and don't appreciate it. I even told you that I didn't have time to chase it down or to watch much news recently due to my schedule at work (0700 to 2000 today for instance) so telling you I saw it on the news should have sufficed. It's not as though I have a track record of untruthfulness here.

Are you sure that you read me right? Here's exactly what I said:

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd be interested in seeing those polls (plural?), when they were taken, what kind of questions they were asking, etc. It sounds counter intuitive as Harris is almost without question one of the most liberal Senators on the hill, and then I said this,, I was trying my best not to challenge your assertation. followed by this: I wasn't in any way, shape, or form suggesting that you were untruthful

NOT that I don't believe you. That means I am NOT questioning your honesty. I didn't ask you to prove it. and I didn't even ask you to provide a source. I just said that I'd be interested in seeing it and gave you my reasoning.

Geez, you're getting touchy.

[RiverDog]

I think the evangelicals agreed to a Faustian deal with Trump in that they would look the other way regarding his transgressions if he delivered conservative Supreme Court judges. I think it's really that simple.

Keep in mind that Trump had solid evangelical support even in the 2016 Republican primaries. There were other conservatives, in particular Ted Cruz, that would have appointed just as conservative of judges as Trump would have.

[c_hawkbob]

In my experience "not that I don't believe you but ..." almost always means "I don't believe you".

If that's not how you meant it fine, I'll be the one to apologize, but please stop making me find a link for you when I tell you where I heard something, you could have done that little bit of investigating for yourself. Disagree with it all you like, but you don't need to make me prove to you it was ever said.

[RiverDog]

In my experience "not that I don't believe you but ..." almost always means "I don't believe you".

If that's not how you meant it fine, I'll be the one to apologize, but please stop making me find a link for you when I tell you where I heard something, you could have done that little bit of investigating for yourself. Disagree with it all you like, but you don't need to make me prove to you it was ever said.

That's not how I understand the phrase, and I went on to try to clarify it in subsequent comments. Nor did I ever ask you to 'prove' anything. I just wanted to see it. You know as well as I do that poll results can vary depending on how questions were worded, when they were taken, and so on.

But no biggie. I'll move on. Apology not necessary but appreciated.