sherpa

Just wondering. I believe that that Harris is delaying her naming of her VP candidate intentionally. Not that I care, because I think that she is the worst candidate ever puked up for national office. But.....On a day that the market is tanking and Iran may finally act against Israel, the silly Dem party probably doesn't want a coming our for VP. Not a media positive day, which she has, without any deserved accomplishments, gotten used to I've grown skeptical with reason, but I can't stand that group.

Not bad for Univ. of Virginia swim team members. UVA women's team captured 11 medals in this Olympics. 5 gold. 5 silver. 1 bronze.

But she like yellow school busses and venn diagrams, so let's have her run the country, propose valuable tax policy, manage our military, head our foreign relations efforts and bring us all together as one. Simply the worst candidate for that office ever.

No. You misspelled misspelled.

Place an S&P graphic over an Kamala Harris election possibility.

I'll make it simple. Kamal Harris hasn't ever done anything to suggest she is in the least way competent to serve as President. A few months ago she was the least admired/approved official at the national level. She is also dumb.

I hate quoting these things that have imbedded videos, because I can't stand them in the quote. If I could eliminate them, I would. But.... Have you ever lived in the San Francisco Bay area? Do you know how meaningless it is to get elected as a Democrat there? There is no point in running against them. You know how Pelosi got so powerful? I'll tell you. It isn't 'cause she is talented or smart. It's because she had no Republican competition, and she was able to donate those massive Silicon Valley contributions to other Dems. Thus her popularity. Noting merit based. She wasn't/isn't smart or talented. I have voted on this once with the strongest vote you can possibly make. My wife and I agreed that we didn't want to raise our kids there, although we had lived there for years and got married in the Navy Chapel on Yerba Buena, which is an anchor island for the Bay Bridge. Can't get any more Bay Area than that. I loved the area and I never wanted to leave, but as things got crazier and crazier, it was a family decision. A few weeks after we left, we had dinner in San Francisco and went to the Cliff House after. The Cliff House overlooked the Pacific and it was a perfect evening. I am not a drinker, so I gave my wife the keys and ordered a scotch. Looking over the Pacific I asked her if she thought giving this up was a mistake. She said that if family/kids were in the calculus, there was no decision. Best for us. I cannot stand these San Francisco Democrats, nor they people like me.

I have no interest in her gender or her race, or the potential Jewish faith of a potential running mate. I will not vote for her because she is the single worst candidate for president I have ever seen. Nothing credible on her resume. Anti energy. Anti business. Anti Israel. Border is on her resume. No credibility in international issues. Absolutely clueless re the military. Total sum is that she is a typical San Francisco Dem., and that is a losing background.

Mossad has much more capability and success in human intel in the middle east. The US relies on signal intel as we don't have near the capability on the ground, because we can't get anybody to live there and develop connections. Mossad is much more motivated, in my view, because they know they are threatened with destruction every day. The US doesn't have that capability or motivation, and is not as effective.

We had a financial crisis based on mortgage failures, and complete distrust in the value of securities relating to that. We don't have that now.

Charity should not be suicide. It is Christian and honorable to take care of people who are in immediate need. It is as important to demand that the countries they live in are responsible enough to not force them to emigrate. It is not sustainable or desirable to allow an escape path for a failed government. These things need to be fixed internally.

It did not go over my head. Absent an internal revolt, which has been tried and never gathered the momentum necessary to bring it home, regime change will not happen. The US has supported at least three opposition candidates. They have never gotten the necessary traction to take the thing over the top. It is up to the Venezuelan people to decide that enough is enough. What they need is a leader to focus on. The US would support that in a minute. It would be stupid, wasteful and in the long term, destructive to both sides for a direct US intervention. The ball is in the Venezuelan opposition court. So far, they haven't gotten over the hump.

Been there about 30 times. Seen it up front and through the eyes of our people who lived there. Probably doesn't satisfy your standards, but I'm quite OK with that limitation. Have you been there? Know anybody who lives there? Talked to anybody at the US diplomatic mission assigned there? When you have, we can have an informed discussion. Toll then, you're an uniuformed ass.

I'm not sure what your point is, but the US has no interest in limiting Venezuelan exports, nor in expending US military force to end the regime. What I do know, as someone who follows the oil industry, is that their numbers are grossly inflated. Same as their economic data, which they gave up reporting as it was universally regarded as fictional. I spent a fair amount of time there during the Chavez regime, and the initial part of Maduro, and saw it up front. Simply pathetic, but at times funny, at least the Chavez stuff. Funniest nonsense on billboards and TV that I've ever witnessed. I am quite familiar with their gov's pilferage of foreign monetary assets, their courting of Tehran, their supporting of Havana, and their attempt to undermine democratic reform in Colombia and other South American countries, who eventually dis-invited them. I am also aware of US military monitoring of their goings on from friends who were involved.

