I think Kamala Harris was his best choice. I think she will probably put him over the top with a lot of swing voters.
Well, he finally made a choice, it would not have been my choice But, I have to make the best of it and get on the juggernaut to defeat Donald Trump, this fall.
This may not endear him to those on his left and that could prove risky.
You're right. It is a risky move considering part of the reason Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016 is because not everyone from the democratic party supported her. I think Biden could have picked a better running mate, but we'll see how this works out for him.
You're right as well, how could we make this same mistake twice? Hillary thumbed her nose at the left flank of the party, represented by Bernie Sanders. The result was a candidate who couldn't tell you just whose side she was actually on. This in turn created enough apathy among our base that allowed an opening for a candidate like Trump, who everyone thought could not win.
She still won with 3 million popular votes. Trump's die hard supporters cannot be moved but he barely won last time onlybwith the assist of the Electoral College and was given a chance by those otherwise turned off by Clinton.
But now that Trump is a known quantity would those on the fence really want to chance it with him again? He certainly has not gathered any more admirers in the last 3 years, so the only direction that makes sense is his decline in support among much of the electorate. Add to that the dismal state of the economy and his mismanagement of the COVID pandemic, who remains enamored with him?
Biden with his selection, created a potential obstacle for himself in this race that makes his victory a bit less certain. Trump only wins if Dem voters are apathetic. If I did not know better, it seems like all of this was somehow orchestrated by republicans to create as much disadvantage for Biden as possible so that they many keep their incompetent tyrant in the White House against overwhelming odds.
The Trump support has been a hard 40%+ no matter what they have thrown at him, from the Russia conspiracy lies to the current Riots.
And because of three years of MSM loathing and fabricating, because of months of rioting and looting, I would expect every bit of that 40% to get out there and vote for him.
I also think this is completely irrelevant if we have a Mail-In Ballot election, it doesn't matter who wins then, half the country will not believe or accept the outcome.
And any honest person would freely admit there is no way a Mail-In Ballot election could be completed fairly and accurately. They tried it recently in a NY election and they discarded over 80 thousand votes (20%) as invalid.
I also don't think this ticket has a chance now. For a simple reason.
Most of those "on the fence" realize that Biden is as soft as a rotten grapefruit.
So... it is not Biden they would be electing it is Harris.
Harris isn't that appealing... certainly not to any informed voter that leans Left or Libertarian. She is a ruthless former DA that clearly cares more about her own record and her own power and prosperity than anything else.
She wasn't well liked when she was running for the Nomination, she will be no more liked now.
Interesting enough, I've always read the Trump support number to remain around 35%. We cannot ignore the fact Harris has won elections, liked by some or not, and that is important. Hillary hadn't done such a thing. Finally, we should be worried when Russians and the Chinese prefer Trump. One Chinese spokesperson said they would rather Trump won because America would continue to tear itself apart while Biden would be formidable.
Yes, and I am sure that Chinese spokesperson was speaking the truth, because clearly Trump and China have been getting along so well.
Where-as Biden has always been a formidable opponent to China, especially after a major Chinese (government controlled) bank gave his son's firm a 1.5 billion dollar investment.
As for the Russian issue, anyone still bringing that garbage up is not worth debating the issue with, that is a dead horse that has been beaten with a stick for so long all that is left is dust.
Of course those living in an alternate reality not based on sound facts, but rather false and fabricated information have yet to figure this out... which I realize is a good portion of Democratic voters.
Harris has won what? AG... sure she was good at it.
Senator in California... she ran as a Democrat... she has plenty of State connections as a former AG... not impressed, it was practically a gift wrapped position.
She was destroyed in the debates by Tulsi Gabbard.
She never fared will in the primaries.
She will not come across any better or with any more appeal now.
Those determined to vote Trump out would vote for anyone regardless of who is no the ticket.
For the rest of America, this ticket is not appealing at all... and when these two get out in public and start opening their mouths, it won't help them any.
When is a win not a win? That's expected from those who want to diminish another person's accomplishments. Destroyed? Interestingly enough - her title is Senator. And Russia is still relevant, just as much as those who question former President Obama's birth still. Anti-virus companies have noted attacks coming from Russian sources, trying to hack our internet.
The DNC and their compatriots trash the likes of Sanders, Yang, and Gabbard... and give Democrats these two Liberty loving Progressive politicians..
The torch bearers of change... a 40 year veteran of corrupt DC politics and a hardcore former DA.
