Recommended Posts

The 2020 Presidential Election Tournament

It's a little early, but what the hell.

The Trump-Pence ticket is going to be on one end. That's all over but the crying for their opponents.

But we still don't know for sure if Biden will survive in good health to be his opponent, nor do we know who Biden wants to run with him.

Then there are the stakes of the House and the Senate. Will the Republicans keep the Senate or will the Democrats take it? Will the Democrats keep the House or will the Republicans take it?

Presuming President Trump wins the election, there is the biggest stake of all: will he get a Republican Senate and House made up of pro-Trump Republicans?

With that as the game, we now get to strategy. Who is reading the American voter best, the Democrats or the Republicans?

 

Twitter

On that point, I can't think of a better way to start this thread than to mention a comment by Rush Limbaugh. He thinks Twitter is going to be the decider on that score. Note, he is not saying whoever gets the best message out on Twitter, or number of followers or whatever, will win the election. He said Twitter shapes the worldview of the lazy, like the fake news mainstream press and its master, the Democrat Party. Outside of Twitter, America in general is much different. Here is where he said that.

Winning Strategy: Trump Must Stand Against America’s Overthrow

Quote

... this country is not Twitter. And politicians and marketing managers, PR people all over this country are making a huge mistake assuming that Twitter represents the majority of thinking, the majority of people in this country. It does not.

This country is not a majority country of hate and bigotry and all of that. Half of what’s on Twitter isn’t real anyway. Half or more of what’s on Twitter is bots. They’re not even real people. Twitter is being used to corrupt and pollute the minds of the innocent and people that don’t pay much attention to the news anyway. But Twitter is not America.

Let the Democrat Party continue to believe that it is. Let the Democrat Party operate on the basis that this country is Twitter, and they will go down the tubes because this country is not Twitter. And what I mean by that is, Twitter is used by the media as a stand in for public opinion because the media is a bunch of jealous, lazy practitioners, and so Twitter is easy to use instead of actually going out and talking to people, and it’s a stand-in for national public opinion. And it’s serving a purpose for us. It is distorting the worldview of the Democrat Party.

I’m convinced that one of the reasons the Democrat Party thinks they’re in the majority and they think that hating America is the way to go is because they believe that Twitter is America. I don’t believe a majority of people in this country hate it. I don’t believe a majority of people in this country dislike it. I don’t believe a majority of people in this country want it overthrown. I don’t believe a majority of people in this country think Black Lives Matter is the answer or Antifa. In fact, it’s not even a matter of thinking it. I know it.

But the Democrats, they may think the exact opposite. They may literally believe that Black Lives Matter is the future, because most Americans agree with them and support them because the Democrats believe the drivel and the garbage that they see on Twitter. And, furthermore, they campaign on it. They seek more of it.

I admit I use Twitter more than I should, especially to reference President Trump's tweets and different news items. I do that because it is really convenient and quick.

But I rarely tweet and I even more rarely pay attention to who is getting the most traction. In other words, I use Twitter as a tool, not as an intellectual battleground.

And I think Rush is right. The Democrats are seeing Twitter as the main battleground of the election. That is where they are drawing their conclusions from about what is really out there. And that is what they are campaigning on. That is their party platform in more ways than one. But all Twitter shows (and can show) is who the most energetic posters and bots are, not average people in general.

It's going to be interesting if this ends up being the big deal I think it will be. If I were a betting man, that's where I would put my money.

 

Off we go

Anyway, enjoy the tournament. If the games started today, here is how I see the opening.

Ding ding ding ding ding...

Welcome to the Government of the United States of Ameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerica Heavyweieieieieieieieieight Championship Elections of 2020.

In one corner we have the one, the only, the outrageous, the unbeatable Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesent Donald... J... Truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuump!!!
(wild applause)

In the other corner, we have...
we have...
er...
we have...
excuse us while we take a station break...

🙂

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"Don't worry; we'll pick up the slack." It's...strange. When Trump first ran, I was not a fan of his, for a few reasons. But then I saw the over-reactions from others turn into TDS. I started to se

Have you guys been watching the press trying to frame President Trump with the white supremacy thing? Let's start with the end first, then look at the idiot press. Here is just one compilation am

This looks like one of the ways Hammer Scorecard works. In the clip, where CNN fucked up by allowing a few frames to escape, the Democrat gained 560 votes while at the very same time the Rep

Posted Images

I have not been following the Libertarian Party, but they have a candidate for president.

