It's probably a close call for who has a lower approval rating between her, Biden, and Pelosi.
What a disaster they all are.
It's probably a close call for who has a lower approval rating between her, Biden, and Pelosi.
What a disaster they all are.
Ragu sauce liquid wrote:
coach wrote:
Maybe it's just a nervous laugh. You'd think she'd outgrow it but again it could be that.
Yeah, it is some kind of nervous habit. They should have worked on this. Maybe they did and it's too ingrained. Anyway, it's obvious, annoying, constant and makes her come off as a bigger dipshift than she is. And she is a dipshift - bad choice Biden.
Just bite you cheek, this isn't rocket surgery
A disaster is the amoral, degenerate, serial lying, twice impeached, disgraced, one term aspiring wanna be dictator. That's a disaster.
The entire asylum system was dismantled in order to pander to the base by the Former Guy so he is at least partly responsible for the ongoing border challenges.
Old news bro. Clearly she does the silly laugh EVERY time after she lies.
JustTellinIt wrote:
A disaster is the amoral, degenerate, serial lying, twice impeached, disgraced, one term aspiring wanna be dictator. That's a disaster.
The entire asylum system was dismantled in order to pander to the base by the Former Guy so he is at least partly responsible for the ongoing border challenges.
"Wanna be dictator"??? LMAO
Trump said it's personal choice to wear a mask or not
Trump said businesses should be able to stay open
Trump said it's a personal choice to get the vaccine or not
Democrats are the dictators. As usual liberals project their own actions onto others.
Imposter syndrome, feels uncomfortable speaking w authority on anything of any importance. Many women fall into this trap which pretty much invalidates them. Most women have a hang up on not being perceived as bitchy so they laugh, flip their hair, adopt less bold body habitus (rounded shoulders, slouched, head down) to disarm people. It's self-sabotaging behavior
Save America wrote:
It's probably a close call for who has a lower approval rating between her, Biden, and Pelosi.
What a disaster they all are.
Biden has approval ratings well over 50%. Biden has approval ratings that trump could only dream about.
truth of it wrote:
Save America wrote:
It's probably a close call for who has a lower approval rating between her, Biden, and Pelosi.
What a disaster they all are.
Biden has approval ratings well over 50%. Biden has approval ratings that trump could only dream about.
Yeah, and he also was "polled" to win Wisconsin by 17 points. LMAO
Polls are just more propaganda pushed by the fake media and only believed by goons like yourself.
Save America wrote:
truth of it wrote:
Biden has approval ratings well over 50%. Biden has approval ratings that trump could only dream about.
Yeah, and he also was "polled" to win Wisconsin by 17 points. LMAO
Polls are just more propaganda pushed by the fake media and only believed by goons like yourself.
But he won and the former guy lost WI, PA, MI and traditional red states like GA, AZ and no Mike Pence nor any VP can't overturn an election and "award" it to his preferred candidate and no the former guy wasn't reinstated in Mar, May nor will he be reinstated in any other month of the year so America will have to live with the cabal of devil worshipping child traffickers til another "savior" comes along.
What was that about "fake news" again?
Inliki wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) I agree on the fakeness (I'll call it phoniness) of Kamala. This is the main reason why she wasn't my first choice of all the candidates (Amy Klobuchar was).
2) You are not correct about how bright she is. She is well-educated and articulate and knows how to grill people. Her grilling of Barr was one of the best ever. You don't become an Attorney General of California if you aren't bright...I don't care what kind of leg up you think she had. She's smarter than the average AG too.
3) As I said earlier, she is a bit socially awkward. The talk of sociopathy from you though is total bunk.
4) Democrats needed to beat Trump. He was the clear and present danger. Picking her for the ticket was the best move toward that main goal (and in my mind, the ONLY goal). Vice Presidents usually do nothing or next to nothing consequential. Her job was to help get Biden elected. Mission accomplished. Assuming she aspires to be President one day, it wasn't necessarily the best choice for her to accept the VP role. As Biden is old, anything can happen, but I do not believe they have an agreement that he will step down so that she just assumes the Presidency, and as we sit her today, I do not see her getting elected ever as President...I still see not only too much racism, but even more importantly, too much sexism for her to get elected.
The fact that you supported Klobuchar disqualifies you from any rational discussion.
Nope. She's smart. She's moderate where she should be. She would be a GREAT President.
Triggered Independent wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) I agree on the fakeness (I'll call it phoniness) of Kamala. This is the main reason why she wasn't my first choice of all the candidates (Amy Klobuchar was).
2) You are not correct about how bright she is. She is well-educated and articulate and knows how to grill people. Her grilling of Barr was one of the best ever. You don't become an Attorney General of California if you aren't bright...I don't care what kind of leg up you think she had. She's smarter than the average AG too.
