Is she suddenly any different than this person one year ago? Half the country became radical progressives overnight? No. It’s a glow up devoid of merit. She was coronated.
Question for mods
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
And John McCain lost to Bush in the 2000 pub primary (ran into a legacy). Should he have sat out 2008? I know what you're saying but asking Harris to not accept the gift given is a bridge too far for 99.9% of all politicians regardless of political stripe. AGain, you're calling Harris dumb but that's as lazy as saying Bush was dumb.
Are either of them as smart as DeSantis? Probably not. Are both likely to be president before DeSantis? Yep. Merica baby.
I’m going to push back on the sexism angle excusing the use of a personal relationship based on looks and sex to advance. She arguably advanced over not just men, but less attractive women (in law, we have many) or those unwilling to take a position from those one has sex with or those who just didn’t find a 60 year old attractive. That kind of integrity still exists in the world.
Would a male politician do the same? ABSOLUTELY. Most of them are all “whores” in that way and should be labeled as such (and it IS sexist to use that label with one sex and not the other on an issue like this).
But again, why are we OK with this? Have we really become so cynical in our society that we can’t want a candidate who will advance on his or her own merit at doing a job well or being unusually smart or capable than someone who takes advantage of every non-meritorious issue to advance?
Set morality aside for a moment: how does being an expert at networking and using one’s gender, beauty, willingness to date someone twice your age and advance based off that, and heritage to win elections prepare someone to be the Chief Executive of the largest manager or risk and the largest military the world has ever seen?
That last paragraph shows just how out of whack our system is for the Presidency and how screwed we have been in our choices the last two cycles.
**Disclaimer: admitting this about Harris need not disqualify her as the best choice this cycle.
Oh I don’t blame her at all for taking it. She has drive and plays on her qualities to her credit. But I do think she’s a far cry from smart.
Of course she was. Again, I'm not arguing that. I'm also not arguing that I don't think the Dems shouldn't have done something different. But we are where we are and she's the candidate.
I get that the MSM is glowing her up. Does that surprise you? Fox has been (mostly) apologizing for TRump for over 8 years now. Politics is bloodsport in America. Whining about the other side's advantages is sour grapes at this point.
I’m naive and idealistic enough to think that candidate would win, Marv. I really am.
I don't need to constantly refer to her as it. She has literally only been the candidate since July. I made a funny post (which I do all the time) and asked why it got deleted. I first assumed it was because of the "heels up" reference, but read a couple of posts calling Trump "Orange Jesus" literally the next morning. So, I assumed I made a mistake when I tried to post it. Nope, Mark confirmed he is a liberal hack and is ok with juvenile insults for 8 years being hurled at Trump, but can't take it for 8 weeks with his party candidate. Shocking, liberals are hypocrites.
You decided to whine and call me a bitch because I made one thread calling Mark out. If Mark is going to be a partisan hack as moderator, he should be able to take one thread calling him out for it. For the record Mark has taken it like a man, you're the one who got overly sensitive about it. Also, if you want grown up conversation be consistent and I'll take you serious. Until than you're just a whiny shit lib who lacks self awareness.
Last edited:
Cynical? We're like the postmodern version of cynical. We're no meritocracy and I'm not sure we ever will be. And, again, "non-meritorious" is subjective, no? She has to be in a position to take an advantage offered. Getting to that base position required her to advance on merit. Maybe not always, but certainly the majority of the time.
Brad - I don't like it but I also refuse to live in a world of rainbows and unicorns b/c everybody will take advantage of me.
Dunno. But we've been doing it for a long ****ing time. We sit here today pretending like our past presidents were there b/c of merit. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Perpahs more than today but come on man.
So we are looking at electing another President who could make arguably the worst foreign policy mistake in this nation’s history?
That’s a really bad comp. And I like Bush personally.
That’s irrelevant to her competency, merit, intelligence, or character.
For sure but it’s relevant in the sense that unlike bush she skipped that vetting (election)
I appreciate that you didn't name which person would be the President b/c I tend to agree that either of them could royally **** everything.
I don't like this timeline but it's the one I live in apparently. Better than others thoughout history I suppose.
Don’t take grammar advice from anyone saying you can’t end a sentence with a preposition.
She was elected as a US Senator and VP with more votes than Bush received in the primaries.
She’s not dumb. IQ between 100-110 is my guess.
She was elected in calif which is a far cry from national. She was apptd vp as a result of the summer of love and identity politics
Your Party set the standard for this, Lars. Maybe you chastised anyone who criticized Trump for being a whore dog, but I sure don't remember it.
Last edited:
Competency is rarely on the ballot in the district she won. The Big D was (and not that Big D, let's keep it civil).
For sure. That’s avg intelligence and not what ought be the leader of the free world.
This just assumes that we should accept NYT, et al as part of the Democratic machinery. That’s the biggest reason I am so adamant on this stuff.
Politicians have been lying and exaggerating my whole life. But these media outlets that I used to respect used to push back. Now they’re complicit. I hate that.
Maybe I’m wrong, though. Maybe it’s always been like this and I was ignorant/naive. Ugh.
Which is much higher than many of the posters on this board. Including those that are calling her dumb.
Well shit. I’m going to have a hard time arguing this.
You’re like the Judge and I’m one of those little Mexican boys he takes a liking to with this post.
85-100 is average IIRC. Even 110 is probably lower than we should expect from a US President, but I'd bet we've had Presidents with that IQ or less more than once.
Last edited:
She was one of the more consequential VP picks in modern memory b/c of Biden's age and...........well, age related issues. I'm being nice.
She was at least as consequential as Pence was for Trump. For different reasons but same impact. I say this forgetting Palin was consequential in the completely opposite direction.
I don't think Dems were naive in that Biden could have issues before the end of his first term (he clearly has) and that there was a better than average chance Harris would be prez before the end of his first term.
All this to say, while not vetted via a primary, I think she's been pretty well looked over during the past 5-6 years.
Which Bush? GHW Bush was probably near genius level IQ. GWB was far more intelligent than his critics give him credit for. I've seen him speaking off teleprompter and he was excellent at that. Both were far more intelligent than you.
I don't think he's even slightly higher on the IQ scale than she is.
Honestly I bet it is. He’s just really old. Too old honestly. But Wharton and all that biz shit ain’t easy. At all. I think it’s undermined bc I guarantee he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder
Biden picked her because he thought she gave him the best chance to win, not because she was the best choice to govern if he should die.
With a horrific approval rating throughout. The one thing she was charged with as her big assignment has been an unmitigated disaster
Similar threads
