(08-11-2020 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  One of the better choices in the field. Checks all the boxes.

Black
Female

But also is a very good speaker, good presence.

Legal background.

Hopefully she will get the executive experience she needs before being elevated to POTUS #47

It could have been so much worse.

If Biden loses Michigan, he may think back to this choice, though.

Agree on the choice. Do you think she'd hurt in Michigan? Or, Whitmer would have helped more?

I liked Stacy Abrams more, but was fine with Susan Rice or Kamala Harris. Hopefully 69/70/75 can mind his P's and Q's and be a gentleman about this...

(08-11-2020 04:01 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  One of the better choices in the field. Checks all the boxes.

Black
Female

But also is a very good speaker, good presence.

Legal background.

Hopefully she will get the executive experience she needs before being elevated to POTUS #47

It could have been so much worse.

If Biden loses Michigan, he may think back to this choice, though.

Agree on the choice. Do you think she'd hurt in Michigan? Or, Whitmer would have helped more?

Whitmer would have helped more. California is not in play. But I think Whitmer was too white. Biden was enjoined to pick a black woman.

But among the black women on the list, I think Harris is one of the better ones.

(08-11-2020 04:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I liked Stacy Abrams more, but was fine with Susan Rice or Kamala Harris. Hopefully 69/70/75 can mind his P's and Q's and be a gentleman about this...

Abrams was the worst, and Rice the second worst, IMO. Maybe there is a reason we are always at each other's throats.

Afew months ago, IIRC, I picked Harris to the Presidential nominee on the basis of her being black and female. Now she is the VP nominee on the basis of being black and female. Guess I wasn't too far off.

missed it by that much

(08-11-2020 04:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 04:01 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  One of the better choices in the field. Checks all the boxes.

Black
Female

But also is a very good speaker, good presence.

Legal background.

Hopefully she will get the executive experience she needs before being elevated to POTUS #47

It could have been so much worse.

If Biden loses Michigan, he may think back to this choice, though.

Agree on the choice. Do you think she'd hurt in Michigan? Or, Whitmer would have helped more?

Whitmer would have helped more. California is not in play. But I think Whitmer was too white. Biden was enjoined to pick a black woman.

But among the black women on the list, I think Harris is one of the better ones.

Is there such a difference?

According to Biden, there really isn't much diversity of thought between the 'black women on the list'.

Good choice. I think she will be a strong partner and will help the ticket.

(08-11-2020 05:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 04:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 04:01 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  One of the better choices in the field. Checks all the boxes.

Black
Female

But also is a very good speaker, good presence.

Legal background.

Hopefully she will get the executive experience she needs before being elevated to POTUS #47

It could have been so much worse.

If Biden loses Michigan, he may think back to this choice, though.

Agree on the choice. Do you think she'd hurt in Michigan? Or, Whitmer would have helped more?

Whitmer would have helped more. California is not in play. But I think Whitmer was too white. Biden was enjoined to pick a black woman.

But among the black women on the list, I think Harris is one of the better ones.

Is there such a difference?

According to Biden, there really isn't much diversity of thought between the 'black women on the list'.

Yeah, it's not like she's Hispanic.

Well, everyone hold their horses on it all -----

This just in.

Stacey Abrams is insisting *she* is the actual Veep nominee and is demanding a recount.

(08-11-2020 09:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, everyone hold their horses on it all -----

This just in.

Stacey Abrams is insisting *she* is the actual Veep nominee and is demanding a recount.

It must be that voter suppression she is always on about.

Honestly, I really dont want to hear how 'moderate' Biden is, nor Harris.

Were Biden an actual moderate one would think that he would nominate a moderate as VP. So if anyone is in doubt on the #2 slot of the Democratic Party, lets do some 'numbers fun' here.....

So here is a rating of Kamala Harris, from an organization she is stacked against.

