(08-04-2024 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2024 10:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2024 08:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2024 08:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-03-2024 10:43 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  The fact that you're obtuse enough to believe that lie doesn't surprise. Why don't you tell us how the Hunter laptop is still fake while you're at it....

Perhaps point out where I have ever claimed the Hunter laptop was fake. Or simply keep up your galvanic response style thrashings.

I am glad you can blithely dismiss the issues of Stormy and the mountain of facts developed there. Must suck when your demigod is besmirched.

Tanq has a point about Trump's lack of fidelity. I wonder how that will play against Kammie's sexual history. But frankly, I don't care much.

While other things being equal, I prefer people who honor their marriage vows, other things are never equal. If fidelity were the main thing, we would have more Carters and less JFKs, more Bushes and less Clintons.

Once again, I care more about a candidate's policies on issues than their sex life.

I share your sentiments in your last sentence.

But it is seemingly exceptionally hypocritical to make an issue of Kamala / Willie in light of Trump’s own record.

Agree. And vice-versa.

Very true -- if one were to 'make hay' about character issues in sleeping with a porn star while your now current was taking care of the infant, then the issues of Kamala being in a knowing adulterous relationship with Willie Brown should absolutely be germane to the same degree.

Quote:And unimportant.

Agree again. That is my personal calculus -- the moral issue of Trump doinking Stormy while Melania was caring for their infant isnt high on the 'importance of governance' calculus. Just as Kamala's knowing fling with a married man isnt there in a major level as well.

Not zero. In either case. But still overall not in the 'urgent issue' category.

Quote:Did you find it odd that his ex-wife Marla supports him? I have always had a degree of pride in that if I were to run for office, my ex would support me.

I dont find it odd, nor repulsive, that Marla supports him.

And kudos (without sarcasm) that your ex would support you. That shows quite a bit. In retrospect, I am not surprised. But still a kudos to you.

Hopefully if you made it to President, your ex- Vice President would support you as a first choice. As well as at least half of your inner senior staff.

And, in all fairness, Kamala does not seemingly engender long term 'good feelies' with those that work closely with her -- based on an atrocious 'burn through' issue with her staff.

Kamala doesnt seemingly engender the explicit rancor and criticisms that are espoused by the Barrs, the Tillersons, the Boltons, the Haleys, the Milleys (etc etc etc) -- but the lack of 'stickiness' with personal staff ranks there in Trump territory.

(08-04-2024 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Usha Vance

The question is raised, does the MSM realize that "white supremacist" Vance is married to a woman of color? Also, do they care?

Did you see the clip of Vance taking about this? Kind of a flub on his part. He was talking about the supremacist rancor and threats.

His quote had one really bad word in it.

“Obviously, she’s not a white person … But I just, I love Usha. She’s such a good mom.”

Why the fk did he feel the need to use the "but" in that comment?

(08-04-2024 11:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2024 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Usha Vance

The question is raised, does the MSM realize that "white supremacist" Vance is married to a woman of color? Also, do they care?

Did you see the clip of Vance taking about this? Kind of a flub on his part. He was talking about the supremacist rancor and threats.

His quote had one really bad word in it.

“Obviously, she’s not a white person … But I just, I love Usha. She’s such a good mom.”

Why the fk did he feel the need to use the "but" in that comment?

Sounds to me like he says he loves the person, and the race is unimportant in being a root of that love. Kind of what I expect from everybody in an inter-racial/inter-ethnic relationship, of which i have quite an extensive experience, mostly of course, of the hispanic-anglo marriage, but also of black-white.

In any case, there were several others I would have preferred to Vance. Unlike Bowman's "veto" of Shapiro, they were all good/bad choices in their own ways, just that if I ranked them by preference, Vance would have been mid- to lower-rank. #1 would have been Youngkin, #2 Scott. Carson last.

Agree it could have been articulated better.

(08-04-2024 11:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2024 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2024 10:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='19682397' dateline='1722778984']
[quote='tanqtonic' pid='19682372' dateline='1722777708']

Perhaps point out where I have ever claimed the Hunter laptop was fake. Or simply keep up your galvanic response style thrashings.

