J D Vance, DEI Candidate

[kallend 2,027]

38 minutes ago, kallend said:

Do the same for Trump.

Fined 3 times for fraud (Trump U, Trump Foundation, Trump Organization

6 banktruptcies, screwing his investors each time.  Bankrupted a casino, FFS!

Self confessed pussy grabber.  Large civil penalty for sexual assault.

34 felony convictions.

His own VP won't support him.

 

4 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Yep and the polls show that voters are willing to look past it.   

Not all voters.  Just those who don't care about the character of their guy and are willing to vote for a rapist, liar and con-man.

[billvon 2,991]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yep and the polls show that voters are willing to look past it. The 34 convictions are highly questionable but yes, under the law he was convicted.

Some voters are, some aren't.  Which means he will lose voters compared to 2016.

Quote

The assassination attempt also helps the R nominee.

Given that it was a registered republican, I think it could well hurt him.  A republican wanted him dead?  Maybe the guy was just plain crazy or an attention hound - or maybe he really, really didn't want Trump to be elected.

And if there's one, there are more who feel that strongly.

Quote

The problem for the VP is that her past has not been vetted.

It was vetted pretty thorougly when she was first put on the ticket.  And she's been "vetted" for the past four years by republicans eager to smear her - and the best they can do is "she's stupid" "she got promoted by sleeping around."

Let's compare that to Trump, who was so unvetted that the RNC missed a woman he raped and another woman paid off to keep quiet about him banging her while his wife was home with their baby.  GIven they were so blind, the odds of another woman coming forward are not zero.  Jessica Leeds comes to mind.

Quote

Watching the RNC it was interesting how it was crafted to portray him as a grandfather, father and man fighting for all Americans.

Fun fact - in Germany about 100 years ago, a similar media apparatus portrayed an up-and-coming politician in the same way.  A huge media conglomerate (newspapers, printing houses and movie production) owned by ambitious media mogul Alfred Hugenberg, started churning out news not only news about the evil Polish immigrants and child sex slavery, but also glowing articles about the politician at home, the politician with children and the politician as a victim of evil European forces.  It worked.  But not a good plan to emulate IMO.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 7/21/2024 at 4:29 AM, BIGUN said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Sure white men and white men only.

At the time that was written women of any colour were not equal to men. And men of colour were definitely not equal to white men.

So to trundle that sentence out today as if it sort of means everyone is equal is disingenuous. It never meant that.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 7/21/2024 at 6:12 AM, winsor said:

I've worked with people with advanced degrees whose abysmal grasp of the fundamentals was downright stunning.

She's a moron.

Did she rape anyone?

Did she run a sham university?

Did she steal from a children's charity?

Did she specifically refuse to rent apartments to non-whites?

Was she friends with Epstein?

Did she say she would like to fuck her child?

Those things alone outqualify her against Trump. Plus, Trump is too old.

Edited July 22, 2024 by SkyDekker
typo

[BIGUN 1,314]

53 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

At the time that was written women of any colour were not equal to men. And men of colour were definitely not equal to white men

However, that thumbprint in the Constitution created the path for the reconstruction amendments of 1865-1870 which marked a second constitutional founding that rested on other premises. Together, they made equality part of the constitution and they gave the national government an effective basis for challenging racial inequalities within the states. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

However, that thumbprint in the Constitution created the path for the reconstruction amendments of 1865-1870 which marked a second constitutional founding that rested on other premises. Together, they made equality part of the constitution and they gave the national government an effective basis for challenging racial inequalities within the states. 

At which point segregation was still very much a thing and women weren't considered smart enough to vote.

Nothing near equality.

I mean it is a nice sentence, like justice is blind. Nice little slogan to hide behind. But that doesn't make any of it true. 

[BIGUN 1,314]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

At which point segregation was still very much a thing and women weren't considered smart enough to vote.

Nothing near equality.

Were we perfect; no. But it was a path. We got to where we are today because of it. There were many reasons the framers let slavery exist within the colonies in the beginning while opposed to it. I'm going to be offline for a few days - If you would like to know more about the depth of it - I would recommend Professor Rakove's book, https://www.amazon.com/Original-Meanings-Politics-Making-Constitution/dp/0679781218

[gowlerk 2,192]

36 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

However, that thumbprint in the Constitution created the path for the reconstruction amendments of 1865-1870 which marked a second constitutional founding that rested on other premises. Together, they made equality part of the constitution and they gave the national government an effective basis for challenging racial inequalities within the states. 