Strategically, this was the best choice for Biden now. If you have noticed on TV lately, Trump is running an ad with a Black lady holding up a sign saying she is fearful for her children. The actress does not speak. Hidden message: "be seen but not heard." Harris will be heard. Interestingly enough, Harris silences those on the right who was worried about law and order. Women of color tend to be supportive of women of color; that, ironically enough, doesn't happen when White women tend to run-they don't get the White female vote. Harris helps to bring the party toward the center while her experiences along indicate she is open to listening to other areas of the party. But we won't know until the votes are counted. Yet, with the rise of woemn of color taken leadership positions across the country, this may be an optimizing choice for the former VT.
You stole my thunder Tim. I was going to make those same points.
I think the two most important assets she brings are the one about the law and order perception and her appeal to the more moderately Left in the Democrat party. They aren't all as far-left as Sanders or AOC and I suspect they are feeling the same way about their party, as a lot of Republicans were feeling 10 years ago—their party left them.
Biden has already shifted as far Left as Sanders and that should be acceptable to the Far-left, and now Harris can be the moderate component of the ticket that can appeal to the rest of the party.
It is going to be a wild ride.
Its an interesting strategy... going after the Center and the Conservative votes with a hard core former AG.
Going after the minority vote with a woman of color.
It very well may come down to what America thinks about Harris.
If she sells herself well in the next couple of months it may swing the undecided over.
If she has a few Tulsi Gabbard moments where her own track record is thrown in her face, who knows... tough to tell.
This election is likely to be a major disaster, I'm not sure it matters.
You forgot one: going after the female vote. How many women will probably vote for Harris simply because she is a woman? Women make up over half of the voting population, and Trump cannot gain traction in that arena. It was efforts by women in Tx., Ala., and other states which unseated Trump supporters in the midterms. Women had much to do with Represenative Cortez getting elected. Women are not the minority anymore.
That argument easily fit the 2016 election as well.
Amazing as it may seem... women don't vote merely based on a candidates sex.
Some do...and they would have voted against Trump anyways.
For the rest, I am sure it is totally irrelevant.
Thank you. Conservative women don't vote that way. We prefer to think.
It's important to note: you brought up the different segments Harris would appeal to, and I brought up one more. Sex is relevant in politics as well as color. Haven't you heard of the Southern Strategy?
Those are the reasons I think Harris was the smart choice for Biden.
I also think she will be more smartly vicious than Biden in the campaign and debates. It's going to be bloody.
However, I do think she has her work cut out for her defending her debate statements. The pundits are already repeating the "inauthentic" charge and I think her responses to coming challenges could make a difference with many of the voters that were the reason she was chosen.
After listening to her "acceptance" speech I am worrying that I may have stepped on my pecker thinking she represented a more moderate position for the ticket.
I preface this by saying I have doubts that anything regarding any of these candidates will make much difference.
We have a revolutionary base (small but active percentage of the populace) trying to foster an outright Critical Theory/Marxist revolution.
And it seems this movement has support in a few State government officials or councils (CA, WA & OR being where most of them are concentrated).
We have had 75 days of continuous riots in Portland, the Seattle police have been defunded and the chief has resigned, LA is doing some crazy stuff where they are cutting off people's water and electricity for violating social distancing rules...
So when we finally get around to having an election, a Mail-In ballot election with rampant fraud being exposed, and it taking weeks to determine the count... the chaos will be full swing, and no matter who "wins" neither side is going to be OK with it.
And of course, then we have the economic turmoil that has yet to truly hit us because of months of closing down businesses and putting people out of work.
Its called a SH!T STORM the likes of which none of us have lived through coming our way... I can only imagine how well it will be handled if Biden is taking the reigns, whoooo weee!
Got side tracked...
So if I am a Progressive, Race Compensation, Defund the Police, type of voter... Harris is the worst thing ever put on a Presidential ticket.
Her background and her family history speaks for itself.
If I am a Blue Lives Matter Moderate, she is appealing but there is no way in heck I am trusting the Democratic Party, not after the show we have seen from cities like Seattle and Portland... oh no, no amount of racist or sexist accusations against Trump is going to have me ever side with that Party again in my lifetime.
The Defund the Police, Looting is Reparations, Open Borders and no Background checks, positions being bantered about or supported by the Democrat politicians... no thanks, anyone out in the suburbs that has been paying any attention at all wants none of that.
She might make for a great Republican candidate... but as a Democratic Candidate... the Left will hate her... and everyone else will be scared to death of allowing the Democrats to take control unless they have had blinders on to what is going on the last 3 months.