Now I'm really sure I don't know what you suggest. Who is crossing another border? Venezuela's petro industry is destroyed. They have plenty or resources internally that they are unable to develop without Guyana. Further, Maduro didn't intentionally tank the Venezuelan economy. Chavez appointed his cronies to run it and they failed miserably, as socialists running businesses always do. Whatever, this is on the Venezuelan population. No reason to expend UDS blood or sweat, other than not letting their refugees in. They choose to live under this regime. Not the US' responsibility to bail them out for that choice.

I don't think Guyana matters. We don't need oil anymore. Unless Biden/Harris backtrack to previously proclaimed and abandoned stupidity, it doesn't matter.

I give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you are an honest, thoughtful poster. But to claim Bush? Nonsense. Explain. There seems to be a theme underpinning what you have posted in this thread that I think is erroneous. We would be stupid, and it would be wrong, to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries unless they threaten us. Nor do we have the assets to defend the Western Pacific, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Med, and then do something in South America. We don't "need" to do anything about Venezuela. We simply need to develop our energy resources to limit whatever limited influence they have, and police our borders so that folks opposed to that wacky regime don't have an easy out, and eventually do something internally.

I'm not a big fan of credibility of this kind of news, but if this is true, and the Iranian military does anything, this would give the Israelis full cover to go after the Iranian nuc program. I'm quite certain they know the targets, and equally certain they seek a justification. I'm quite certain the US would be better at it, but if Iran acts, this is the excuse nonpareil for the Israelis to do what they want to do. Not sure they have the range, and not sure they have the weapons, but if Iran does anything, we may find out.

Why bother? They are no threat to us. Further, we don't have the assets to do this with other commitments. Look at the geography. There is no land that we have bases on. I suppose we could pressure the Colombians to host a force, but that's not realistic, so it would have to be Naval. Look how stretched the Navy is. They just had to redeploy Roosevelt from its westpac area in order to replace Eisenhower in the Red Sea, which was extended twice, (a very bad situation). The suggested relief is Truman, which is in early stages of workups and rumored to be rushed to deploy. The middle east has the potential to go south any day, and we don't have enough to take on both issues. Point....We don't have enough "stuff" to do this, and Venezuela isn't any real threat. Point two. Not a great idea to use military force unless absolutely necessary. Bad message. Point three. We don't have the leadership to sell it. Biden is toast. Harris, I'm sure, is completely unaware. Venezuela is failing on its own. We don't need to take on a non threat.

Disagree, as always. No US fingerprints on it. They absolutely knew about it, based on how fast they acknowledged the other gov., and were prepared to handle refugees, but lack of any evidence that the US always leaves, I think it was totally internal.

I'm sure they knew about it. I don't think they had a roll in it.

I'm not saying get rid of them, I'm saying stop allowing them in. Typically, they have gone to Colombia or Brasil, but those countries have bee a bit more successful than our current administration in shutting the door, which is the key. Either way, as it stands now, external force is a silly idea. It has to be internal, and they have the critical mass to do it, they just need a leader.

I'm unaware or any Cuban opposition leader of any significance. Maybe you are. The Venezuelans at this point, are much more nationalistic than the Cubans, whom they use as examples of political catastrophe, as did every other South American country when Chavez launched his grossly failed "Bolivarian Revolution" across South America. Rejected on its face, and Cuba was always the example.

No. Have the displaced, influential Venezuelans form their own opposition group, with a real leader at the front. They haven't. Considering "more aggressive options" is a mistake. Above, you suggested a blockade of oil shipments. That is not only an act of war, but is unnecessary. What we need to do is deny entry, and that might motivate them to fix their own problem, which they have created and put up with since early Chavez. They need a focal point leader. The Maduro regime's control is not strong.

I am quite certain we have never used military options there. 100% certain. The first step is to control our border and not an allow an easy out to their refugees. This administration has not done that. Second, there a tens of thousands of displaced Venezuelans in South Florida, and a number of them are influential and probably want to return. Empower them to tip the scale against a weakly controlled military and police, and Maduro and his group would be run out. He is vastly unsupported, but he controls the bb's. Unfortunately, we don't have that leadership.