And to think, all it took was a brutal 4 year war with many hundreds of thousands of deaths that still divides the nation. A nation that still cannot manage to pass the ERA.

Edited July 22, 2024 by gowlerk

[billvon 2,991]

20 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

And to think, all it took was a brutal 4 year war with many hundreds of thousands of deaths that still divides the nation. A nation that still cannot manage to pass the ERA.

Right.  But the alternative might have been to not have a USA.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Right.  But the alternative might have been to not have a USA.

There would not have been a USA without the sentence all men are created equal under God? That's a bit of a stretch.....

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

There would not have been a USA without the sentence all men are created equal under God? That's a bit of a stretch.....

It had to start somewhere.

Someone asked a week or so ago (?) when we 'stopped teaching history'.

I answered that it was never really taught to begin with.

Much of the reality of US history is pretty unpleasant.

Slavery. Along with the treatment of African Americans after the Civil War.
The genocide of the indigenous peoples.
The treatment of women.
The atrocities committed by large businesses (and I use 'atrocities' on purpose).
The corruption of various levels of government, all the way up to and including the Presidency.
The destruction of the environment. By businesses, the government and just plain ordinary citizens.

Lots of people like to vilify the CIA for some of the garbage they pulled, both in other countries and inside the US. 
And while there was some pretty egregious conduct, it pales in comparison to what the rest of the government did.

And none of this is taught until college level instruction, some of it not until graduate level.

Still, the basic concepts that the country was founded on are pretty noble. And while the US has fallen short in all sorts of ways, it still has done better than many other places.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

It's been proven many times that being "elected" doesn't prove anything. Look at her record of things she actually did.
As VP she is one of the least popular. One poll had her as the worst. Whatever that means.
Her comments on coconut trees (huh, what??), clapped along to a song in Spanish that was attacking her, and has said this non-sensical sentence many times, "what can be unburdened by what has been." 

She was chosen as VP for one reason, to draw votes. Nothing unusual about that.  Then she was set aside. Well, except for her appointment as Border Czar. How long did it take her to visit the border? 

Her record will be examined and brought forward. As VP pick that didn't happen. She'll have to defend the economy. the border, her statements about Israel, and her AG record. 

She'll have to defend why she resisted DNA testing that could have proven the innocence of jailed minorities, why she opposed the legalization of marijuana and jailed 1,500+ during her term as AG. why 600 drug convictions were thrown out due to mishandled evidence that wasn't disclosed. Mishandling is one thing, deciding to not disclose it is another, more serious, issue.

The party has identified at least 4 other candidates that some think would be better. They will have to contend with those disagreements and do it quickly. The $91 million has to be addressed.

The only group having fun is the talking heads. Wonder what they get paid to be on TV and have all that fun?

Politics is a mess and it's about to get worse. The DNC convention is 4 weeks away, plenty will happen before that.

Hi Bill,

Re:  Her record will be examined and brought forward.

One hopes with the same scrutiny as Trump's four yrs in office.

How about them apples to apples?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Harris would not be my first pick; but, then again, neither was Biden in 2020.  He did a damn fine job.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Still, the basic concepts that the country was founded on are pretty noble. And while the US has fallen short in all sorts of ways, it still has done better than many other places.

Indeed they are noble and a good guideline to strive for. I object to them being used as evidence of what is true in the US.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure white men and white men only.

At the time that was written women of any colour were not equal to men. And men of colour were definitely not equal to white men.

So to trundle that sentence out today as if it sort of means everyone is equal is disingenuous. It never meant that.

Hi Sky,

I am no Constitution scholar.  I have always taken that to mean that we are all 'created' equal.  In other words, the old fashioned way, some guy has sex with some woman & 9 months later, 'What a beautiful baby.'

It is after that that the whole 'equal' thing gets murky.

Jerry Baumchen

[SkyDekker 1,465]

5 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Sky,

I am no Constitution scholar.  I have always taken that to mean that we are all 'created' equal.  In other words, the old fashioned way, some guy has sex with some woman & 9 months later, 'What a beautiful baby.'