She definitely does not pass the Progressive VP smell test given her record as District Attorney in San Francisco, but most Democrats do not want a radical like Bass.... and frankly, they'd vote for Mr. Ed if he were on the ticket. After all, they chose Biden, who can barely form two sentences.
I fondly call Biden's pick, 'Kamala-who-cares.'
I feel she is a safe choice overall.
I also believe she will debate well against Pence. If Biden wins, they will be a one-term president. That's the good news. I do not believe she can handle the pressure of the highest office.
That is just the problem however... she will not be endeared to the revolutionaries.
And lets be real, we have been creating hundreds of thousands of revolutionaries in our colleges the past decade or two.
These are the people we know today as Antifa, Anarchists and BLM.
These are the people that rioted and destroyed colleges in years past, they are now rioting in the streets and pushing for their revolution.
Harris will be just as unappealing to them as Trump.
Trump was only a Reality TV Star before he became President.
Harris is the epitome of Law & Order Oppression and Incarceration of the Innocent.
These are not the people that will get behind Harris or the corrupt Establishment hack that Biden is.
To them there is no difference between Biden & Harris and Trump & Pence.
For what it is worth a Trump Presidency is probably more Liberal and Libertarian than anything we would see under Biden & Harris.
The people that video is highlighting will never accept Biden & Harris.
The radical Left will go along with her. Even Credence, who supports the Black Panthers, will will vote for her. They have no choice. Their only mission is to defeat Trump. Yes, they would have preferred the Communist Bass, but Bass would have tuned off the middle. Most voters still reside in the middle. The radicals can still work with Biden and get him to do anything they want.... so his seemingly "law & order" pick will work well for him because she will go whichever way the left wind tells her to go. She and Biden are alike.
As I mentioned, I do not believe she has the 'cajones' to be a decent president. Just another "Yes man" who will cave under real pressure. She's done it before.....
Right, Savvy, we have no choice.
Besides the mission to defeat Trump, I wanted more from the proposed candidates. But, that is not in the cards now and I must live with the reality of who it is that I have to work with.
As far as I am concerned, they are both corporate Democrats, but anything is better than Donald Trump and Mike Pence.
Well, take heart. Our friend 'emge' is correct. Harris' voting record is radically Left. She only has the persona of being moderate. In reality, she will be the golden girl of the radical Left. She is corrupt through and through and mean as a snake. Congratulations.
No, Credence is not part of their generation or their belief system.
These people have learned on their college campuses to riot to shut down all voices of opposition, to get professors removed, to change campus policy... they do not compromise, they do not debate... they demand and they destroy.
These young people are spreading out into companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google, they are getting elected to State and local government positions, they are being hired by the NYTimes and WPost.
They have been "graduating" from the Universities for years now taking what they have learned into the "real world".
They want far more than that.
The OLD Elite crowd, the Inside the DC belt cronies, the establishment MSM want to destroy Trump and regain power and control.
These movements being pushed by young people... be they Bernie Boys or BLM... aren't focused on Trump or moderate compromise.
We already had a revolution: it was the American one. Besides, the revolution will not be televised.
I suggest you take your blinders off and put your biases aside and see what is really going on today.
Back to you. You see through your biased blinders: we have the memo.
I'm afraid YOU don't 'have the memo'.
You have not seemed to understand what I am trying to express, and it appears to me, that you are assigning racist and sexist bias where none exists.
The article linked below is from someone with a far different background than my own, but she is hitting on much of what I am trying to convey.
https://medium.com/unsafe-space/a-liber … 4abb7dc8aa
Name calling? Have you been a senator? Show respect. oh yeah, only for Trump. When you can't attack her record as a tough prosecutor, her intelligence, her rising above, you label. To quote someone: "You write memos and so do we. We got the memo on this tactic. You want her to be silent while garbage comes from the top.
False. Your Party tries to silence those who disagree with your party line. I want Kamala to speak all she wants. Conservatives continue to fight hard for 1st Amendment rights for everyone. Brush up on your history:. Kamala was not tough when she needed to be and tough when she should not have been. Anyone can put a marijuana smoker in jail. Progressives are suspicious of her because of her past criminal justice record.
I never said she couldn't be tough. Those are your words, not mine. But my sense is that she isn't fair and I do not like that about her because she pretends to care.
https://theappeal.org/kamala-harris-cri … ntial-run/
So anyway, perhaps as a "journalist" or "publisher" you would do well to stop putting words in other people's mouths. Thanks.