I am glad you can blithely dismiss the issues of Stormy and the mountain of facts developed there. Must suck when your demigod is besmirched.

Tanq has a point about Trump's lack of fidelity. I wonder how that will play against Kammie's sexual history. But frankly, I don't care much.

While other things being equal, I prefer people who honor their marriage vows, other things are never equal. If fidelity were the main thing, we would have more Carters and less JFKs, more Bushes and less Clintons.

Once again, I care more about a candidate's policies on issues than their sex life.

I share your sentiments in your last sentence.

But it is seemingly exceptionally hypocritical to make an issue of Kamala / Willie in light of Trump’s own record.

Not to mention the false equivalency (there's that term again) between Trump's affair and Kamala's situation. Trump was banging a porn actress on the side while his wife was at home carrying his baby. Kamala was openly dating Willie who (by all accounts) had been separated from his wife for years and years. So while he was not legally divorced he had been apparently "single" for a long time and had openly conducted himself as such for a long time prior to Harris.

So not that Harris completely covered herself in glory when it comes to Willie Brown, but the two situations were much different.

(08-04-2024 11:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2024 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Usha Vance

The question is raised, does the MSM realize that "white supremacist" Vance is married to a woman of color? Also, do they care?

Did you see the clip of Vance taking about this? Kind of a flub on his part. He was talking about the supremacist rancor and threats.

His quote had one really bad word in it.

“Obviously, she’s not a white person … But I just, I love Usha. She’s such a good mom.”

Why the fk did he feel the need to use the "but" in that comment?

I have seen the press and the left go after Vance for a lot recently but I don't recall white supremacist being a talking point.

(08-04-2024 02:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-04-2024 11:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2024 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Usha Vance

The question is raised, does the MSM realize that "white supremacist" Vance is married to a woman of color? Also, do they care?

Did you see the clip of Vance taking about this? Kind of a flub on his part. He was talking about the supremacist rancor and threats.

His quote had one really bad word in it.

“Obviously, she’s not a white person … But I just, I love Usha. She’s such a good mom.”

Why the fk did he feel the need to use the "but" in that comment?

I have seen the press and the left go after Vance for a lot recently but I don't recall white supremacist being a talking point.

Vance was with a journalist (Megyn Kelly?) talking about the Trump 'not black' comments and the subject of Vance's own family came into the subject. Vance volunteered that his own family was the target of supremacist / racially tinged garbage, and proffered the above.

I agree the context from Vance was support for his family -- but absolutely horribly articulated. In a manner that could be taken in a much more negative light. Not the best tone in a comment in response to Trump's NABJ fiasco.

Trump needs to focus on the independents rather the keeping on feeding red meat to his base. He has the 40% that are his base, all day long. What he needs to do is pick off 12% of those who are in the middle. He has personally favored some pretty centrist policies in a number of areas. It's time to become a centrist against the wacky leftist loon Kamala.

(08-04-2024 04:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Trump needs to focus on the independents rather the keeping on feeding red meat to his base. He has the 40% that are his base, all day long. What he needs to do is pick off 12% of those who are in the middle. He has personally favored some pretty centrist policies in a number of areas. It's time to become a centrist against the wacky leftist loon Kamala.

Agree. Get back to issues, let the Dems play personalities.

Here's one

In 2020, she proposed multiple changes to the tax code, including implementing a four percent 'income-based premium' on households making more than $100,000 to fund her version of 'Medicare for All'.
That would probably catch most posters here.

She also favored raising capital gains tax rates to ordinary income tax rates,

stupid

raising the corporate income tax rate of 21 percent up to 35 percent,

stupid beyond stupid

and expanding the estate tax.

stupid and unfair

Harris also supports the expiration next year of many key parts of former president Donald Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

stupid

black Pennsylvania voters remark on Harris race

I found this clip opened a new frontier for me - it never occurred to me that black voters may not consider Harris black. I don't know if the viewpoint that she is not black is widespread, but the fact that they found three in a random barbershop visit indicates to me that it may be widespread, and if so, could impact the expected draw of black voters.

(08-04-2024 05:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here's one

In 2020, she proposed multiple changes to the tax code, including implementing a four percent 'income-based premium' on households making more than $100,000 to fund her version of 'Medicare for All'.
That would probably catch most posters here.

She also favored raising capital gains tax rates to ordinary income tax rates,

stupid

raising the corporate income tax rate of 21 percent up to 35 percent,

stupid beyond stupid

and expanding the estate tax.

stupid and unfair

Harris also supports the expiration next year of many key parts of former president Donald Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

stupid

it's the economy, stupid

no thanks....

Harris picks Walz as her running mate. He quickly became my darkhorse selection when he started publicly campaigning for the spot by going on the offensive. I think it's a great pick as he's a bit of a ying to her yang style wise, whereas Shapiro felt very similar. He gives her a good toehold in the midwest, with the ability to really shore up support there. And he has passed some very popular and liberal bills in Minnesota that they can campaign on to shore up and excite their base - school breakfast/lunch, expanded pre-k, worker protections and expanded leave, and a few others. But he is a down-to-earth old white dude that is unlikely to alienate undecideds as he is unlikely to be viewed as "woke."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/47...minnesota/

(ironically I wrote all of this and found the link after I did - just read it and apparently I should be writing for the Hill)

Here's a textbook example of media bias, this time in regards to VP candidates.

When a Blue Team politician changes positions like a chameleon changes colors, it's a good thing, he "evolves".

If a Red Team politician changes positions over time, it's a bad thing: he's opportunistic and has no convictions.

(Disclaimer: I think politicians should change their stance to reflect the opinions of the people they represent - that's supposed to be their role in a functioning republic).

(08-06-2024 08:24 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Here's a textbook example of media bias, this time in regards to VP candidates.

When a Blue Team politician changes positions like a chameleon changes colors, it's a good thing, he "evolves".

If a Red Team politician changes positions over time, it's a bad thing: he's opportunistic and has no convictions.

(Disclaimer: I think politicians should change their stance to reflect the opinions of the people they represent - that's supposed to be their role in a functioning republic).

A tale as old as time. Both sides are complete hypocrites when it comes to this issue (and most issues).

I guess Shapiro's Jewishness cost him. Odd that Identity was a negative in the Identity Party, and they went with the old white guy.

Kamalnomics worse than Bidenomics

I was/am one that believes Kam would be worse than Joe, economically. One component of him being the "greater evil" was the high likelihood of his VP replacing him, either through death or 25thing. At least this way we have a shot at heading her off at the pass.

(08-06-2024 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess Shapiro's Jewishness cost him. Odd that Identity was a negative in the Identity Party, and they went with the old white guy.

As usual it is the right-wingers on this forum that bring up identity. You guys are definitely more fascinated by this than the non-right-wingers on this forum!

(08-06-2024 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-06-2024 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess Shapiro's Jewishness cost him. Odd that Identity was a negative in the Identity Party, and they went with the old white guy.

As usual it is the right-wingers on this forum that bring up identity. You guys are definitely more fascinated by this than the non-right-wingers on this forum!

Old white guy gets picked: must have the been the identify of the other guy that cost him

Jewish guy gets picked: it’s probably only because of his identity that he got picked.

Gotta love it.

(08-06-2024 11:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2024 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-06-2024 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess Shapiro's Jewishness cost him. Odd that Identity was a negative in the Identity Party, and they went with the old white guy.

As usual it is the right-wingers on this forum that bring up identity. You guys are definitely more fascinated by this than the non-right-wingers on this forum!

Old white guy gets picked: must have the been the identify of the other guy that cost him

Jewish guy gets picked: it’s probably only because of his identity that he got picked.

Gotta love it.

Boy do you have it backwards.

Shapiro's Jewishness would have lost her votes particularly in Michigan (ever hear of Dearborn?) and among the younger, anti-Israel, antisemitic factions of her party, the ones burning the US flag and chanting from the river to the sea. Wouldn't have driven them to Trump, but maybe made them stay at home.

White guy: balances the ticket, female of color and male of no color. No problems with the pro-Palestinean, antiIsrael branch of the Dems. The safe, keep everybody in the tent choice.

IMO, had Shapiro not been Jewish, he would have been the pick, just for the Pennsylvania vote. JMHO.