Make Your Prediction Now! Who Will Biden's VP?

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

They don't need progressives to fall in line. Absolute best case they're only about 35% of the party and even then most of them are just voyeurs in progressive politics. Most of them will fall in line. The 10% or so that won't aren't needed to win Dem strongholds. I wouldn't be shocked if they win every battleground state by appealing to republicans who hate Trump, but in my book that's what Biden was for. They didn't need to pick a second conservative in Harris. They could have selected a progressive to appease the left, and hid them behind Biden and they would have had the same result, except for what happens after the election.

 

Biden does need the progressives.

Without them he's  toast.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

That tweet is from the same day as the fake assault.  Are you suggesting she was in on it or should have smelled a hoax before the first cursory reports hit the wire?  Weak.

 

She is on the call logs to Kim Foxx. She was involved. Deeply. Facts are stubborn things.

 

**************************

 

 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

She is on the call logs to Kim Foxx. She was involved. Deeply. Facts are stubborn things.

She was deeply involved in what?  

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

She was deeply involved in what?  

 

The media assault pumping an obvious hoax. She was involved in putting pressure on the city of Chicago to do something about it, hence the record of calls to Kim Foxx. She also has known Jussie for a long time. She's dirty, J. It's her MO.

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The media assault pumping an obvious hoax. She was involved in putting pressure on the city of Chicago to do something about it, hence the record of calls to Kim Foxx. She also has known Jussie for a long time. She's dirty, J. It's her MO.

And you have evidence that she did so with knowledge of Jussie's plans to commit a hoax for public attention?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

**************************************

 

45 hitting her hard right now.

Just now, Jauronimo said:

And you have evidence that she did so with knowledge of Jussie's plans to commit a hoax for public attention?

 

Like I said, she's on the call logs to Foxx during that time. This was released by the city of Chicago and the DOJ. She also has a close personal relationship with the guy who faked it and was one of the first national voices to push this issue. Whether she knew it was fake or not is secondary, she was deeply involved with inflaming the situation to her own benefit -- then never said boo after it was exposed to be fake.

 

Calling that out, with what we know about what actually happened now (that it was a complete hoax) is fair game. It's a VERY bad look for her. Why defend something that's indefensible? 

 

********************************************

 

 

She's a beacon of honesty and truth, @Jauronimo  

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

That tweet is from the same day as the fake assault.  Are you suggesting she was in on it or should have smelled a hoax before the first cursory reports hit the wire?  Weak.

Hmm, I'd normally agree with you on this sort of thing. 

 

However, she's a former prosecutor with a tremendous amount of experience dealing with crime.  The fact pattern as alleged was questionable at best, preposterous at worst.   She jumped immediately to conclusions, she characterized and stated emphatically what had occurred and ended up looking like a fool.  When you factor in that she had access to the folks that were investigating the alleged crime and fact pattern, she was either part of the problem or at a minimum, duped by the Hollywood equivalent of a carnival barker.  

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hmm, I'd normally agree with you on this sort of thing. 

 

However, she's a former prosecutor with a tremendous amount of experience dealing with crime.  The fact pattern as alleged was questionable at best, preposterous at worst.   She jumped immediately to conclusions, she characterized and stated emphatically what had occurred and ended up looking like a fool.  When you factor in that she had access to the folks that were investigating the alleged crime and fact pattern, she was either part of the problem or at a minimum, duped by the Hollywood equivalent of a carnival barker.  

 

 

 

100%

 

Either way, it's an incident that proves she's A) not a serious person and B) unqualified for the position.

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

That's the only pick that would swing anything for Joe. 

 

But she won't do it. 

 

Makes me wonder if the 'accidental' release of a pre-written article about Creepy Joe's pick of Harris about 2 weeks ago wasn't intentional to gauge interest and try to swing/leverage a better running mate like Michelle Obama.

[Jauronimo]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

**************************************

 

45 hitting her hard right now.

 

Like I said, she's on the call logs to Foxx during that time. This was released by the city of Chicago and the DOJ. She also has a close personal relationship with the guy who faked it and was one of the first national voices to push this issue. Whether she knew it was fake or not is secondary, she was deeply involved with inflaming the situation to her own benefit -- then never said boo after it was exposed to be fake.

 

Calling that out, with what we know about what actually happened now (that it was a complete hoax) is fair game. It's a VERY bad look for her. Why defend something that's indefensible? 

What is indefensible about a tweet sent 12 hours after the "assault" expressing concern about a friend and condemning hatred?  

 

 

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hmm, I'd normally agree with you on this sort of thing. 

 

However, she's a former prosecutor with a tremendous amount of experience dealing with crime.  The fact pattern as alleged was questionable at best, preposterous at worst.   She jumped immediately to conclusions, she characterized and stated emphatically what had occurred and ended up looking like a fool.  When you factor in that she had access to the folks that were investigating the alleged crime and fact pattern, she was either part of the problem or at a minimum, duped by the Hollywood equivalent of a carnival barker.  