Jo Jorgensen.

And she just committed political suicide.

The LP candidate is now telling others what they have to do and tagging a Marxist organization to boot?

LOL...

But wait! It gets worse.

She then did a backpedal that rivals the squishiness of any political hack.

This lady doesn't know the tag involves the organization or movement Black Lives Matter? Come on...

That means she is either lying or stupid beyond all measure. All she had to do was click on the damn tag and see what popped up.

Trump supporters say thank you very much. Any libertarians who will still vote at all after that howler will hold their noses and vote for Trump. I suspect many will shrug and say, "To hell with it all."

The Libertarian Party is unmatched among the secondary parties for presenting shitty candidates for president.

Viva Aleppo!

🙂

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a random tweet in the "For the Children" section by the lady below (@Tinaforte7).

It was stinging for the fake news media.

(See here if you are interested.)

So I thought, let me see who this person is.

I went to her account and scrolled down.

Then I came across this.

It is perfect for a thread entitled The 2020 Presidential Election Tournament.

Hell yeah!

🙂 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thought.

John Kasich: Republican to Endorse Biden at Democratic National Convention

What if John Kasich leaves the Republican party and Biden invites him to be VP running mate?

If I were a Dem operative, I would be seriously looking at this.

As Hail Mary passes go, that would be one hell of a show.

Talk about pumping energy into Biden's milquetoast operation and getting the press yapping like a dog kennel when a bunch of stray cats go by.

🙂

Also, imagine all the Republican votes they could steal from Trump

(Please let them consider this... please let them consider this... please let them consider this... 🙂 )

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutha what? Gasp. Ask any ten objectivists and they will say, hot, hot, hot. Oy, Jimbo Wales is mentioned! What a great guy. I hope he has some money socked away. It is 79 here at one in the morning. I was looking for links to 100 degree temperatures and what did I find, just noodling and nodding about at 1 in the morning? I think I may have shown this before but it is worth revisiting, “This, other than, that.” Peter

From: Neil Goodell To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Rights that Should Not Be Legally Enforced Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:33:01 -0600. I think the issue of "rights" in this thread has failed to make a critical distinction. On June 12, 2001, Frank Forman wrote: What we have here is a kind of implicit social contract, which might say that it is virtuous to go along with the law, which has the merit of being known (for a fee to the lawyers!). The social contract can include for a  provision to let the legislature enact statutes to clarify and unify this “public policy." My impression is that Anglo-Saxon law has not been horrifically altruistic.

A couple of points here. First, political "rights" must be distinguished from rights derived from social policy/convention/practice/culture. Political rights follow immediately from ethics and serve to establish (1) the limitations imposed upon government's power to interfere with the actions of an individual, and (2) the restrictions against one individual forcibly interjecting themselves into the life/actions of another person.

Within the parameters delimited by political rights, rights arising from public policy are largely arbitrary -- by which I mean there is no a priori basis for having a right that states "this" rather than "that." Law per se, is an example of rights arising from public policy. For example: The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) is the governing language for most contract law. And the UCC was written with the specific intent to keep business moving and to promote economic efficiency. To this end clarity, finality, and the near-elimination of torts was/is paramount. Contract law did not have to be this way, and in many countries it isn't, but this fact alone does not make another system "moral" or "immoral," right or wrong.

What I am referring to as public policy rights, the government should have little say in whether they are enforced or not -- this is a matter for the individuals involved to decide for themselves. I also think this is largely a specialized area and philosophy has little to say on the subject.

Political rights are the proper sphere of philosophy's interest. Matters concerning the use of physical force are fairly easy to characterize. And fraud, a derivative of force, is relatively easy to define, at least in broad strokes.

Let me give an example to clarify the difference between the two categories of rights I am talking about: I am building a swimming pool. (I'm not, but let's pretend, it'll help me tolerate +100F temperatures we're having. 🙂 The pool is wholly on my property.  The law states that a pool is an "attractive nuisance" and therefore I, as the pool owner, must take steps to prevent other people from harming themselves if they should trespass on my property. So the building code requires that I build a fence around my pool to keep neighbors' children from drowning.

As a matter of philosophy, is it wrong to force me to spend additional money to protect other people from harming themselves, who can harm themselves only if they themselves violate the law in the first place?