3) As I said earlier, she is a bit socially awkward. The talk of sociopathy from you though is total bunk.
4) Democrats needed to beat Trump. He was the clear and present danger. Picking her for the ticket was the best move toward that main goal (and in my mind, the ONLY goal). Vice Presidents usually do nothing or next to nothing consequential. Her job was to help get Biden elected. Mission accomplished. Assuming she aspires to be President one day, it wasn't necessarily the best choice for her to accept the VP role. As Biden is old, anything can happen, but I do not believe they have an agreement that he will step down so that she just assumes the Presidency, and as we sit her today, I do not see her getting elected ever as President...I still see not only too much racism, but even more importantly, too much sexism for her to get elected.
You know how many moderates like myself would vote for a Condoleeza Rice if she would simply run and become the party’s nominee? Say what you want about Dubya, he wasn’t so hot with that “fuzzy math” himself, but he had a diverse cabinet, and it wasn’t diversity for diversity’s sake, unlike our current POTUS. Those were all the most qualified people, not merely qualified placeholders as you are essentially acknowledging Kamala is. This isn’t about racism and sexism. The sooner we quit ruminating on this BS, the sooner we get back to some civility in this country and back to a merit-based society. Kamala simply isn’t qualified to be POTUS, and her resume undercuts her; it doesn’t buttress your argument. That is not to say Trump was qualified. He wasn’t.
1) Sexism and racism is still too strong in this country (NOT BS) to have a black woman elected President. Doesn't matter if you would vote for Rice. Not enough would.
2) Sorry, but Kamala Harris is absolutely qualified to be President. She has the education. She has political experience and legal experience. You can hate her if you want, but she is definitely qualified.
3) You are correct that Trump wasn't qualified, but that's a gimme. Biggest idiot ever in the office.
truth be told.. wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) I agree on the fakeness (I'll call it phoniness) of Kamala. This is the main reason why she wasn't my first choice of all the candidates (Amy Klobuchar was).
2) You are not correct about how bright she is. She is well-educated and articulate and knows how to grill people. Her grilling of Barr was one of the best ever. You don't become an Attorney General of California if you aren't bright...I don't care what kind of leg up you think she had. She's smarter than the average AG too.
3) As I said earlier, she is a bit socially awkward. The talk of sociopathy from you though is total bunk.
4) Democrats needed to beat Trump. He was the clear and present danger. Picking her for the ticket was the best move toward that main goal (and in my mind, the ONLY goal). Vice Presidents usually do nothing or next to nothing consequential. Her job was to help get Biden elected. Mission accomplished. Assuming she aspires to be President one day, it wasn't necessarily the best choice for her to accept the VP role. As Biden is old, anything can happen, but I do not believe they have an agreement that he will step down so that she just assumes the Presidency, and as we sit her today, I do not see her getting elected ever as President...I still see not only too much racism, but even more importantly, too much sexism for her to get elected.
In this case, Kamala's race and gender helped her get the VP spot. Biden need someone exactly like her. I am sure she is very smart but she just drips of insincerity. As another Biden fan, she lost credibility in my eyes with the debate stunt. She hasn't earned it back yet. She took too long to go to the border. I think she just didn't want to be associated with the mess.
If Biden doesn't run, its tough for the VP to lose the nomination. It not Harris's gender or race that will hold her back from being president, its Harris.
1) Yes, Kamala's race and gender helped her get the VP spot. Democrats are ok with having a woman as a VP...not yet a President (again, I am ok with a female President, but Democrats in general are not).
2) Americans are just not ready for ANY woman to be President. Strong women are called "b!tches", called "nasty", etc. Being judged on her own merits isn't even possible yet.
Stephen B Smiff wrote:
Ragu sauce liquid wrote:
Yeah, it is some kind of nervous habit. They should have worked on this. Maybe they did and it's too ingrained. Anyway, it's obvious, annoying, constant and makes her come off as a bigger dipshift than she is. And she is a dipshift - bad choice Biden.
Just bite you cheek, this isn't rocket surgery
You raise some interesting points there, Smiffster. It's like wingy dingy ding ding all over again. Remember that? With the hot mops and the slop sauce? Those were times, dear lord. How we howled.
Flagpole wrote:
truth be told.. wrote:
In this case, Kamala's race and gender helped her get the VP spot. Biden need someone exactly like her. I am sure she is very smart but she just drips of insincerity. As another Biden fan, she lost credibility in my eyes with the debate stunt. She hasn't earned it back yet. She took too long to go to the border. I think she just didn't want to be associated with the mess.
If Biden doesn't run, its tough for the VP to lose the nomination. It not Harris's gender or race that will hold her back from being president, its Harris.
1) Yes, Kamala's race and gender helped her get the VP spot. Democrats are ok with having a woman as a VP...not yet a President (again, I am ok with a female President, but Democrats in general are not).
