Kamala Harris

[FogBlueInSanFran]

FD Roosevelt, because he eventually came down on the right side.

So we gotta go back 80 years to before term limits? Lovely.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The one that actually made a difference.
Can you name him?

They've all made a difference of some form or another so your obtuseness doesn't help.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

This is yet another in the series of bad posts, up there with "well, it's her fault she got raped."

Par for the course.

Arseholes will always be arseholes. Whether bad faith, trolls or just idiots, every club has them.

They just need to be heard, and will do anything to be.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

and she has a lovely smile

She does.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Walz doesn't have shit (only an educator's pension) and he may be VP or even President someday!

It was a joke! Hence the wink.

 

[mackenzie]

They've all made a difference of some form or another so your obtuseness doesn't help.

OK.
I think Harris is a word salad merchant boring clueless run of the mill civil service (or the yank equivalent anyway) person. You disagreed with me and then went a bit apeshit on a few posts.
I then ignored that because ......you know best, living over there and and all that.
And that's fine

Then you pretty much say the same.

Not that she is completely clueless, more that she is "disorganised " and doesn't know what she really believes in (I took that from your post...the one where you admit she is lacking).

All I'm saying, from this Brits point of view, is that its a fucking sorry state of affairs to go from Obama to this

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

OK.
I think Harris is a word salad merchant boring clueless run of the mill civil service (or the yank equivalent anyway) person. You disagreed with me and then went a bit apeshit on a few posts.
I then ignored that because ......you know best, living over there and and all that.
And that's fine

Then you pretty much say the same.

Not that she is completely clueless, more that she is "disorganised " and doesn't know what she really believes in (I took that from your post...the one where you admit she is lacking).

All I'm saying, from this Brits point of view, is that its a fucking sorry state of affairs to go from Obama to this

I thought Obama's lack of presence on the international stage was woefully lacking -- it's probably the key reason I voted for Romney, though I was also fine with Obama winning. For me, that was the most difficult electoral choice Ive had because I thought both were pragmatists and had character. Because effecting Presidential policy requires cooperative legislatures, I tend to care less about specific candidate ideas or even party platforms, though socially I am very liberal and economically have become more so in my old age rather than less so (Romney was 12 years ago). Generally I think Obama sold himself to moderates as centrist but turned out more left-leaning. But as a man -- character and class and, most important, the understanding of and empathy with those on the opposite side of the wealth inequality spectrum -- Obama was great; Romney might have been less so. So looking back, maybe I would have pulled the lever for Obama. Anyhow, he's still influential, and I am glad for that.

I said (as many here will attest) that Biden should have declared himself a one-term President after he was elected or, at the very latest, after the midterms. But then Harris would have had to go through a primary process. It would have been bruising and expensive, so if defeating Trump is the aim, maybe its better it didn't happen, but I do empathize some with those who say she slid in without the say-so of registered Democrats. Would Harris have won? I don't know. I'd guess maybe-to-probably given her leg-up as VP. Would Walz have run? Unlikely. Buttigieg? Maybe. Whitmer? Could be. Sanders and Warren probably wouldn't have. Newsom? Yes, but now we are close to home for me as I have some strong views on him and suspect he'd have ended up losing. So I THINK the outcome would have been the same with her as nominee but we'll never know.

 

[mackenzie]

I thought Obama's lack of presence on the international stage was woefully lacking -- it's probably the key reason I voted for Romney, though I was also fine with Obama winning. For me, that was the most difficult electoral choice Ive had because I thought both were pragmatists and had character. Because effecting Presidential policy requires cooperative legislatures, I tend to care less about specific candidate ideas or even party platforms, though socially I am very liberal and economically have become more so in my old age rather than less so (Romney was 12 years ago). Generally I think Obama sold himself to moderates as centrist but turned out more left-leaning. But as a man -- character and class and, most important, the understanding of and empathy with those on the opposite side of the wealth inequality spectrum -- Obama was great; Romney might have been less so. So looking back, maybe I would have pulled the lever for Obama. Anyhow, he's still influential.