At first blush the answer might appear to be yes, this is wrong. Yet the law was originally aimed at protecting children, who because of their age and concomitant lack of cognitive development, do not know any better.

So a neighbor's two-year-old child slips out of the house, into my yard, falls in the pool, and drowns (because I do not have a fence). Who ought to be held responsible, or legally liable, if anyone should?

As a matter of philosophy, I could make an argument either way in this instance: (a) that forcing me to build a fence violates my property rights and is therefore wrong, or (b) that my actions have created a situation  whereby people are likely to be harmed, and also attracted to it, and I therefore have a duty to protect others that might come to harm as a consequence of my actions, even if they must violate my rights first (i.e., trespass).

Philosophically, both positions are tenable, so which alternative we choose is arbitrary. Our society has opted for (b), with the proviso that my protective actions are limited by the "reasonable person" standard. (I am highly simplifying a very complex idea here so I don't want to have any debates on minutia.)

Frank also wrote: I don't think that ethics can be reduced to virtue and that there are three irreducible aspects of ethics:

 > 1. Do the right thing (deontology, and with it lots of rules)

 > 2. Do good (utilitarianism)

 > 3. Be a good man (virtue ethics)

The problems with these formulations are that they omit who the beneficiary of the actions is, and what the standard for deciding "good" or "right" is. When Rand discussed her core virtues, I believe she also asked the question whether a person would need that virtue if they were alone on a deserted island. If the answer was No, she rejected it as a primary virtue.

As Frank has described them here, these aspects seem to intimate the existence of a society within which the ethics exist. If that is the case, I would reject all three.

And Frank also wrote: I can't give a good concrete example, still less decide where the line should be drawn, but the foundation of Objectivist ethics and politics, as I have argued many times, rests on virtue. In other words, you have an *enforceable* right when my violation of it harms my character (stealing undermines my sense of self-efficacy) *and* when *your* calling the cops does not harm *your* character. (Even so, disproportionate punishment must be ruled out, since it harms the punishers. Ever notice the tough-guy stance of the Peikoffer bullies?)

An unstated assumption in this argument (an argument also used by Peikoff) is that Objectivism is taken as the standard by which another person's character is to be judged, whether they are Objectivist or not. For your own personal use, this is fine, but it is not adequate when it comes to legal matters. A professional robber will not have his or her own sense of self-efficacy undermined according to his or her own standards. At least so long as they continue without being caught. It is only when they are captured that their self-efficacy might be affected.

Of course from an Objectivist's point of view the robber only hurts him/herself by stealing. But this makes life-according-to-Objectivism the gold standard for how other people ought to live their lives, and I'm not sure whether I am arrogant enough to make that presumption.

To sum up: The subject line "Rights that should not be legally enforced" is a misnomer. First decide whether the right is what I have termed political, or arises from public policy. If it is political in nature, and only one alternative is reasonable in the particular circumstances, then it ought to be enforced. If on the other hand the right is cultural/public policy based, then the individuals involved should decide.

There is a parallel in the distinction between criminal and civil law. In criminal law, the government is the prosecutor because the wrong committed is deemed to be against society. Civil matters are conducted between the parties as the harm is seen to be against an individual -- the government does not usually take an active role on one side or the other. (Regulatory agencies and the like mess this up a bit, but they are another matter entirely....) Neil Goodell

From: Steve Reed To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Superb legal self-help Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:52:02 -0500.  Kyle Varner got excellent responses about insurance matters and moral propriety. I'd like to suggest a reference, to everyone, that has been immensely helpful.

 > (And, where can I find a website on small-claims court laws?)

www.Nolo.com ... it's the best "real-world" legal information site on the Net, bar none. And especially for any matter that you intend to take up yourself, with making a case in small-claims court being one of them. (It's required of you, in fact.)

 Nolo's viewpoint, though, is that a host of other actions involving the law can be handled without a lawyer. They've published scores of books, most being frequently updated, on everything from landlord/tenant relations to using credit to shopping for an attorney to bankruptcy to almost anything you can imagine.

 Book excerpts, well-planned Webbed guides about these topics, and links to purchase their books and guides are available on their site.