So, you think you can silence me and all of us, right? (I was right about the sign in the commercial). It goes on. You guys are so fond of calling names and using fabrication, that you miss things. Psychologically: It's good you recognize "tough" is subjective. (20 points.) My, my, you have no idea about my party affiliation. You know it all - don't you. Maybe you should read some history. You really have your facts wrong about the Republican party. Seen this before. Right now, I'm a citizen; aren't you. Or are you something else. lol.
"..But my sense is that she isn't fair and I do not like that about her."
Hmm. Fairness is subjective. I suppose you hold the moral superior high ground on that, too.
It's funny to me, that Kamala is being portrayed as "a moderate" in MSM circles. Kamala Harris has no qualms whatsoever, tinkering with State's rights...depending on the State! When it comes to the subject of abortion, for example, she believes that States, which are more conservative with their abortion laws, need to first go through the Justice Dept., in any further attempts to protect the unborn.
No word from her as to the more liberal States, which go much too far.
We must not be fooled, there is nothing moderate about Kamala Harris.
That was meant as moderate relative to the current Democrat Left, (and Biden's current positions). Not moderate as a Conservative would view the term.
I didn't think it out quite that far GA.
I shouldn't be amused by how the media is portraying her, it is all or nothing when it comes to today's Democratic Left....
Maybe they truly see her as moderate, because of her prosecutorial record (although she went on to become one of the most liberal Senators of all time) OR maybe it's deliberate, to win over the fence riders. ~shrug~
I have heard that claim that she was the most Liberal Senator. But then I also heard a pundit say that Sanders and Warren must be thinking, "What the hell . . . "
I am only speaking from my own perceptions, be they right or wrong. I don dare listen to the media because each will present its own biased interpretations.
I have given some more consideration to this pick, and to Biden.
It really does appear the DNC and the powers that be do not want to win this race... I think they are positioning for 2024.
They will let Trump get stuck holding the bag, the economic crisis that is to come in the months/years ahead has a good chance to be worse than anything seen in America since the 30s. Worse than last decades Recession, worse than the Recession/Gas-Crisis in the 70s.
Then when the people are desperate enough, they will be much more willing to cling to any alternative that is presented, even the most extreme.
There are some people that would have had far more political appeal, Michele Obama I have to believe would be crushing it right now, and be way ahead of where Biden is... maybe they are saving her for 2024?
Heck... AOC might be the hottest name out there come 2024... and the young 'revolutionary' crowd from which the likes of Antifa and BLM swell their numbers will have grown (graduated) considerably more numbers by that time.
Who follows Trump for the Republicans?
No one... Trump is a break-the-mold one of a kind.
The Pendulum always swings back.
This lackluster ticket is not going to inspire the people.
And old man that can't be allowed out of the basement... and a former AG that the radical Left will never rally around.
... doesn't matter at all. The voting is not going to go well.
I predict civil war after the "election."
Hope I'm wrong again.
I personally think this country is screwed no matter who wins the election but that's just me. Hope I'm wrong though.
I project a stabilization and continuation of an OK economy for another 3 years if Trump wins.
All of his enemies, foreign and domestic, will focus their strength and energies in 2024... I expect all of 2023 to be just as bad economically as we see things today (don't know how they will accomplish it, but they will find a way) and they will come up with a far more charismatic candidate than Biden to run.
I think Republicans are more excited about Kamala Harris being Joe Biden's VP choice than Democrats. The ONLY way Biden could defeat President Donald Trump is if he were to appeal to his base. That certainly hasn't happened. Harris will appeal to those on the left and that's it. Mainstream America will have a good chance to see what she is all about, and I don't think it will play well with them.
I think she is a poor choice but then the cupboard is bare and there doesn't seem to be anybody who fits the bill. From what I have seen of her past clippings and speeches she does not seem to inspire confidence and has stereotyped ideas. She is closer to the left and some points I found her statements on Kashmir and India to be very naive. She's basically from Indian origin and all her roots are in Delhi and Madras and see associates with her relations there. She has very little connection with black except that her father was with her mother for seven years and she's never associated with any relations of father or with him. I think she's a poor choice. To have Her as a VP and God forbid anything happens to Biden then she will be president and that will sink America.
I agree, emge. As District Attorney, she prosecuted the little guy, marijuana offenders and the like. She never had the guts to go after the big guys who were the real offenders. She's as phony and naive as they come--- a dangerous combination....Always willing to make deals with the devil. California hated her for her cowardice, but the cronies rewarded her loyalty to them.
