Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
God I hate you
I am simply saying that unlike politicians, talking heads, or even lawyers, he was facing a much bigger penalty for being wrong about decisions so his propensity to make sure he is not wrong, compared to others in fields not carrying as high a punishment, probably makes him the best choice (especially if he has approximately the same values as his competition.)
Hypocrisy ?
Humans aren’t math equation.
Answers do changes .
Some might get better with age , gain wisdom, gain knowledge w.e and changed their mind afterwards based on those new « experiences ».
Doesn’t necessarily makes them hypocritical….
I was not saying mind changers are hypocritical. I was talking about the apparent hypocriticalness of Shapiro that Slighted referred to.
Meanwhile I would think that when an intelligent college student has studied an issue to the point that he would write about it, it would be unusual that merely the passage of time would significantly change his opinion unless he came upon important new information. And if he hasn't come upon important new information and if his personal success is somewhat dependentg on proclaiming he has changed his mind, I would bet his proclamation is at least a partial lie.
Kelley is the one person under consideration who is not only much smarter than average but is also the only person who knows what it's like to be meticulous in getting the best solutions to things since in the past, if he didn't, he probably would be dead.
Like getting your spaceship back to planet Earth safely...
Pete The Rat voluntarily signed up for the US military (and not for free college or whatever, but to advance a future political career -- this is known) and worked for the revolting McKinsey consulting firm (a firm which has worked on behalf of numerous dictators across the world AND horrifying domestic agencies such as ICE). He may or may not be a literal CIA asset, I don't know, but he's effectively functioned as one.
he ya go... from previous page btw
I am simply saying that unlike politicians, talking heads, or even lawyers, he was facing a much bigger penalty for being wrong about decisions so his propensity to make sure he is not wrong, compared to others in fields not carrying as high a punishment, probably makes him the best choice (especially if he has approximately the same values as his competition.)
Do you think astronauts risk their lives more than active members of the IDF deployed to the frontline?
That's the same thing 72 quoted, and I replied to. What I'm trying to get at is whether he's simply going with "worked at McKinsey" = "CIA rat", or if there's something more, since he made such a definitive statement. And don't get me wrong, "worked at McKinsey" is obviously not something I'd be excited about when it comes to VP candidates.
That's the same thing 72 quoted, and I replied to. What I'm trying to get at is whether he's simply going with "worked at McKinsey" = "CIA rat", or if there's something more, since he made such a definitive statement. And don't get me wrong, "worked at McKinsey" is obviously not something I'd be excited about when it comes to VP candidates.
The conspiracy theory is that he worked as a CIA asset while working at McKinsey
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...
In 2019 there was an NDA (no idea if it had a time expiral date) for what he did while at McKinsey.
Btw I don't understand why working for a company which only selects outrageously smart people (IE people far better than most others for one of the most important qualities of human beings) as employees would be a negative at all for a VP candidate
Kelley is the one person under consideration who is not only much smarter than average but is also the only person who knows what it's like to be meticulous in getting the best solutions to things since in the past, if he didn't, he probably would be dead.
Word on the street is Obama wanted Kelly to be the candidate, but Harris outmaneuvered him, secured enough delegates before Obama made his move, and here we are.
I feel like out of spite Harris would never consider Kelly.
Shapiro seems like a safer choice for her personally because of his religion he would never be accepted by the Islamist/progressive left of the party. So less of a political threat. It is just a matter whether he helps her actually get elected, or is a liability.
He is a moderate more or less who won in a State that at the time was a Red State. I am not a moderate but I like that he is because he has the possibility of helping attract undecided Independent voters. Also older white men in the Democratic party instead of sitting it out would now vote.
For me I prefer VP candidates who will not cause a stir like Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and now JD Vance. I also prefer VP candidates in states that are up for grabs as AZ now is.
Specifically though I like Kelley because he is from a border state and will help Kamala with the immigration issue. He will remind everyone that there was a bipartisan bill that got trashed specifically by Trump and will focus on the bill itself and how it would have helped the current border problems. The implication will be that if Harris is President that bill could come up again and would easily pass.
What I also like about him is how he has stood by his wife after she was shot and can barely speak.