 The biggest Nolo time-and-money-saver is their phenomenal WillMaker software, which generates valid wills for 49 states (Louisiana is too arcane), along with health-care powers of attorney and "living wills." It's saved me several hundred dollars, and a probate attorney praised what it generated for me.  SteveReed "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Blacks and women and Jimbo Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:26:46 -0500 Russell Madden wrote: "As for treating "'freedom' in past eras of massive tyranny" "lightly," what a joke of an accusation. I've written often about such issues (e.g., Lincoln). I don't want a return to the "good ol' days." I'm for returning to the kind of freedom we had in areas where we were freer in the past and for correcting abuses where we were not free in the past. What's so hard -- or "unproductive" -- about acknowledging both the good and bad of the past, wanting to return to the former and repudiating the latter? Another straw man of what I stated and what I believe. Jimbo seems to want to claim that _in no areas_ was the 19th century freer than today. Such blindness to the facts is hardly helpful."

This controversy raises the interesting question of what standard we should use when "measuring" the amount of freedom in a country during a given period.

One obvious method, namely, to examine the amount and nature of legislation and administrative regulations, can be historically misleading, since the fact that a given law or regulation was on the books does not necessarily mean that it was widely enforced. We may be looking at a "dead-letter law," i.e., one that popular opinion, enlightened leadership, or the effects of time had rendered obsolete. We find this sort of thing with statutes against blasphemy, which though technically in force in England of the late 18th century, were rarely enforced, largely thanks to the influence of Enlightenment ideas.

A classic example of unenforced laws occurred in the American colonies for many decades until the 1760s, during a period that Edmund Burke dubbed the era of "salutary neglect." Robert Walpole, who was prime minister (in effect) during the 1720s, favored free trade, but he also understood the political impossibility of repealing the many mercantilist regulations that had been on the books for many years, some of them since Elizabethan times. Walpole therefore instituted his preferred policy ("Let sleeping dogs lie") of appointing relatives and political favorites as custom officials in America, where they routinely accepted bribes from smugglers which amounted to a fraction of the legally required duties. This policy of salutary neglect assured that trade was essentially free in fact, if not in theory.

Hence the amount of freedom actually enjoyed by Americans was considerably greater during the period of salutary neglect than would be indicated if we merely examined the laws that were officially on the books. We sometimes see a similar phenomenon even under early despotic regimes, such as that of the "Sun King," Louis XIV in 17th century France. The problem here, from the ruler's perspective, is that effective enforcement requires an efficient bureaucracy and police force, and these institutional mechanisms tended to be highly inadequate until well into the 19th century. In some respects (though by no means all) the average Frenchman during the 17th century enjoyed more de facto freedom than the average America of today. (This is especially true in regard to the rate of taxation.)

Although Thoreau protested a small poll tax, he noted that the average American citizen would rarely encounter a government official in his entire life, and then it was usually a mail carrier. When Lysander Spooner decided to become a lawyer, he did not require a diploma from a certified law school, nor did he have to pass a government-sanctioned exam. He merely became an assistant to an established attorney, studied law on his own in this environment, and then set out on his own when he felt qualified to practice and when clients were willing to enlist his services. This ability to practice a trade without jumping through the hoops of certification, licensing, and other government regulations that inhibit market entry is one significant example of greater freedom in 19th century America.

I am not suggesting that we should downplay discriminatory legislation in 19th century America against blacks, women, etc., but we should not rely entirely on enacted legislation when assessing the severity of enforcement, which typically varied from one locale to another. (For example, the citizens and officials of Boston often made it difficult to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.) One thing you don't find in 19th century America is millions of Americans imprisoned for victimless crimes, and this speaks volumes. True, such injustices did occur, but not nearly on the scale we see today. The "spirit of the law" (to use Montesquieu's term) was far more individualistic than it is now, even if this spirit did not always manifest itself in practice. (Of course, this depends on which part of the 19th century we are discussing. The ideology of Jeffersonian individualism suffered a steady decline after the Civil War.)

The legal disparity between men and women, which was quite real, is not a sufficient indicator of the degree of overall freedom in 19th century America. A disparity of freedom is still better, even for women, than an equality of oppression. I doubt if many American women of that time would have been willing to change places with women in a communistic regime like the Soviet Union, where men and women had legal equality (at least in theory).  Equal rights don't mean much when you have virtually no rights to begin with. Ghs

From: "John Enright" To: <objectivism Subject: OWL: ask ten Objectivists Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:30:03 -0500 Jennifer Baker (9/21) suggested the results of asking ten people about moral law.  What if we quiz ten Objectivists about the basis and workings of moral law?