A telling choice for Biden. A bad choice for America.
Since when have Republicans ever been concerned about the little guy?She should be their ideal "law and order" candidate
Since the beginning, when we first drafted the Constitution in 1787; since we elected Abraham Lincoln and lost over 322,000 men to secure freedom for all and save this Union; since we continue to put up with being called all manner of ugly names even though we fight for our First Amendment rights and all rights every day, even though our efforts go largely unnoticed by the masses. By and large, we are the little guy--- meaning we are the workers and the builders... the one's with common sense and core values.
Kamala is not a "law & order" candidate. She is a corrupt politician. She will suit the Left perfectly. She can be molded with little to no effort. One day she is here, the other day, she is there.
Conservatives have no interest in Kamala beyond what we can expose about her. She is Biden's problem now.
So her record is irrelevant? So her experience is irrelevant? She's not a moderate? She is left to the extreme? Perhaps, she is a solution. Really? We see what happens when we elect leaders without any experience. Keep digging around the real "problem" you have with senator Harris.
Considering research has shown the Republicans could be on their way to loosing a very large segment of the electorate - women - I'm not surprised. It wouldn't matter what Harris has or has not done; we all know what elephant the Republicans don't want to mention because it is part of the inability to even recognize they are gripped by the Southern Strategy which no one can comment on from the extreme right. She is not just a capable female, but (fill in the blank.)
There is no Southern Strategy by Republicans.. That is a racist statement.
Lindsey Graham (R) S.C., famously stated: The Republicans needed to recruit more "angry White guys." Not to mention research Nixon's strategist. You should not tell a long-time political follower and columnist about things you are unfamiliar with. How else can you explain the likes of Duke and Spencer finding shelter in the Republican party? Race is what the right wing doesn't want to talk about, but it is front and center in the extreme. You are making racist statements about me, see. Don't be "angry" because I know the topic well. By the way, call Harris mean loud, and the other negatives you contribute to educated people who don't have a particular hue, remember: she has heard that a lifetime from the extreme right. It will only make her fight harder. Not to mention, she will gather more allies. People of color have a culture which befuddles the extreme right. You better study.
Geez, Tim, this is spot on. Where have you been hiding?
I am encouraged by your positive assement of Harris making me believe that, perhaps, all is not lost.
You do not get to twist the truth about my statement by deploying race baiting. Not okay.. Republicans reject racism and racists, like Duke or anyone. That is why we fought to end slavery and marched right along with Martin Luther King, Jr. Those were not Democrats marching with him.
Yours is the Party of segregation, the Klu Klux Klan and Jim Crow. Just because Lyndon Johnson turned that narrative around to secure the black vote doesn't make the Conservative commitment to freedom for all any less true.
I have studied well. I suggest you do the same.
Why do you not recognize the Southern Strategy? Race baiting? Please. Can you truly say Lincoln would be pleased with Trump? Check the history of the party. It's a matter of historical fact: Southerners, who fought against the Union, swore to destroy the party that freed slaves. With the passage of Civil Rights (by the Democrats and Congress) racist fled to the Republican party. I want play the Republican switch history around. In any case, don't you think the party of Lincoln should have put the first Black president in office? I'm a student of American history: go find some truth.
"passage of Civil Rights (by the Democrats and Congress) racist fled to the Republican party"
Where do you get your information? Seriously.
"The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant event in converting the Deep South to the Republican Party; in that year most Senatorial Republicans supported the Act (most of the opposition came from Southern Democrats)."
Please, explain the Southern Strategy, and Lindsey Graham's remarks supporting said strategy. I specifically said "racist" elements of the Democratic Party (including your mentioned Democratic persons in Congress from the South) fled to the Republican party. We can honestly recognize that is the political figures and philosophy in Duke, Spencer, and in Ala. Moore. I said "after Civil rights passed.." In addition it's a matter of fact: Democrats recognized they would lose the "solid South" with the passage of the act. They were referring to White male voters. That's a matter of historical fact. People of color, women, and other minority groups flocked to the Democrat party, thusly, reversing the two parties over the decades. Essentially, the Democratic party is the party of Lincoln today. No one has yet to challenge the idea why if the Republican party still is the party of Lincoln, why did the Democrats place the first Black president in the White House? My explanation should make it obvious.
So, if I might contribute. This nonsense started with Candidacy of Barry Goldwater who was decimated by Landslide Lyndon in 1964.