2) Americans are just not ready for ANY woman to be President. Strong women are called "b!tches", called "nasty", etc. Being judged on her own merits isn't even possible yet.
Yes that is a position that is believed and repeated by many. Its based on the fact that there hasn't been a female president but this is pure conjecture and I question its validity. Increased numbers of females into higher political positions is a relatively new phenomena (last 15 or so years) so the population of females from which to select a president has been very small. Its hard to find the candidate that will resonate with voters from this small population base. It doesn't mean people won't likely select a female. We don't know, but I conjecture that America would select a female if the right candidate came along.
The best similarity to reference is that for years people thought Americans would never elect a black to presidency. After all, a black (just like females presently) had never been elected before. They were wrong.
Kamala's problem isn't that she is a female.
Kamala has always shown her intelligence and effectiveness when she is on attack.
Her great weakness is that she has a glass jaw. She is horrible when she is on the receiving end of an attack or challenging question.
truth of it wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) Yes, Kamala's race and gender helped her get the VP spot. Democrats are ok with having a woman as a VP...not yet a President (again, I am ok with a female President, but Democrats in general are not).
2) Americans are just not ready for ANY woman to be President. Strong women are called "b!tches", called "nasty", etc. Being judged on her own merits isn't even possible yet.
Yes that is a position that is believed and repeated by many. Its based on the fact that there hasn't been a female president but this is pure conjecture and I question its validity. Increased numbers of females into higher political positions is a relatively new phenomena (last 15 or so years) so the population of females from which to select a president has been very small. Its hard to find the candidate that will resonate with voters from this small population base. It doesn't mean people won't likely select a female. We don't know, but I conjecture that America would select a female if the right candidate came along.
The best similarity to reference is that for years people thought Americans would never elect a black to presidency. After all, a black (just like females presently) had never been elected before. They were wrong.
Kamala's problem isn't that she is a female.
It's more than conjecture. Have you seen the interviews with WOMEN even who say things like "I think of the President as being a man's job"? We STILL live in a patriarchal society. My wife and I are VERY liberal, and she is more educated than I am even and smarter than me, and yet SHE wanted to stay home with children when they were little, and she did that for 15 years. That's just a symptom of what is expected and accepted in this country. Men get the top jobs. Hillary Clinton was world's more qualified than Trump, and he won because people just couldn't get behind her (yes some of that was because of HER, but a LOT of it was just because she is a woman).
Women getting elected to OTHER positions is a step in the right direction, but we're not all the way there yet. Joe Biden was NOT the best candidate to BE President. He was just the best candidate to beat Trump, and I am more than ok with that, but Harris, Klobuchar, Warren are all smarter and sharper than Biden has EVER BEEN...and Democrats didn't really consider any of them.
I have already spelled out Kamala's issues. She is NOT a perfect person, not by a long shot, and it is more than reasonable to decide not to vote for her just based on who she is, BUT, the fact that she is a female IS a big strike against her.
Flagpole wrote:
truth of it wrote:
Yes that is a position that is believed and repeated by many. Its based on the fact that there hasn't been a female president but this is pure conjecture and I question its validity. Increased numbers of females into higher political positions is a relatively new phenomena (last 15 or so years) so the population of females from which to select a president has been very small. Its hard to find the candidate that will resonate with voters from this small population base. It doesn't mean people won't likely select a female. We don't know, but I conjecture that America would select a female if the right candidate came along.
The best similarity to reference is that for years people thought Americans would never elect a black to presidency. After all, a black (just like females presently) had never been elected before. They were wrong.
Kamala's problem isn't that she is a female.
It's more than conjecture. Have you seen the interviews with WOMEN even who say things like "I think of the President as being a man's job"? We STILL live in a patriarchal society. My wife and I are VERY liberal, and she is more educated than I am even and smarter than me, and yet SHE wanted to stay home with children when they were little, and she did that for 15 years. That's just a symptom of what is expected and accepted in this country. Men get the top jobs. Hillary Clinton was world's more qualified than Trump, and he won because people just couldn't get behind her (yes some of that was because of HER, but a LOT of it was just because she is a woman).
Women getting elected to OTHER positions is a step in the right direction, but we're not all the way there yet. Joe Biden was NOT the best candidate to BE President. He was just the best candidate to beat Trump, and I am more than ok with that, but Harris, Klobuchar, Warren are all smarter and sharper than Biden has EVER BEEN...and Democrats didn't really consider any of them.
I have already spelled out Kamala's issues. She is NOT a perfect person, not by a long shot, and it is more than reasonable to decide not to vote for her just based on who she is, BUT, the fact that she is a female IS a big strike against her.