The ten Objectivists at least won't bring in divine commands. But when pressed further, disagreements will emerge. The survivalists will maintain that the moral law, at least as it enforces individual rights,  is suspended during emergencies, allowing the trampling of rights for the sake of staying alive, since staying alive is the primary ethical value.

The flourishers will maintain that following the moral law is a constituent ingredient of living well, and that emergencies are a bad excuse for violating rights, since living in a manner befitting to human beings is really the primary ethical value.

The strict teleologists will be unhappy that a code of morality, freely chosen by the self, should be metaphorically compared to law, which suggests commands from outside the self.  Morality is a guide to successful living, they will say, not a law which must be obeyed. Others will maintain that moral law is no different than logical law, and that just as the laws of logic must be obeyed at all times, so must the laws of morality. Rationality demands consistency, and nothing less will do. John Enright

Link to post
Share on other sites

I emphatically disagree that President Trump is racist. He magically became racist by lefties and certain black celebrities after he entered politics and won. Previously, they all took his money and called him a huge friend to the blacks. 

Charlamagne Tha God, co-host of the top radio show, “The Breakfast Club,” openly calls President Trump racist, but he went off on Biden over race yesterday. If anyone wants to see how people like Charlamagne Tha God think about American history and culture, he is quite open about it in the video below. It's so race-heavy, I see it in the same light as I do the thinking of all bigoted collectivists.

Anywho, he's the guy to whom Biden said, "If you have a problem figuring out if you're for me or for Trump, then you ain't black." And “The Breakfast Club” is so popular, it's pretty influential in driving the behavior and choices of a substantial segment of black voters. (btw - I don't think Charlamagne Tha God's audience is uniform in thinking like he does, but he's an entertaining dude and highly intelligent, so I believe he earned his audience through his talent, not through his racism. At least for many.)

That's is the backstory for...

Guess what!

drum roll...

You guessed it.

Biden stepped in it again.

He said Trump was the first racist who ever got elected president.

🙂 

 

First the article about all this, then the video (which is also in the article).

Charlamagne Tha God suggests Biden ‘shut the eff up forever’ after saying Trump is ‘first’ racist president

 

Here's the video (and it's good to listen to it to see how these people think):

Charlamagne Tha God's frustration:

Quote

I don't know how we ended up in a position where, in November, we have to vote for two old white males again. Okay? The option is old white male leadership again. But we are here.

And where is Charlamagne Tha God's real interest in presidential politics? It's all good so long as it's black. When it ain't black, it ain't good.

Quote

Joe, you got to hurry up and announce your Black woman VP so I can be enthused about voting for her because I will never be enthused about voting for you...

I agree that it is hard to be enthused about voting for Biden for any reason, but this guy's openly stated reason is that Biden is an old white male. That's the long and short of it. That's his intellectual foundation. Skin color and gender. He has allowed himself to become that which he despises.

 

On the good side, even if Biden appoints a black woman as his running mate, he is already losing a lot of potential votes from black people who would never vote for Trump. Many will stay home in disgust.

Thanks, Joe...

🙂 

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I emphatically disagree that President Trump is racist. He magically became racist by lefties and certain black celebrities after he entered politics and won. Previously, they all took his money and called him a huge friend to the blacks. 

 

And where is Charlamagne Tha God's real interest in presidential politics? It's all good so long as it's black. When it ain't black, it ain't good.   

I agree that it is hard to be enthused about voting for Biden for any reason, but this guy's openly stated reason is that Biden is an old white male. That's the long and short of it. That's his intellectual foundation. Skin color and gender. He has allowed himself to become that which he despises.

 

On the good side, even if Biden appoints a black woman as his running mate, he is already losing a lot of potential votes from black people who would never vote for Trump. Many will stay home in disgust.

Thanks, Joe...

🙂 

Michael

Michael, I agree also emphatically. I still get irritated by the cynics who claim otherwise. Consistently Trump very much fits the picture of some white industrialist-businessmen- construction tycoons I spent time with here, during the apartheid years, who quite literally could not see color, they look for the individual ability and character. You are on my team for this project, you're a dedicated worker, you meet deadlines under budget - that's all I need to know you are a fine person, I don't have time to waste on superficials. For Trump and his present "project" - his attitude is each person is an individual American. The evident fact that Trump pays no exaggerated attention to race distinctions, is what throws everyone off (in this virtue displaying, ultra sanctimonious era) and opens him to such shallow accusations by idiots. The Left and a small minority (I believe is true) of disaffected US blacks are the authentic racist-collectivists. Actually, that's 'racialism' they practice - race-mongers making everything about a group's ethnicity and 'victimhood' so as to divide and rule - and like here in SA, what's far more polarizing to a society than the minor and vanishing remnants of racial prejudice :  https://www.yourdictionary.com/racialism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Run, Forrest! Run!