American Conservative Union --- 0%
She shares that with only 4 other members of Congress

Her ratings are very low -- no surprise there, nor any point to be made there. But lets stack her ratings against some others:

Steny Hoyer 6%
Dick Durbin, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer managed to reach 5 percent.
Maxine Waters came in at 4%
Elizabeth Warren and Pelosi came in at 3 percent.

Think about it --- Waters, Warren, Durbin, Pelosi, and Schumer all look to be somewhat moderate in the 'Light of Harris'.

-----------------------

Now just for fun, lets look at the 'bearded evil Spock' reverse side of the rating ---

No one of real note holds a 100% rating, unless you are a Congress grog and know who Jim Jordan is.

Those more well known at 99% --
Mike Lee UT
Ted Cruz TX
Ron DeSantis FL

No one of any real note until 96%
Ron Paul
Jim Inhofe

So the interesting thing is I know I have heard many of our resident leftists snort and snarl about most of the above as being 'too far out to be reasonable'. And while I may not agree with the level of snorting and snarling, I would actually denote all of the 5 outliers on the right as being unpalatable for the highest office(s), simply based on their very far views off the center line.

But think about it ---- the guys you are going to gladly vote for are as far radical to one side as those you snort and snarl about on the other. Not just as far -- actually even farther.

As an aside: by the way lad, since Inhofe came up obliquely, I seemingly remember you hufflepuffing about his book. I dont think I ever got an answer from you as to whether you read it, or were just complaining about the title......

(08-11-2020 10:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Honestly, I really dont want to hear how 'moderate' Biden is, nor Harris.

Were Biden an actual moderate one would think that he would nominate a moderate as VP. So if anyone is in doubt on the #2 slot of the Democratic Party, lets do some 'numbers fun' here.....

So here is a rating of Kamala Harris, from an organization she is stacked against.

American Conservative Union --- 0%
She shares that with only 4 other members of Congress

Her ratings are very low -- no surprise there, nor any point to be made there. But lets stack her ratings against some others:

Steny Hoyer 6%
Dick Durbin, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer managed to reach 5 percent.
Maxine Waters came in at 4%
Elizabeth Warren and Pelosi came in at 3 percent.

Think about it --- Waters, Warren, Durbin, Pelosi, and Schumer all look to be somewhat moderate in the 'Light of Harris'.

-----------------------

Now just for fun, lets look at the 'bearded evil Spock' reverse side of the rating ---

No one of real note holds a 100% rating, unless you are a Congress grog and know who Jim Jordan is.

Those more well known at 99% --
Mike Lee UT
Ted Cruz TX
Ron DeSantis FL

No one of any real note until 96%
Ron Paul
Jim Inhofe

So the interesting thing is I know I have heard many of our resident leftists snort and snarl about most of the above as being 'too far out to be reasonable'. And while I may not agree with the level of snorting and snarling, I would actually denote all of the 5 outliers on the right as being unpalatable for the highest office(s), simply based on their very far views off the center line.

But think about it ---- the guys you are going to gladly vote for are as far radical to one side as those you snort and snarl about on the other. Not just as far -- actually even farther.

As an aside: by the way lad, since Inhofe came up obliquely, I seemingly remember you hufflepuffing about his book. I dont think I ever got an answer from you as to whether you read it, or were just complaining about the title......

Honestly, nobody on the left can be said to be "moderate" except as compared to others on the left. Kind of in the same way Rommel was a "moderate" Nazi compared to Hitler.

I really don't know what kind of policies Harris will pursue as President. But the goal seems to be to have a black, female president, and she will fulfill those objectives. I bet Hillary is gnashing her teeth that somebody else is getting the historical "first" designation she so ardently coveted.

It will be ironic to have American blacks rioting over the racist treatment by police and kneeling to protest the oppressiveness of this country while having a black female president.

I understand her ACLU rating is very low.

But here is a little synopsis of her positions.

(08-12-2020 08:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I understand her ACLU rating is very low.

But here is a little synopsis of her positions.

Kamala was quite the authoritarian treat as SF DA and Cali AG.