It is after that that the whole 'equal' thing gets murky.

Jerry Baumchen

Interesting, certainly never looked at it that way. Is that what other Americans think as well? Only conceived the same way, but after that it is all difference?

 

And that isn't true anymore either, they aren't all conceived the same way....

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

10 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Interesting, certainly never looked at it that way. Is that what other Americans think as well? Only conceived the same way, but after that it is all difference?

 

And that isn't true anymore either, they aren't all conceived the same way....

Hi Sky,

And, some people are no longer considered a 2/3 person.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

34 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Sky,

And, some people are no longer considered a 2/3 person.

Jerry Baumchen

 

And yet the last school wasn't desegregated until 2016.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

5 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Indeed they are noble and a good guideline to strive for. I object to them being used as evidence of what is true in the US.

Those goals have NEVER been achieved. 

To be a bit repetitive, we seemed to be a lot closer than we really were (and a lot closer than we are today) 10 or 15 years ago.

[billeisele 130]

21 hours ago, kallend said:

 

Not all voters.  Just those who don't care about the character of their guy and are willing to vote for a rapist, liar and con-man.

As you said, measure her with the same scrutiny you measure Trump.

Neither is a good choice.

[billeisele 130]

The mud-slinging has started, what fun. Interesting article in USA today. Then there's this, along with many others from both sides already out there.

On a side note, what a joke the Congressional hearings were today with the SS Director. Not sure if she was unable or just unwilling to answer. Either way, it's unacceptable. Great example of the problem with unelected bureaucrats.

[wmw999 2,447]

So why is that bad for Kamala (who was single at the time, as was Montel Williams at this charity affair), while this is OK for Trump, whose wife was pregnant at the time?

Wendy P.

[tkhayes 348]

23 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yep and the polls show that voters are willing to look past it. The 34 convictions are highly questionable but yes, under the law he was convicted. It doesn't help the haters that recent court rulings have thrown out other cases, and that the Atlanta case was and is a mess. The assassination attempt also helps the R nominee. 

Apparently many people don't care about a lot of that history. It's already been vetted. The problem for the VP is that her past has not been vetted.

Watching the RNC it was interesting how it was crafted to portray him as a grandfather, father and man fighting for all Americans. The team that created that strategy is to be commended. We'll see how the DNC goes.

Both parties will throw more mud hoping that their mud sticks better than the other sides mud. 

but he WAS convicted in a court of law, so they are not 'questionable'

And referring to anyone that disagrees with you as 'haters' tells me all I need to know about you and your posts.  Browse the other Biden thread about why Kamala will beat trump.

Voters willing to look past Trumps crimes convictions and rapes says more about the voters than trump and is not actually a reason to justify electing a criminal rapist.

Kamala will beat trump about the same margin that Biden beat trump, and I will put money on it.  The GOP will still scream election fraud, call for violence (also another dozen reason to not elect these seditious stnuc) and there will be violence, because we do know that a party running as an ACTUAL crime family cannot win without violence.  They certainly don't have anything in the way of policy.

[gowlerk 2,192]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

The mud-slinging has started, what fun. Interesting article in USA today. Then there's this, along with many others from both sides already out there.

On a side note, what a joke the Congressional hearings were today with the SS Director. Not sure if she was unable or just unwilling to answer. Either way, it's unacceptable. Great example of the problem with unelected bureaucrats.

Somehow you think it's wrong for her to have had a sex life? Do you believe that young marine didn't have one? Normal people have sex. Even your parents had sex. Are you pure, or just a misogynist?

[normiss 800]

16 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Somehow you think it's wrong for her to have had a sex life? Do you believe that young marine didn't have one? Normal people have sex. Even your parents had sex. Are you pure, or just a misogynist?

Vance is already out with the racist dog whistles too - he says Kamala is "uppity".

 

[gowlerk 2,192]

33 minutes ago, normiss said:

Vance is already out with the racist dog whistles too - he says Kamala is "uppity".

 

That’ll backfire quickly. It’s not even really a dog whistle. It’s in your face racism. 
 

Edit, I can find nothing about him actually speaking that word. What he did was call her ungrateful for the country. Other people are saying that means she is uppity. 

Edited July 23, 2024 by gowlerk