Yahoo News. James Carville still thinks Trump might pull out of race rather than risk a landslide defeat. Michael Isikoff Chief Investigative Correspondent July 24, 2020, 7:28 PM . . . . In an interview on the Yahoo News podcast Skullduggery, Carville said Trump’s political standing appears to be in virtual free fall, as Republicans are increasingly panicked that he will cost them control of the Senate. “This is not a party that is falling apart. This is a party that has already fallen apart,” said Carville about the state of the GOP. “And Trump is going to have to come to grips with [deciding] ‘am I better off saying I’m not running and coming back in 2024 . . .  or getting the living crap beat out of me.’ ” . . . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2020 at 8:11 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... let me see who this person is.

I went to her account and scrolled down.

Then I came across this.

It is perfect for a thread entitled The 2020 Presidential Election Tournament.

Hell yeah!

Someone from a Trump SuperPAC got a hold of Tina's tweets and did this with them.

Of course, Tina love it.

I loved it, too.

It even ends with President Trump's voice saying: "I'm Donald Trump and I approve of this message."

That's right.

Trump 2020, mothafahcka.
Fuck outta here...

🙂 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned this back in March, but would this be a good Trump rally song? It’s not country and it is “tonal” and it is Sooo good . . .  and on YouTube. "Victory at Sea" theme song by Richard Rodgers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were officially working on Trump's campaign, I would be sorely tempted to set this stuff up everywhere.

But the beauty is, nobody needs to.

These goofballs are doing it because they want to. And for free.

Thank you to America's young adults for promoting Donald Trump for President in 2020.

You people on the volunteer staff are awesome.

And effective...

🙂

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another rant to feel good.

(speaking to Gov. Cuomo): "Sit your fuckin' ass down you nipple ring mothafahkin' cunt!"

LOL...

🙂

And the battle-cry:

Trump 2020 muthafakha!
Fuck otta here!

Man it sure feels good to watch her videos.

I don't think I've ever felt cleansed inside before--like I do now--by the level of vulgarity this young woman yawps out on Twitter.

🙂 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2020 at 2:01 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Nope.

Not VP material...

Is the reigning assumption that Kamala Harris had a facelift? An 'insta-lift'? A 'cosmetic procedure'? 

I think she is unlikely to be picked, given "Kamala is a Cop," and of mixed heritage, and just not progressive enough for the Berniecrats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Is the reigning assumption that Kamala Harris had a facelift?

William,

Yup.

It's kinda obvious, no? Due to the ubiquity of everybody saying this everywhere and all...

:evil: 

And looking at the video you just posted, I had this thought about Harris.

After having the entire Internet and media in general take a dump on your face, it's comforting to know that what the Plastic Surgeon giveth, the Plastic Surgeon can taketh away...

🙂

On just a human level, I hope Harris does not get addicted to painkillers.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh. She doesn't look the same as when I saw her last. Botox? Her face seems to be shaped differently.

Who do you think Biden will pick William? Will he pick . . . his nose. HA HA. Clinton. nope. Kamala? Not Bernie. Someone younger? Of course. 

With your politics, William,  I would not walk into an Aussie bar.  My Dad used to tell stories about Aussie bar fights just after WWII.  The Aussies and the Kiwis were tough and offended easily. I think the Navy made a lot of the bars off limits because our guys were losing the fights and being "bed ridden" for a while.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I think she is unlikely to be picked, given "Kamala is a Cop," and of mixed heritage, and just not progressive enough for the Berniecrats.

