Kamala Harris selected as Biden's running mate

[rozen30]

After a few years of Trump, I think people's expectations are pretty low, just like your favorite SP has to cancel right before an appointment and you have to settle for whatever average quality SP you could get. Anyone who is not somewhat incompetent would probably be acceptable.
At this point, if Biden will be doing the minimum and not screw things up, I guess it is okay. Not sure what other options there are nowadays.

The question right now is, if Biden drops dead during his presidency, would Harris be a good replacement? If her prosecuting records as an AG are any indication of what she leans toward in terms of legislative changes...some people might not like that.

 

[rozen30]

really, none of you are American so I wonder why you even care

America policies strongly impacts the globe, not to mention the importance of its trade and political relationship with Canada.

 

[PierreCoeur]

These Republicans clearly prefer Joe over Donald. If you read their comments you will come to understand why they think a "tuna sandwich" is a better choice than Trump.

https://rvat.org/
JD

Any Conservative or Republican with an ounce of intelligence can recognized that Trump is not one of them. He pulled off the biggest scam in human history and continues to pull the wool over sheeps eyes.

 

[appleomac]

Within and without the industry the rumours and accusations were constant from the mid to late 1990's.
https://www.instyle.com/celebrity/harvey-weinstein-allegations-career-timeline

But the rumors of Weinstein were not well known outside of Hollywood, as you claim. Even in the article you posted, it said (and it's been widely reported in other sources) "Weinstein’s conduct was an open secret in the industry". I get it, you don't like Harris, but it's rather obvious you are trying much too hard to make connections that aren't there. Weinstein made a donation to Harris' campaign back in 2014, so what? If I make a donation to the, let's say SPCA, it means I like or support what the SPCA is doing - it DOES NOT mean the SPCA likes or supports what I may or may not be doing (other than the donation in question).

 

[LLLurkJ2]

You mean the way she pretends to be "African American?"

She's disliked across the board, and polled so badly in California (her own state) during the primaries she knew she had no hope of attracting a single delegate. Also received almost nothing in donations. This is strictly a racist nomination, to try to counter Dementia Joe's constant demeaning insults towards black Americans.

Does she have dirt on you? You seem frightened here.

 

[carvesg]

LOL! This is not an example of hypocrisy, it's more an example of you having revisionist history! Harris received a donation from Weinstein during her AG re-election campaign - I believe that was 2014 and the Weinstein allegations became public around 2016 or 2017.

You forget to mention that the Trump's donated to Harris as well ...

 

[Cock Throppled]

But the rumors of Weinstein were not well known outside of Hollywood, as you claim. Even in the article you posted, it said (and it's been widely reported in other sources) "Weinstein’s conduct was an open secret in the industry". I get it, you don't like Harris, but it's rather obvious you are trying much too hard to make connections that aren't there. Weinstein made a donation to Harris' campaign back in 2014, so what? If I make a donation to the, let's say SPCA, it means I like or support what the SPCA is doing - it DOES NOT mean the SPCA likes or supports what I may or may not be doing (other than the donation in question).

Okay, lets ignore Weinstein, they way Harris, and you are ignoring the accusation against Biden, that Harris has said must be believed. If she believes he's a sexual predator, what does that say about her ethics?

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Okay, lets ignore Weinstein, they way Harris, and you are ignoring the accusation against Biden, that Harris has said must be believed. If she believes he's a sexual predator, what does that say about her ethics?

Are you really concerned with 'ethics' ? Has D.T, your chosen one, not repeatedly lapsed in that regard? Stormy Daniels, appointing his family, grabbing by the P, barging in to changing rooms, hanging with the Eps, trying to dismantle the post office so that people cant vote , pardoning felons, talking about boinking his daughter, telling supporters to beat up dissenters, calling nazis 'good people' , the list goes on and on.

I could understand if you supported conservative ideas or even religeous ones, but do throw in with the Don says something about ones ethical stance indeed.

 

[appleomac]

Okay, lets ignore Weinstein, they way Harris, and you are ignoring the accusation against Biden, that Harris has said must be believed. If she believes he's a sexual predator, what does that say about her ethics?

If Harris truly believes Biden's accuser, and she has no issue being Biden's running mate, that clearly means she has no problem with it. It's really that simple. If you want to virtue signal your own morals about that situation, so be it, it's clear that is what you want to do. What you can't seem to wrap your head around is, that it is possible for Harris to believe Biden's accuser and yet still choose to work with him. That's the funny thing about simply believing something, it actually says nothing about what the believer can or cannot do or should or should not do after they choose to believe. Perhaps you didn't get the memo, belief technically requires no action, just simple belief. You can lament the moral depravity or lack of ethics of those that say "I believe" and yet choose to work with someone accused of sexual assault - clearly that is what you wanted to do by trying to tie Harris and Weinstein together. All I can say is that Harris has to live by her own ethics (whatever they may be), not yours. That's the general rule, people are guided by their own moral compasses - you're simply complaining that certain people (i.e. Harris) aren't using your moral compass!

 

[appleomac]

You forget to mention that the Trump's donated to Harris as well ...

I didn't mention it because it's not relevant to what I was trying to say.

 

[Bobert1969]

Harris was the safe choice. Gabbard is more ideologically aligned with Bernie, not Biden - and the Dems wanted Biden in large part because Bernie is "too radical." Klobechar publicly stated that she wanted Biden to pick a "person of color" - which means she took herself out of the running and/or didn't want to be on the ticket. And had Biden selected Rice, well, you'd most likely (and most definitely certain Republicans) would be screaming "Benghazi" all over again! The Dems wanted Biden because he's in the center - it makes complete sense for him to choose a running mate also in the center, which by all accounts Harris is.