The states that voted for Goldwater have not supported Republicans over many years. These were the Southern States and Arizona. What do you think the reason was for such a stark change of party affiliation and allegiance?
Goldwater insistence on states rights was the same as resistance to civil rights and why it was these handful of states that so starkly went against decades of tradition. Yes, you can believe that there has been a Southern strategy.
It was the beginning of the Southern Strategy in 1965 with the passage of the Voting Rights Act that LBJ acknowledged would tie black voters to the Democratic Party, indefinitely. Nixon and George Wallace used it to gin up racism and racial resentment toward Civil Rights Legislation and gain Southern support they otherwise would not receive.
The Right always tries to befuddle the facts, they are to be ignored.
Your point about the parties switching places over the decades has been discusssed before, and I think it is a valid point. When discussing the parties from the 1900s forward it is more accurate to talk about Liberals and Conservatives than it is Republicans and Democrats.
The claim that the Democrats are more the party of Lincoln, now, than the Republicans has also been made, but I think that is a stretch only true relative to Civil Rights actions. I don't think Lincoln would be an advocate of the party's progressive agenda.
Now, that's respectable and thoughtful. I agree in many ways, Ga. I do believe there is a grand shift, and that's my point.
Heck, I voted for Republicans before I noticed changes which were disturbing. R.R. put Powell as head of the Joint Chiefs, for goodness sake. But overtime, the admission to leadership post in the military has not been available to Blacks on a regular basis according to some newspaper articles I read. In defense of our Armed Services, they are naming an aircraft carrier after Doris James, a seaman of color who defended Pearl Harbor. And they are making more changes. Good for them.
However, I still think Lincoln would have no use for racist tactics and the "culture wars." He would not want racist in the party either. He was a man who embraced changes, and took steps to bring changes to reality. He may not accept some of the progressive agenda of the Democratic party, but if he saw a need for change - he certainly would have considered it. In fact, he was more interested in saving the union at first. So when these state rights' people start talking about problems with the Union, remember: Lincoln held the Union first, and liberty without the Union is chaos, to paraphrase Daniel Webster. (How many people will stop using the dictionary with that name now. Different Webster guys.)
You must have looked deeper into Lincoln's presidency than I have Tim. My shallow forays have left me with the impression that the almost exclusive focus of his presidency was the Civil War.
It seems obvious, (by many documented historical sources), that his overriding concern was keeping the Union intact. Those same historical sources also note that he thought slavery was wrong, and should be abolished, but he was not willing, until after the start of the war to make emancipation an issue.
I would have to dig around for the details, but my recollection is that in a few of his Civil War efforts to save the Union he was willing to deal with the devil, (as in tolerating racists), to accomplish his goal. Oddly, and I probably shouldn't mention it because I can't remember the exact details, one of those instances concerned his personal approval for a gun manufactured by a Northern slave owner.
*As a side note, during his presidency folks could walk right into the White House and pitch ideas to him. This gun maker was one such fellow and Lincoln personally tested and approved his rifle.
Your contentions may be validly drawn from accords of his character from earlier pre-presidency records and accounts, but I haven't, (again, my readings are admittedly scant), read anything that would attribute the things you say he wouldn't tolerate to his presidential actions.
As a perhaps contrary point, he had no problem suspending the Constitutional Right of Habeas Corpus when he thought it was necessary in his fight to save the Union.
To be clear, none of that is not intended to demean Lincoln. I think he was a strong president when we needed one, and a great president in his actions, but I just get a little squirmy when I hear Democrats claiming to be the real party of Lincoln. I don't think he would have tolerated today's Democrat party at all. He was a man who believed in personal responsibility. And obviously, I don't think today's Democrat party holds that belief at all.
yes, Lincoln was anti-slavery but not abolitionist. He said that if he could maintain the Union without freeing one slave that he would. His Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves residing in the states that were part of the rebellion.
I think that you are dealing with apples and handgranades when trying to express how a mid nineteenth century man would see todays problems. He probably would not approve of what the Republican Party has become since his passing, either.
regardless of what you all say, Lincoln was progressive from the standpoint of the times in which he lived. A man open to listening to voices that were not even considered by those that held the office prior to him. A man with a gift for listening, so unlike what we have now.
At last. The chance for a simple answer. Yes, I completely agree.
Valid point. His evolution toward ending slavery was gradual, but he "did" decide it was an evil. As I stated, he was pro-union first. Sometimes, you have to deal with the devil to send him to Hell.
I have a question. Who was the first and only black, female Secretary of State? How did the Democrats and the media treat her?
Does the name Condoleezza Rice ring a bell? Ah, she got all the praise from the Democrats that a black conservative experiences. Everything from being called an Uncle Tom to being referred to as Aunt Jamima from black members of Congress and NYT columnists. Happens to EVERY black conservative. Yeah, if you're black you have to believe a certain way to be accepted by Democrats. THAT is a fact.
There have been and currently are so many African-American Republicans I can't list them all so here is a link to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A … epublicans
This sort of destroys the Republican's are racist argument.
Hear, hear....Herman Cain!
I supported him and had the opportunity to hear him speak and the pleasure of meeting him once.
Look how he was treated...he had to step out of the race for the peace of mind and well-being of his family!
He was a great man, but the left couldn’t get past the fact that he was a conservative black man.
Did Graham make the comment or not? Was there a Southern Strategy which is still active or not? Does Nazis and White supremist hang out in the Republican party? Did Trump Tweet "White power" or not? Likewise, there are many White politicians in the Democrat Party which means it is not a racist party either. There are different races in all parties. Ms. Rice deserved her post, but it wasn't the top post was it? One party has an agenda based on"culture wars," which in itself, is a race and sex oriented strategy which fits quite well with the Southern Strategy. Another truth: The Great Society programs started in the 1960s - these Republicans want to dismantle. The party changed drastically after Bush Jr. was president. This is an extremist element of the party in control now in the White House and Senate.
Explain he constant and non-stop attacks on black conservatives by Democrats? Why are the banned from being part of the Congressional Black Caucus ? Unlike Kamala Harris who filled a position that could only be filled by a black woman...which is evidence of being a sexist and racist organization. Condoleezza Rice is a brilliant academic who earned her position because she was the best choice of any color or sex. I believe that Democrats accuse others of what they are guilty of doing. It's proven true again and again and again.
And the Republicans don't do what they accuse others of? Hmm. Perhaps, Black conservatives are left out of the Black caucus becuase it is based on party lines - that could be it. No Democrat I can think of who was president Tweeted "White power." Or Republican for that matter. That's a first.
Then, they should change their name to the Democrat Congressional Black Caucus...their title now is misleading. It lets people believe they represent all black. If you want to be horrified at some things a Democrat president has said about black people...look up quotes by Lyndon B. Johnson. You will be surprised.
You might be surprised, but not me by statements from presidents. Remember: we got the memo. In any case, how does that excuse Trump? Last I checked, he's president now. And the next president will be held accountable as well. Leaders in the Black Caucus can call their group whatever they want; that's their business in doing their jobs. They don't have to please you but those they represent. Still, answer my question about the Graham and targeted approach in the Republican party. I know you won't; Duck and dive and change the topic. Expected.
Tim, my friend, I am sorry, but this is not so. LBJ was an awful person, he went along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for one reason and for one reason only!
I will not repeat the words of LBJ, they are as offensive today as they were back then.
It only passed...because the Republican Party exists!
There was no switch.
Lincoln’s Party is the same Party of today.
Readmikenow -- I can't help being myself, and being an oddball in my articles, I will sound like one here as well.
So, what I can't really understand is -- why so much significance is given to people's badmouthing? What makes those people some experts in matters of politics? Actually, a simple logic tells us that those who really have some class and education never use offensive language. They don't lower themselves to the level of ignoramuses who believe that by calling someone a name they are beating their policies.
Who really cares what such people have to say? While freedom of speech covers them too, let them discharge their toxicity, but that doesn't mean that they have to be treated as important -- not enough to be even mentioned.
This pathetic tag of war is going on and on, and at the end whoever gets to be a president -- will inevitably become a target of someone's badmouthing -- per the national tradition. It's all barking at the moon, like a pretty sickening national pastime where hate and intolerance are the only rule of the game.
Have you noticed how nobody is saying anything positive about anybody -- it's all the negative crap, like in some masochistic/sadistic dark passion.
Well, so much from me. I was fair enough to announce my being an oddball. Now you guys can continue.
Val, I can't disagree with anything you've written.
In the United States, Republicans watched President George Bush be destroyed by the media and Democrat lies. He never fought back. It caused much destruction of the Republican party. We were all frustrated by George Bush just taking it on the chin,
Well, Donald Trump fights back. The Democrats and the left have tried to destroy him like they did George Bush. It hasn't happened. The Democrats fight dirty and the only way to defeat them is to treat them like they treat others. So, I don't think saying terrible things about one another will end any time soon. It's no longer a debate, it's a battle.