You racist. William, get some darker friends and spread out. Who ya gunna call for a VP pick? Snoop Dog! Drizzle Drazzle or as we know him, Martha Stewart’s main man. (Have you seen Martha in that nearly nude pool scene’? She looks so young. (Could you? Would you? Do her?) Condensed for brevity, yadda yadda yadda. Peter

 From Politico. Biden's VP shortlist comes up short By Ryan Lizza  4 hrs ago The Democratic presidential nominee wants to pick someone who is like him (or at least the way he saw himself as vice president): loyal, trusted, experienced, apolitical, someone with whom he will bond . . . As Biden conducts a series of interviews with a final list of potential running mates ahead of his August decision, his biggest concern is that there is nobody on his list with whom he has any previous deep relationship . . . The elusive hunt for Biden’s Biden has recently pushed Susan Rice into the top tier of candidates. As Obama’s national security adviser for his entire second term, Rice and Biden worked closely together on an almost daily basis, making her the only potential running mate who Biden knows so intimately.

But very few of the other candidates come close to meeting that test, which means that the one-on-one candidate interviews could be unusually important. A dark horse candidate who aces her oral exam with the nominee could end up as the finalist — and considering Biden’s commanding status in the race, as well as his age — the most likely person in America to be the 47th president. . . .  There is a widespread assumption that Kamala Harris is the favorite because, in the words of one Biden adviser, she “checks the most boxes” and is likely to have the fewest members of Biden’s inner circle register strong opposition. But if Biden’s demand for loyalty is paramount, several top Democrats questioned whether Harris would be the right choice.

Given the number of difficult decisions Biden will have to make in his first year as president and the ideological divides that are likely to open up once Democrats are in power and no longer unified by disgust with Trump, Biden is said to want someone who will not prioritize their own political ambitions. “If you assume Biden isn’t going to run for reelection you don’t want someone who is only paying attention to 2024,” said the Biden adviser. “The decisions that need to be made are not going to be easy. Biden’s vice president might want to dodge a lot of tough issues if they only have an eye on 2024.” Another Democratic strategist agreed Harris was likely the default pick and noted that just running for president was a major asset. “She’s kind of the path of least resistance,” he said. “She’s a woman of color, she has enough experience, she has been through the process before. One of the many things that Obama liked about Biden is that he had been through the maelstrom." But he offered one note of caution: Harris performed terribly through the maelstrom of her own campaign.  “There is no one ideal home run choice,” said the person whom the campaign has consulted about several potential running mates. Rep. Cedric Richmond, Biden’s campaign co-chair and a past head of the Congressional Black Caucus, didn’t want to discuss the sensitive matter of Biden’s decision-making process. But he offered a succinct appraisal of the kind of Democrat he was hoping the nominee would choose: “Whoever helps us win.” . . . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In re Kamala Harris ...

On 7/25/2020 at 2:01 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Not VP material...

And yet ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

In re Kamala Harris ...

And yet ...

 

He sounded and looked sincere, but is his "fine choice" fine for his reelection? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Fox. The camera captured Biden holding talking points written by Kamala Harris.

From Bing. Here’s what we know about Biden’s vice presidential search: Announcement expected in early August. Biden has said he hopes to name his running mate around Aug. 1. end quote

Let me tell you a tale about how, “In olden times, when wishing still helped...” The Brothers Grimm.

I got the following info from Real Clear Politics. As of today, which is around 95 days from the election, Biden is winning big time. 270 electoral votes are needed to win the Presidency

“How often when we are comfortable, we begin to long for something new!” Jacob Grimm.

With no toss up states, just considering the states he is leading in, Biden would get 352 electoral votes to Trump’s 186. And in Georgia Trump is only up by one percent and in Texas Trump is only up two tenths of one percent. I like Real Clear Politics because they average a lot of polls, but things are looking Grimm.  Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

It looks like Politico ran an article celebrating Harris's pick as Biden's VP. Except the article wasn't supposed to go out yet, so Politico did a retraction.

In other words, Harris might be the pick. Or someone at Politico is trying to force the issue in her favor.

I still think she's not VP material. I don't see her invigorating Biden's campaign at all.

Least of all among the blacks. (A wing of blacks will rejoice, but black unity on voting Dem by default is already shattered. Harris, in my opinion, will shrink the middle as they migrate to Trump or stay home. Ditto for the hardcore progressives.)

In fact, I see her as a voter drag in general. If she's chosen, that will become evident to the puppet-masters in the back rooms after it is too late.

Michael

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What really happened to Kamala Harris's face?

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It looks like Politico ran an article celebrating Harris's pick as Biden's VP. Except the article wasn't supposed to go out yet, so Politico did a retraction

I totally missed that.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now