The Dems wanted Biden because, according to Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)

“As soon as we get him in the White House, and even before with these task forces that we had, we were able to significantly push Joe Biden to do things that he hadn’t signed on to before.”

In other words, he's someone they can control. Jayapal straight up said as much.

With Harris's polling so low that she bailed before the first primary in California, how can anyone say that she's an effective running mate? Tom Steyer, who was polling at 2%, received more black support than she did.

 

[g eazy]

If Harris truly believes Biden's accuser, and she has no issue being Biden's running mate, that clearly means she has no problem with it. It's really that simple. If you want to virtue signal your own morals about that situation, so be it, it's clear that is what you want to do. What you can't seem to wrap your head around is, that it is possible for Harris to believe Biden's accuser and yet still choose to work with him. That's the funny thing about simply believing something, it actually says nothing about what the believer can or cannot do or should or should not do after they choose to believe. Perhaps you didn't get the memo, belief technically requires no action, just simple belief. You can lament the moral depravity or lack of ethics of those that say "I believe" and yet choose to work with someone accused of sexual assault - clearly that is what you wanted to do by trying to tie Harris and Weinstein together. All I can say is that Harris has to live by her own ethics (whatever they may be), not yours. That's the general rule, people are guided by their own moral compasses - you're simply complaining that certain people (i.e. Harris) aren't using your moral compass!

A version of this response or similar would be appropriate in probably 2/3 of the threads in The Lounge that end up getting locked.

 

[PierreCoeur]

You forget to mention that the Trump's donated to Harris as well ...

That would be a Trump Supporters Revisionist history. It doesn't matter if it is supported by a document or recording, Trump supporters deny everything.

 

[appleomac]

The Dems wanted Biden because, according to Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)

“As soon as we get him in the White House, and even before with these task forces that we had, we were able to significantly push Joe Biden to do things that he hadn’t signed on to before.”

In other words, he's someone they can control. Jayapal straight up said as much.

With Harris's polling so low that she bailed before the first primary in California, how can anyone say that she's an effective running mate? Tom Steyer, who was polling at 2%, received more black support than she did.

The "Never Bernie" voters in the Democratic party all threw their support to Biden - that was the difference. Jayapal is a Democratic congressperson, Dem Senators and members of congress are not the only ones that select a party leader - the party membership have alot to do with it, and there were tons of "Never Bernie" Dems. In fact, if Jayapal co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, she was probably a Bernie supporter. And since you simply cut and pasted a quote rather than posted the interview or article the quote came from, there is no way to know what the context was. It could of been from a quote from Jayapal making peace to "circle the wagons" around Biden to show a unified Democratic front - that's usually what happens. Saying nothing for the fact that Jayapal doesn't even have the clout in the Democratic party to even claim to be able to control the party or party leader!

Here's a little secret about presidential elections in the US, the potential VP's matter very little! Do you really think the state of California is all of a sudden going to swing to Trump because Harris is on the Democratic ticket? Do you really believe a solidly red state would go blue had Biden selected someone other than Harris? If you don't like Harris, just say so - but stop trying to make her selection as Biden's running mate as something more than it really is - it's just another VP candidate!

 

[carvesg]

I didn't mention it because it's not relevant to what I was trying to say.

I would love to have a selective memory as well but sadly I don't.

 

[carvesg]

That would be a Trump Supporters Revisionist history. It doesn't matter if it is supported by a document or recording, Trump supporters deny everything.

Yep you are right . If it doesn't fit the rhetoric it is preferable to dismiss the facts and if you stick to it long enough enough people will believe to the distorted version. People with selective memories can do it but for people with photographic memories it is mind boggling ... borderline infuriating.

 

[appleomac]

I would love to have a selective memory as well but sadly I don't.

Exactly what does selective memory have to do with anything I have stated?

 

[Cock Throppled]

If Harris truly believes Biden's accuser, and she has no issue being Biden's running mate, that clearly means she has no problem with it. It's really that simple. If you want to virtue signal your own morals about that situation, so be it, it's clear that is what you want to do. What you can't seem to wrap your head around is, that it is possible for Harris to believe Biden's accuser and yet still choose to work with him. That's the funny thing about simply believing something, it actually says nothing about what the believer can or cannot do or should or should not do after they choose to believe. Perhaps you didn't get the memo, belief technically requires no action, just simple belief. You can lament the moral depravity or lack of ethics of those that say "I believe" and yet choose to work with someone accused of sexual assault - clearly that is what you wanted to do by trying to tie Harris and Weinstein together. All I can say is that Harris has to live by her own ethics (whatever they may be), not yours. That's the general rule, people are guided by their own moral compasses - you're simply complaining that certain people (i.e. Harris) aren't using your moral compass!

It really is amazing the way people will contort themselves, to justify behaviour that defies logic, or shows how opportunistic someone is. Would you be making the same argument if Harris was picked as Trump's VP selection? Or if it was found she worked for Jeffrey Epstein? Of course not, because that's the wrong side. Subtle racism, black-face, multiple ethics violations, associating with a possible pedophile or rapist, is acceptable, because the cancel culture rules only apply when anyone on the right does it. Other wise they're ignored or justified.

 

[PierreCoeur]

Choke on this. https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a28320376/jeffrey-epstein-president-trump-connection/

 

[Cock Throppled]

Choke on this. https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a28320376/jeffrey-epstein-president-trump-connection/

Nice try at deflection. What that has what to do with Kamala Harris, or her opprtunism, or willingness to work with an alleged rapist if it benefits her?