You have a point that some people would be reluctant to elect a female president but I believe its a small minority and if the right candidate came along she would get elected. Joe may not have been smarter than Any of the three women he ran against but each one had weaknesses that made them an inferior candidate to Joe. Joe was the better choice.
Joe just has better instincts.
(None of those three woman could hold a candle to Nancy Pelosi)
truth of it wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
It's more than conjecture. Have you seen the interviews with WOMEN even who say things like "I think of the President as being a man's job"? We STILL live in a patriarchal society. My wife and I are VERY liberal, and she is more educated than I am even and smarter than me, and yet SHE wanted to stay home with children when they were little, and she did that for 15 years. That's just a symptom of what is expected and accepted in this country. Men get the top jobs. Hillary Clinton was world's more qualified than Trump, and he won because people just couldn't get behind her (yes some of that was because of HER, but a LOT of it was just because she is a woman).
Women getting elected to OTHER positions is a step in the right direction, but we're not all the way there yet. Joe Biden was NOT the best candidate to BE President. He was just the best candidate to beat Trump, and I am more than ok with that, but Harris, Klobuchar, Warren are all smarter and sharper than Biden has EVER BEEN...and Democrats didn't really consider any of them.
I have already spelled out Kamala's issues. She is NOT a perfect person, not by a long shot, and it is more than reasonable to decide not to vote for her just based on who she is, BUT, the fact that she is a female IS a big strike against her.
You have a point that some people would be reluctant to elect a female president but I believe its a small minority and if the right candidate came along she would get elected. Joe may not have been smarter than Any of the three women he ran against but each one had weaknesses that made them an inferior candidate to Joe. Joe was the better choice.
Joe just has better instincts.
(None of those three woman could hold a candle to Nancy Pelosi)
Joe was the better choice only because he had a better chance of winning, and getting rid of Trump was the ONLY goal. Warren is too wrong on some things for me, so I still would have preferred Biden over her, but Harris and Klobuchar would have been better. I'm ok with Biden though. He won't muck it up any more than any other NORMAL President. Trump was NOT a normal President. He was and is an amoral, racist, criminal, dictator wannabe, and he also just dumb as sh!t.
Who could possibly be the right candidate? We just had three smart, educated, experienced women in the last field, and DEMOCRATS rejected them all. Hillary had a lot of baggage, but she lost to a complete idiot who had ZERO experience. Hillary had been a senator and Secretary of State and has a JD from Yale (with no help getting in from a rich father). She was VERY qualified.
I hope I see a woman President in my lifetime, but right now I don't see it. Republicans like to say it will be one of theirs, but I call BS to that. Sorry, but too many conservative men will NOT vote for Candace Owens or Nikki Haley. I just don't buy it.
Total deflection. She's a product of the California democratic machine. Her biggest personal accomplishment was selecting Mayor Willy Brown to sleep with. If you listen to her for more than 30 seconds you know she is an empty suit.
Flagpole wrote:
truth of it wrote:
You have a point that some people would be reluctant to elect a female president but I believe its a small minority and if the right candidate came along she would get elected. Joe may not have been smarter than Any of the three women he ran against but each one had weaknesses that made them an inferior candidate to Joe. Joe was the better choice.
Joe just has better instincts.
(None of those three woman could hold a candle to Nancy Pelosi)
Joe was the better choice only because he had a better chance of winning, and getting rid of Trump was the ONLY goal. Warren is too wrong on some things for me, so I still would have preferred Biden over her, but Harris and Klobuchar would have been better. I'm ok with Biden though. He won't muck it up any more than any other NORMAL President. Trump was NOT a normal President. He was and is an amoral, racist, criminal, dictator wannabe, and he also just dumb as sh!t.
Who could possibly be the right candidate? We just had three smart, educated, experienced women in the last field, and DEMOCRATS rejected them all. Hillary had a lot of baggage, but she lost to a complete idiot who had ZERO experience. Hillary had been a senator and Secretary of State and has a JD from Yale (with no help getting in from a rich father). She was VERY qualified.
I hope I see a woman President in my lifetime, but right now I don't see it. Republicans like to say it will be one of theirs, but I call BS to that. Sorry, but too many conservative men will NOT vote for Candace Owens or Nikki Haley. I just don't buy it.
Klobuchar and Harris are smarter than Joe but that doesn't mean you would be a better president. Harris flipped a great deal during her campaign and her instincts were poor. She is a great prosecutor though. (I am biased against Harris since the stunt she pulled on Biden - it was so cheap and dishonest) Klobuchar seemed more like a light weight but often people suddenly seem more presidential when they are actually president. (Don't count Klobuchar out for future elections.) Biden is doing much better than I thought he would. People grow into the position.
You will see a female president well before you die. Hillary came close and she had much baggage and had very poor instincts.
Did you ever think you would have seen a black president? But you did.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these