? Other than Obama, Harris is the best candidate the Dems have fielded since Bill Clinton nearly 30 years ago. Worrying about an "all minority ticket" is a bit silly; the people who will vote for a woman of color for POTUS but will balk if there's a very basic gay white dude in the VP slot are a trivial portion of the electorate. I don't think Pete is a particularly strong pick but disqualifying him because Democratic voters in 2024 AD will
Agreed, Harris' background is actually impressive.
However, it seems pretty obvious that it is "conservative" media / social media that holds the power to paint candidates in the US.
As a result, the conservative side can run a rapist fraud who together with his inner circle tried to set aside several state elections and ran the White House like a franchise of his business, and that is still only the start of his poor qualities. On the non-conservative side your candidate risks losing the election if they wear a wrinkly shirt.
So, the political battlefield is fairly unevenly stacked.
? Other than Obama, Harris is the best candidate the Dems have fielded since Bill Clinton nearly 30 years ago. Worrying about an "all minority ticket" is a bit silly; the people who will vote for a woman of color for POTUS but will balk if there's a very basic gay white dude in the VP slot are a trivial portion of the electorate. I don't think Pete is a particularly strong pick but disqualifying him because Democratic voters in 2024 AD will
I'm not religious because of the lack of falsifiability of religious claims. But even I have to admit that the political viability of either of those two is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of Satan. They being Satan's representatives on Earth explains as much as any other story or how they got to be where they are. I suppose that, if pressed, I would have to concede that they have no supernatural origin and are produced from and seated by the dark and deadly forces of concentrated capital to be it's representatives, not Satan's representatives on the Earth. But, really, what's the damn difference?
v
However, it seems pretty obvious that it is "conservative" media / social media that holds the power to paint candidates in the US.
No. Trump became popular because he was a celebrity for decades before running for politics, and leveraged his celebrity and charisma to become a cult figure in conservative culture. Conservative media has almost no power to paint candidates outside of the demographic that consumes conservative media (low SES white people). Trump was a complete fluke.
Most serious Republican presidential candidates before and (presumably) after are products of the MSM. The best conservative media can organically produce is regional nutcase candidates like MTG and Boebert.
Russian misinformation probably has as much influence in painting candidates as conservative media outside the very small demographic that actually consumes right wing media. Conservative media paints Democrats negatively nonstop, and have been since Rush Limbaugh going after Bill Clinton; and barely any of it makes the slightest ripple outside their bubble.
Considering his 2012 run that was launched on a Comedy Central roast was famously a catastrophe that ended with him being the first guy dropping out basically nothing you said is true but you do you dude
Why don't we just choose good quality people to run this country instead of having to check certain boxes.
Why don't we just choose good quality people to run this country instead of having to check certain boxes.
Sounds good! The problem is that too many people have flocked to the idiot far left/right because they are too dumb or medicated to think critically about anything and would rather fall victim to a bunch of 30 second YouTube shorts for the dopamine hit than for what would actually be good for people.
Congrats on being so ****ing dumb like the idiots on the far left because you lack the capability to think beyond what is purposefully forced up your own ass to make a paycheck.
No. Trump became popular because he was a celebrity for decades before running for politics, and leveraged his celebrity and charisma to become a cult figure in conservative culture. Conservative media has almost no power to paint candidates outside of the demographic that consumes conservative media (low SES white people). Trump was a complete fluke.
Most serious Republican presidential candidates before and (presumably) after are prod
You know why Russians disinformation works so great on « republicans » (rather tea party/maga then try republicans but w.e) ?
To make believe trump was/is a conservative ….
Once u succeed in this to people who have no clue , u can make believe any nonsense you want afterwards .
Ps: trump having charisma ?
lol…
Btw I don't understand why working for a company which only selects outrageously smart people (IE people far better than most others for one of the most important qualities of human beings) as employees would be a negative at all for a VP candidate
McKinsey is a very good at doing what consulting companies do - Look at a problem superficially, give advice that sounds smart but is really quite basic, charge a huge fee, walk away from the problem unless you pay an even larger fee, rinse and repeat.
McKinsey is a very good at doing what consulting companies do - Look at a problem superficially, give advice that sounds smart but is really quite basic, charge a huge fee, walk away from the problem unless you pay an even larger fee, rinse and repeat.
And It takes very smart people to be able to pull such a con for decades