I said (as many here will attest) that Biden should have declared himself a one-term President after he was elected or, at the very latest, after the midterms. But then Harris would have had to go through a primary process. It would have been bruising and expensive, so if defeating Trump is the aim, maybe its better it didn't happen, but I do empathize some with those who say she slid in without the say-so of registered Democrats. Would Harris have won? I don't know. I'd guess maybe-to-probably given her leg-up as VP. Would Walz have run? Unlikely. Buttigieg? Maybe. Whitmer? Could be. Sanders and Warren probably wouldn't have. Newsom? Yes, but now we are close to home for me as I have some strong views on him and suspect he'd have ended up losing. So I THINK the outcome would have been the same with her as nominee but we'll never know.

It's very interesting to read that, and thank you for taking the time to post it.

For me, Obama came across as statesmanlike and I always loved his speeches. It's interesting to read that you didn't, but I guess thats because you are "closer" and saw it in a different way. It's always a different take when you see a country leader from another angle.

It's obvious why you want Harris to win, and I get that

It's just that she really disappoints (from an "outsiders" view) because she (honestly) is quite vacuous.
I've always expected America's Presidents to be "Presidential" "Sincere" "Truthful" even if I don't agree with it.
It's just that I don't get any of that from Harris.
Sorry

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

It's very interesting to read that, and thank you for taking the time to post it.

For me, Obama came across as statesmanlike and I always loved his speeches. It's interesting to read that you didn't, but I guess thats because you are "closer" and saw it in a different way. It's always a different take when you see a country leader from another angle.

It's obvious why you want Harris to win, and I get that

It's just that she really disappoints (from an "outsiders" view) because she (honestly) is quite vacuous.
I've always expected America's Presidents to be "Presidential" "Sincere" "Truthful" even if I don't agree with it.
It's just that I don't get any of that from Harris.
Sorry

Oh, I did see Obama as statesman-like, but thought his worldview was more "solve domestic problems, that's my sweet spot" rather than take a more central role in international politics. To be fair, he inherited the worst economy since the Depression so I get his focus of necessity needed to be internal.

I don't see Harris as vacuous, but I see her as inconsistent, which is a more nebulous word. "Slippery" is a meaner and more unfair one, and IMO doesn't apply here, especially as Newsom has cornered it. Also Harris was a tough cookie, especially as a DA in a verrrrrrry liberal place. But she can also seem devoid of ideas (a "concept of a plan"?) sometimes. Is she narrow? Maybe that's it -- maybe on issues she doesn't have a grasp of, she looks overtaxed or naive. But I also bet she's a quick study, and will take her role as America's leader (if she wins) seriously, and her gravitas will grow as it will need to.

But "Presidential", "Sincere", "Truthful" -- I agree, and Biden was all of those things IMO -- just too old.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Oh, I did see Obama as statesman-like, but thought his worldview was more "solve domestic problems, that's my sweet spot" rather than take a more central role in international politics. To be fair, he inherited the worst economy since the Depression so I get his focus of necessity needed to be internal.

I don't see Harris as vacuous, but I see her as inconsistent, which is a more nebulous word. "Slippery" is a meaner and more unfair one, and IMO doesn't apply here, especially as Newsom has cornered it. Also Harris was a tough cookie, especially as a DA in a verrrrrrry liberal place. But she can also seem devoid of ideas (a "concept of a plan"?) sometimes. Is she narrow? Maybe that's it -- maybe on issues she doesn't have a grasp of, she looks overtaxed or naive. But I also bet she's a quick study, and will take her role as America's leader (if she wins) seriously, and her gravitas will grow as it will need to.

But "Presidential", "Sincere", "Truthful" -- I agree, and Biden was all of those things IMO -- just too old.

Careful now.
That sounds like an objective critique of the Dems.