 

 

What facts were publicly available at 3PM January 29th mere hours after the hoax? 

 

Jussie made a lot of people look like fools.  His actions were heinous.  

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

What is indefensible about a tweet sent 12 hours after the "assault" expressing concern about a friend and condemning hatred?  

 

 

That she never walked it back or apologized even after the facts were known. It shows her true motivations, it’s purely selfish for her and not about “the cause”. She’s a partisan first and foremost, one who pushes the toxic swill of identity politics at the expense of truth. 
 

It’s who she is. It’s what she stands for — herself and nothing more. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

What is indefensible about a tweet sent 12 hours after the "assault" expressing concern about a friend and condemning hatred?  

 

 

What facts were publicly available at 3PM January 29th mere hours after the hoax? 

 

Jussie made a lot of people look like fools.  His actions were heinous.  

I think it’s plausible that Harris was the mastermind behind the whole incident.

 

It provided her with a racial narrative which she immediately began to campaign on, she was close with Smollett (he actively campaigned with her), and the fact pattern as relates to Kim Foxx is too convenient.

 

Foxx ran interference in order that the origions of the hoax never saw the light of day.

 

There are no coincidences, and all national level politicians are Machavellian sociopaths.

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I think it’s plausible that Harris was the mastermind behind the whole incident.

 

It provided her with a racial narrative which she immediately began to campaign on, she was close with Smollett (he actively campaigned with her), and the fact pattern as relates to Kim Foxx is too convenient.

 

Foxx ran interference in order that the origions of the hoax never saw the light of day.

 

There are no coincidences, and all national level politicians are Machavellian sociopaths.

Those are valid points.  The tweet in question still doesn't strike me as any kind of smoking gun.  I would like to think if she was in on it she might've hired some actual professionals. Maybe involved Hillary's hit squad.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

Those are valid points.  The tweet in question still doesn't strike me as any kind of smoking gun.  I would like to think if she was in on it she might've hired some actual professionals. Maybe involved Hillary's hit squad.

 

The tweet isn't meant to be a smoking gun. It was just posted as a reminder of what she said/stood for on the issue.  

[I-town Bills]

All this time and we get Third Grade insights like her morals. If Trump doesn't like her she is toast. How dare they select a token woman of color. 

[Deranged Rhino]

14 minutes ago, I-town Bills said:

All this time and we get Third Grade insights like her morals. If Trump doesn't like her she is toast. How dare they select a token woman of color. 

[Paulus]

Well, Harris does represent the current political climate well. That's said, they are all animals.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Context: Trump was talking about his number one pick during the primaries today... but who cares about facts when you have talking points to push?  

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

Makes me wonder if the 'accidental' release of a pre-written article about Creepy Joe's pick of Harris about 2 weeks ago wasn't intentional to gauge interest and try to swing/leverage a better running mate like Michelle Obama.

 

It definitely was.  They found no one better.  I don't think Michelle Obama wants to be President.

[Wacka]

Rememberer how she got a step up in  politics by servicing Willie Brown, the speaker  of the state assembly  

Edited August 12, 2020 by Wacka

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

How did they pick her knowing this?  Or did they not vet her properly, figuring being the most accomplished and well-known of the bunch was good enough?  How do you get around this when it's revealed to everyone?

 

2 hours ago, Doc said:

Won't matter.  It will be brought up on Twitter, Fox, at the debates.  You can't hide it.

 

Wait, never mind.  They were black so owning slaves was OK.  Just like blacks killing other blacks is OK but a white person or cop killing one...

[RiotAct]

3 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

They don't need progressives to fall in line. Absolute best case they're only about 35% of the party and even then most of them are just voyeurs in progressive politics. Most of them will fall in line. The 10% or so that won't aren't needed to win Dem strongholds. I wouldn't be shocked if they win every battleground state by appealing to republicans who hate Trump, but in my book that's what Biden was for. They didn't need to pick a second conservative in Harris. They could have selected a progressive to appease the left, and hid them behind Biden and they would have had the same result, except for what happens after the election.

Biden won’t win every battleground state, but he’ll win enough.

[HillaryClinton]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Alex I'l take 200$ on  'Things that will never be on CNN '

1 hour ago, RiotAct said:

Biden won’t win every battleground state, but he’ll win enough.

Keep saying it enough Unicorn it will happen!!

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

What is indefensible about a tweet sent 12 hours after the "assault" expressing concern about a friend and condemning hatred?  

 

 

What facts were publicly available at 3PM January 29th mere hours after the hoax? 

 

Jussie made a lot of people look like fools.  His actions were heinous.  