(08-12-2020 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 08:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I understand her ACLU rating is very low.

But here is a little synopsis of her positions.

Kamala was quite the authoritarian treat as SF DA and Cali AG.

At least she is for sending bad guys to jail. Now if we could just agree on the definition of a bad guy.

(08-12-2020 08:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  At least she is for sending bad guys to jail. Now if we could just agree on the definition of a bad guy.

Hint: Start with her.

(08-12-2020 08:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 08:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I understand her ACLU rating is very low.

But here is a little synopsis of her positions.

Kamala was quite the authoritarian treat as SF DA and Cali AG.

At least she is for sending bad guys to jail. Now if we could just agree on the definition of a bad guy.

She had a fun streak about defending the actions of a prosecutor that were abhorrent. The prosecutor flat out falsified a confession by adding to it, then used that altered confession to try and strong arm a harsher plea deal.

So when the trial judge booted the case for prosecutorial misconduct, Kamala raced to the defend the actions --- she had the gall to say the only time there could be misconduct in the confession is the application of abject physical brutality.

In another case, Harris steadfastly backed a prosecutor who suborned perjury, to the level of fighting tooth and nail to keep the transcript from the CA Ct of Appeals.

Harris only backed down after the Feds got involved in the case, and, during oral arguments, one of the jurists noted that perjury charges might be consideration to be referred to actions of the prosecutor. Once that came up in the hearing, lo and behold AG Harris dropped that appeal like a hot potato.

This isnt considering how she used the Office to basically sit on the sidelines when laws she didnt like were attacked in the courts, then concurrently used her office to oppose the appointment of alternative counsel to defend those laws.

The funny thing is that the left, to a great extent thinks Barr is a jackboot thug. Harris makes him look like a piker.

But I am sure the 'situation dependent viewpoint' that most progressives have as part of their DNA dont see a problem with that.

(08-11-2020 04:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I liked Stacy Abrams more, but was fine with Susan Rice or Kamala Harris. Hopefully 69/70/75 can mind his P's and Q's and be a gentleman about this...

Not really related to numbers' comments....

Why should a woman be treated any different from a man in the identical situation? Trump was called an incestuous pedophile and I don't recall anyone suggesting that this was 'ungentlemanly'.

A man who abuses his position to get sex from women - there are crimes and words and HR manuals to describe that. We don't have many words and crimes and HR manuals to describe women who use sex to get ahead. I've heard some describe them as 'empowered', which can be true if you focus on the male culpability of that issue, but what about the impact that such actions have on other women?

My daughter lost a job in film because she wouldn't sleep with the producer... and of course the guy is a complete scumbag... but had there not been another woman willing to do so, she might still have her job.

(08-12-2020 09:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 04:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I liked Stacy Abrams more, but was fine with Susan Rice or Kamala Harris. Hopefully 69/70/75 can mind his P's and Q's and be a gentleman about this...

Not really related to numbers' comments....

Why should a woman be treated any different from a man in the identical situation? Trump was called an incestuous pedophile and I don't recall anyone suggesting that this was 'ungentlemanly'.

A man who abuses his position to get sex from women - there are crimes and words and HR manuals to describe that. We don't have many words and crimes and HR manuals to describe women who use sex to get ahead. I've heard some describe them as 'empowered', which can be true if you focus on the male culpability of that issue, but what about the impact that such actions have on other women?

My daughter lost a job in film because she wouldn't sleep with the producer... and of course the guy is a complete scumbag... but had there not been another woman willing to do so, she might still have her job.

The left has double standards within double standards within double standards.

From elsewhere:

In order to appeal to disaffected black voters who might lean toward protest voting (Kanye) or not voting (2016), Democrats ingeniously picked the one black candidate whose parents are not from America, whose ancestors had slaves, and who spent her career locking up black men.

Not from elsewhere: what does anyone else call an authoritarian extremist? From the left, they call that their 'standard bearer', mind you.