I appreciate your response and being very polite about this issue.
Yeah....so, when someone may have been banned from Q & A for about a year at one time because of offensive language, "toxicity" and "negative crap" and also advised by HP to remove an article about a hubber that was pure libel, I do not think that person is in a position to advise others about positivity or others' "masochistic/ sadistic dark passions."
I am still irritated with Joe for setting up Democrats for criticism by promising the selection of a black female for the VP slot. Even Wilderness is correct in his assessment that Biden should have began with saying that he was seeking the best person for the job regardless of gender or color, then make his selection.
I don't like pandering or identity politics as it diverts the party objectives toward the superficial and trivial and misses the substance of what are the critical differences between the parties and candidates.
Listening to all the conservatives here, the way I see it, anything that nudges slightly left of Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones is the "radical left" for them.
Cred, on this we can agree! Other than putting Rush in the same category as Alex Jones...no, no, no...Rush is in a category of his own.
Happy weekend! Stay safe!!
Thanks, same to you....
Like I always say, don't waste your time pandering, if you really want to impress me, do your damn job.
Cred, I agree with you.
I do have friends who are Democrats. They are beyond frustrated with the party and what is happening with it. He is afraid there is so much disagreement, it could split. The progressives go their way, and the other Democrats go another way. He believes this would cause huge damage to the Democrat party.
Do you see the disagreements within the Democrat party causing it to split? Is it really that bad?
I am afraid that all this will be just a referendum on Donald Trump and I wanted it to be that much more.
If Biden runs a ho-hum campaign and does not really distinguish himself from his opponent, we may have what happened in 2016 happen again. Too many Democrats will sit it out in frustration. We can't have that happen again. Ideological lefties like me knows what is at stake and must support the Democratic nominee, regardless.
I think one thing both republicans and democrats can agree on is that this is probably going to be one of if not the most important election in US history because we're going to need some strong leadership to lead us out of this economic crisis, during the pandemic. Not to mention the possible cold war with China looming around the corner, and North Korea wanting to bomb us all the time. And the possible war with Iran that could happen any minute, so I think it's wise that everyone votes now than they have in years past because this election will determine whether the US remains a huge powerhouse in the world, or crumble like the Roman Empire once did.
Lets face it, the skill set required to be president is different from that required to be a media star.
I can't trust this Trump to even level with us as to the extent of the varied crisis.
These issues require subtle nuance and diplomatic skill, when Trump is the equivalent of a busted chain saw, today.
Bringing people in without political experience has proven to be a mistake.
Finesse, not sable rattling will be what is needed in the new political milieu, people that are willing to listen and learn as it is impossible for any novice to know all there is to know about the varied challenges before us now.
And none of that is Donald Trump.
OK then, lets consider what we know.
Trump is definitely NOT a warmonger... he is the most anti-war President we have had since Clinton, maybe even Carter.
The man is trying to get us out of Afghanistan, and has minimized his responses to the provokings of Iran and China and North Korea.
The Economy was chugging right along until the pandemic hit, despite Trump's tough trade negotiations with the rest of the world.
Yes, I was hoping he could convince Gov. Como of N.Y. That would have been interesting
by ga anderson 15 months ago
Democratic Party Releases Footage of Kidnapped Kamala Harris “Endorsing” Joe Biden "(Unknown...
by Credence2 3 weeks ago
A little background, folkshttps://www.opb.org/article/2020/11/16/ … -now-what/Have a look at that revised Greater Idaho, is that not ridiculous?I say to those dispossessed types, if you don't like Oregon and its politics, just move to Idaho!!We had such a move in Colorado with the sod...
by Stevennix2001 10 months ago
After talking to some of my family members that happen to be conservative, they believe that Biden's pick of Kamala Harris, as his running mate for this year's election, virtually guarantees that not only will Trump win again this year, but he'll do it in a record breaking landslide victory. ...
by Stevennix2001 10 months ago
While it hasn't been confirmed yet, I have heard rumors that Kamala Harris could be Joe Biden's running mate in the 2020 election. First of all, does anyone know if that's true? And assuming it does happen, then do you think having her as his Vice presidential candidate...
by crankalicious 14 months ago
I had to post this since it appeared in a reputable left-wing source:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-bide … 6a7a2a88f2This is serious stuff and I don't care how long ago the accusation happened. It will be worth every Democrat's time to follow this issue and then decide if they can...
by Credence2 7 hours ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|