And if Harris was his hairstylist at Sportsclips, his waitress at Hooters, or his former biology professor at university, her comments made perfect sense.  But she wasn’t any of those things, she is one of the most powerful people in the world with access to everyone connected with the investigation.  The story was implausible, certainly unusual and I’d think common sense and professional decorum would have one keep the messaging about love and support.  Instead, she chose to rush in, as fools do, and used very specific language which turned out to be grossly irresponsible.   
 

I note there is some speculation about whether or now she played a more sinister role in the incident, but I’ll leave it she was grossly irresponsible and made herself look foolish.  It happens. 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

If it's Rice -- she sinks his campaign faster than anyone else. 

If it's Harris (it won't be) -- she brings him afloat the longest but can't carry him over the finish line. 

If it's Demings (his best choice in a bad bunch) -- she sinks him due to her impeachment flubs

 

... Survey says it'll be Rice because he's No Chance Joe and she's the perfect anchor to assure his campaign is destroyed from within.

 

Sahhhhh wing and a miss

[KD in CA]

4 hours ago, snafu said:

 

Biden does need the progressives.

Without them he's  toast.

 

Naah....they’ll show up to vote for anyone other than Trump.  Just ask Hillary!

[B-Man]

 

SEEN ON FACEBOOK:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by B-Man

[Jauronimo]

37 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

And if Harris was his hairstylist at Sportsclips, his waitress at Hooters, or his former biology professor at university, her comments made perfect sense.  But she wasn’t any of those things, she is one of the most powerful people in the world with access to everyone connected with the investigation.  The story was implausible, certainly unusual and I’d think common sense and professional decorum would have one keep the messaging about love and support.  Instead, she chose to rush in, as fools do, and used very specific language which turned out to be grossly irresponsible.   
 

I note there is some speculation about whether or now she played a more sinister role in the incident, but I’ll leave it she was grossly irresponsible and made herself look foolish.  It happens. 

 

Which language in the above tweet is irresponsible given what was known and knowable as of 3:30 PM on January 29th?   This tweet bothers you? 

 

Meanwhile POTUS has daily twitter tantrums and there isn't a shred of scrutiny on this board.

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

Which language in the above tweet is irresponsible given what was known and knowable as of 3:30 PM on January 29th?   This tweet bothers you? 

 

Meanwhile POTUS has daily twitter tantrums and there isn't a shred of scrutiny on this board.

As a former prosecutor and AG she should know to not jump to conclusions one way or the other. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

45 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

Which language in the above tweet is irresponsible given what was known and knowable as of 3:30 PM on January 29th?   This tweet bothers you? 

 

Meanwhile POTUS has daily twitter tantrums and there isn't a shred of scrutiny on this board.

You’re getting turned around here.  I never suggested the tweet bothered me—my expectations of politicians are fairly low so I tend not to get worked up by things like this.  I believe I’ve stated my point on her tweet, but I’ll try one more time.  
 

The fact pattern as alleged by Smollette was very unusual, and given that she definitively described it as “an attempt at a modern day lynching” targeting him as a person of color and discussing his sexuality, it seems to me she knew more than what was publicly available on the date and time in question.   I’d hazard a guess that law enforcement knew rather quickly there were holes in the story and that it was likely fabricated, I’d assume a seasoned prosecutor would have cause to be concerned as well.  Since she chose to push onward,it’s fair to point out she looks irresponsible when the truth came out.  
 

Additionally, though not relevant to the point I originally made, Harris had an exceptional opportunity to clean up the mess she made once the truth was revealed.  

 

So, paragraph one of the tweet is perfectly understandable.  Paragraph two, given what she appears to have known and her professional background was where she gets ahead of the story, seems irresponsible to me.  
 

Since you mentioned Donald Trump,well, his tweets, words and actions are dissected daily, as they should be.  They are the frequent target of criticism, and I’m unsure if your lobbying for a different standard for Harris or not,  I try to stay away from twitter and tweets in general, mostly because most are ugly and I choose to seek out activity that is not. 
 

Finally, as to being “bothered”.  Harris’ tweet about Smollette can be debated, I’ll acknowledge I could be wrong and she was spot on in temperament, tone and verbiage.  Perhaps there was no political calculus at all to her post.  However, a couple of examples of things that bothered me:

 

-Trump’s initial tweet about Obama wire tapping Trump Towers.  I can recall where I was when I heard that, and my response was “You can’t say that, it’s a horrible thing to say about Obama without proof” or something similar.  Of course, that was before the details of the investigation came out and we discovered the level of complicity of Obama et al. 
-Harris’ treatment of Brett Kavanaugh.  I thought she was horrific, manipulative and condescending, and my only hope was that one day she had a loved one treated as such in a public forum.  Then, of course, I realized that that solves nothing, and hoping for a ***** chrarcter assassination for an innocent person is really a Harris thing to do, and I don’t want to live like that.  
 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd