Post New

I just can't see the Establishment, War Merchants, and Google Jockey Club just rolling over, and accepting Trump as President again. There's gotta be some more tricks up the sleeve:


*Legal: Convict him and stick him in jail.

*BIDEN: Let's not forget, the President has NOT campaigned yet.....once he starts the numbers should go up. Some.

*3RD PARTIES: Warmonger Cheney, or a Manchin or Kasich in key states?

*Splash on the Left be it Gavin or Michelle O (both of whom I used to tout on TMF years ago)


I just can't imagine the Globalists and Establishment of the world is gonna just let it happen.

There will be a strong push for Michelle and Gavin by June if Biden’s polling doesn’t tick up.

There will be a strong push for Michelle and Gavin by June if Biden’s polling doesn’t tick up. - Dope

---------------

Do you think Newsom's ego will allow him to be Michelle's veep?

Do you think Newsom's ego will allow him to be Michelle's veep?

Yep. Nobody in that party is going to cross the Obamas, and whoever her veep would be would automatically earn their endorsement.

Initially - Mrs Obama would be great in polls.

And I think the media would give a permanent honeymoon.


BUT........

She's not her husband.'

She'd be herself and eventually that might shine thru.....

BUT........

She's not her husband.'

She'd be herself and eventually that might shine thru.....

Yep. A spoiled, very much entitled racist grifter. That'll come out eventually.

And there's this:
https://nypost.com/2024/01/17/opinion/dont-be-shoc...

Biden won’t debate. Can’t. Our codger-in-chief can’t even read the prewritten script in front of him fast enough to pronounce the words.

So, forget him — which most of us already have.

Coming back now — Obama. Not him. HER!

We’ve heard this drumbeat for a while. Now it’s louder.

Plans are to grab Michelle for the Democratic presidency choice. Making the music is Barack the orchestra leader.

Michelle says she’s “terrified” Trump will win. No casual burp. Was programmed. She’s sent a survey to Dem biggies asking their feelings about her candidacy.

Obama’s quietly angling for Joe to go. He’s weaseled up to this for a few weeks. Mouths aren’t talking. But mouths are knowing.

Over one year ago, summer of 2022, she was in NYC meeting several big hedge CEOs, and said, “I am running, and I am asking for your support.”

Heh. It'll be hilarious watching the usual suspects here claim they really wanted Michelle all along when they're told to kick Joe to the curb.

What's so inadequate about Vice President Harris that the Corporate Liberals here won't give a peep in support of her running, if Biden doesn't.

On TMF I used to suggest Mrs Obama as a candidate from a POLITICS point of view. With a press honeymoon she has a great chance -- especially with the abortion thing -- that's political gold for the Left.

BUT.......

If anyone loves America - pray Joe is it. Because everyone can say what they like but I feel Joe Biden likes this country.

Michelle Obama -- will give away the store, she hates this place. Like - hates it.

If anyone loves America - pray Joe is it. Because everyone can say what they like but I feel Joe Biden likes this country.

Michelle Obama -- will give away the store, she hates this place. Like - hates it.

1000%. For all his faults, inadequacies and general incompetence, Biden at least likes the United States.

Michelle Obama can't stand the fact that she has to share the same space as all the other dirty proles running around here. She's entitled, you know.

What's so inadequate about Vice President Harris that the Corporate Liberals here won't give a peep in support of her running, if Biden doesn't.

Nothing. But Biden's running, so the issue doesn't really come up.

Anyway, if Obama has her sights on the Presidency (which I highly highly doubt), there's absolutely zero reason for her to muck around with a 2024 bid against the candidacy of Biden, instead of waiting for 2028 when there won't be any incumbents.

Nothing. But Biden's running, so the issue doesn't really come up.
****

But the Gavin and Michelle comes up all the time. - even though Biden is running.

Yep - it's about the technicality.

Then again - there's a reason why a plurality of the West is going Trumpy.......

And won't be going away soon :)

Michelle Obama can't stand the fact that she has to share the same space as all the other dirty proles running around here. She's entitled, you know.

---------------------

Not only entitled, but without any pride in her country until recently...

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country...." Michelle Obama, Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis, Feb 2008

For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country...." Michelle Obama, Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis, Feb 2008
****


This is precisely how Liberals feel about America OTHER than when they count their stock market profits on the back of exploited people

BUT nobody is talking about Michelle or Gavin. Why? Because Biden is running. Even though they ARE talking about it....they just aren't talking about Kamala running.

Seriously - pray for Joe otherwise its Farrakhan in a dress.

I'd be happy with President Biden over Mrs Obama. The ONLY way I'd be thrilled for Mrs Obama is if she doesn't sellout and sticks it to the murderous Israel and tells the Israeli lobbies to go stick it, mind you they'd still own Congress and the Senate but still - I'm able to at least find that silver lining.

Cheers Dope! I know lately some of my opinions diverge from yours so it felt good to see that. A bit like old times!

But the Gavin and Michelle comes up all the time. - even though Biden is running.

No it doesn’t. At least, it’s not raised by any of the Corporate Liberals you’re directing your comments to. They don’t talk about Harris for the same reason they don’t talk about Newsone or Obama in 2024. Because they acknowledge that Joe Biden is running.

When other non-Corporate Liberal people are fantasizing about possible (fictional) candidates that might run against Biden, they will usually exclude Harris - because it’s unthinkable that a Veep could survive the damage to their prospects by declaring against their own running mate. Harris is already on the ticket with Biden. She’s the one politico in the country that can least run against Biden. Newsome or Obama (or anyone else not in the Administration ) can differentiate themselves from the Administration - Harris can’t, so she can’t run against Biden.

If Biden weren’t running, she’d be top of the field. But she can’t run against Biden, so the fervid fever dreams of someone entering the race can’t center around her.

If Biden weren’t running, she’d be top of the field.

Heh. Sure about that? The only pol in the democrat party with lower ratings than Biden is...Harris.
Were Joe to step down for health reasons there's a 0.0% probability she'd be the top of the ticket.

.. you faintly hear murmuring in the distance, yet it is hardly comprehensible ...

But the Gavin and Michelle comes up all the time. - even though Biden is running.

No it doesn’t. At least, it’s not raised by any of the Corporate Liberals you’re directing your comments to. They don’t talk about Harris for the same reason they don’t talk about Newsone or Obama in 2024. Because they acknowledge that Joe Biden is running.

This. Gavin and Michele never come up. The murmurer is off somewhere out of touch.

Harris would be the only game in town for now.

I don't know right wingers keep bringing up Michelle. As I recall, she wasn't thrilled that Barack was running, and had zero interest in ever running herself. Apparently she does not like politics at all.

I don't know who will be there in 2028, but Michelle won't be among them.

I don't know right wingers keep bringing up Michelle.

Because she's the most popular democrat on the planet. And would win going away.

Apparently she does not like politics at all.

Michelle likes the lifestyle that politics has given her...not so much the actual work. On this we agree.

I don't know who will be there in 2028, but Michelle won't be among them.

We're talking about 2024 if Biden taps out before the summer. In 2028 it'll be Newsome plus some Senators To Be Named Later.

People stop it.

Biden is running so nobody is talking about alternatives. I Googled it and Biden is in office so that's the technical answer.

Nevermind that people ARE discussing alternatives.

They're not! Because Biden is running.

NEvermind that discussing hypotheticals is totally normal.

Biden is running so nobody is discussing it.

Nevermind that people *do* discuss the Mrs Obama as she is electrifying to the base....but Biden isn't running so they aren't talking about her.

But they are.

And people aren't talking about Harris - during ALL these other conversations because Biden is running.

Ok on this one -- yeah - -- - they aren't and nobody here has. Not once.

(Now for $19.95 you can buy the Google Jockey and Establishment's greatest hits:Reagans a dumb cowboy wont win a thing. Ignore the Buchanan and Perot people - just populists that'll go away. Yeah yeah people losing factory jobs will just morph into things - we won't lose whole cities, create a whole angry underclass. Oh stop whining about china fears it's ok they make products vital to us. Google says the free trade thing works just fine. Oh wait those populists we ignored with articulate posts and glib comments are back. Awwwwww they won't win in 2016. Oh wait they did. Oh good they're gone in 2020 no let's just ignore how they are rising up all over the Western World. And the reason we're not putting up Kamala as a candidate is that Joe is running. Nevermind that we've been talking Gavin and Michelle this whole time. ). And if you order now you get a bonus: A day on campus and a night in the clouds - cause that's the only place this gobbledgook matters.

Nevermind that people *do* discuss the Mrs Obama as she is electrifying to the base....but Biden isn't running so they aren't talking about her.

But they are.

And people aren't talking about Harris - during ALL these other conversations because Biden is running.

Ok on this one -- yeah - -- - they aren't and nobody here has. Not once.

Perhaps it's because you insist in couching all your posts in the performance art of this "EchotaSheeple" character you like to play, but maybe I misunderstood you. You didn't ask why "people" were talking about Obama and not Harris - you used one of your elliptical references to "Corporate Liberals." Which you never define, but I understood to refer to either the posters on this board you argue with or just moderate/centrist Democrats in general.

On this board, the people who are talking about Obama and Newsome possibly running are almost entirely conservatives - not Corporate Liberals. Mostly hclasvegas, who is fixated on the idea that there exists some group of Democrats that can (and will) replace Biden with someone else at some point. The Corporate Liberals aren't talking about replacing Biden with Obama - the Conservatives are. Though again, hclasvegas is the main one who keeps bringing it up, and they talk mostly about Johnson.

In the larger world, again the idea of replacing Biden with Obama is one that conservatives love to talk about - it fits neatly with their conspiratorial beliefs that the Obamas are "really" in charge and that Biden has no agency. Hard core progressives also like to talk about alternatives to Biden, because they are disappointed that their dreams of transformational change have not come to pass. But "Corporate Liberals" aren't out there talking up the idea of Obama running. They'll throw out criticisms of Biden, but they're not really advocating someone run against him.

And finally, as mentioned upthread, if you are idly speculating about who might run against Biden, you can't include anyone presently serving in the Administration - because they can't run against them. No, it doesn't violate the laws of physics - but the perceived betrayal against running against the President you're serving with would sink their campaigns before they even got started. Which is one of the main reasons why not only Harris, but also Buttigieg doesn't get talked about much as the imaginary candidate that's going to take on Biden in these discussions - even though Buttigieg is certainly looking at a 2028 run. You'd have to resign on the spot, you'd torch all your political resources within the Administration (rather than hopefully inherit them when the incumbent is done), and many of the voters would despise the perceived betrayal. And (also) again, since you're in the Administration, you have to own all the actions of the Administration - so there's not much of a "switch" away from the status quo. So it's not plausible.

Heh. Sure about that? The only pol in the democrat party with lower ratings than Biden is...Harris.
Were Joe to step down for health reasons there's a 0.0% probability she'd be the top of the ticket.

She has poor ratings, but she's the Veep. So she has a powerful claim to be Biden's successor, both metaphorically and having first crack at the campaign apparatus and the $200+ million war chest that's already been built for the re-election run. She's already on the ticket. She's already campaigning for national office. It's already the end of January - no one else in the party could assemble a national campaign organization or anywhere close to that kind of money in enough time.

Again, all this speculation ignores the realities of what's required to assemble a modern Presidential campaign. It's not something you can throw together in a few months. Which is why all of the credible candidates for the 2028 Democratic nomination (Newsome, Whitmer, Shapiro, etc.) are supporting Biden and will continue to do so, regardless of what happens. It's too late for them to actually build a successful campaign against Trump, and none of them would want to damage their 2028 prospects by losing a race with inadequate preparation and one arm tied behind their back.

Which, again, is why all this speculation about dumping Biden is just fervid imagination. If Biden dropped, the candidate would be Harris - which isn't much of a popularity improvement, given attitudes towards the Administration (not just Biden personally).

She has poor ratings, but she's the Veep. So she has a powerful claim to be Biden's successor, both metaphorically and having first crack at the campaign apparatus and the $200+ million war chest that's already been built for the re-election run.

And she’s an abject disaster that you cannot u see any circumstances let off script for a second.

Again, all this speculation ignores the realities of what's required to assemble a modern Presidential campaign.

I think you’d be surprised how fast the d’s would transfer any GOTV apparatus to a new candidate. Their dark money outfits like Act Blue are interchangeable already.

And she’s an abject disaster that you cannot u see any circumstances let off script for a second.

She certainly had a mediocre performance as a Presidential candidate in 2019-2020, but I think you're exaggerating. She's not a great campaigner, but many other candidates have been so-so campaigners and still done fine (W is a prime example of someone who had issues with malapropisms and imperfect public speaking, but still got elected twice).

I think you’d be surprised how fast the d’s would transfer any GOTV apparatus to a new candidate. Their dark money outfits like Act Blue are interchangeable already.

Again, there's no "d's" that control the campaign apparatus. Biden controls the campaign apparatus. He's the candidate, they're his campaign organizations and fundraising entities. The $200+ million he's raised has gone into his campaign and PAC's, not the DNC coffers. The days when Presidential candidates relied on the parties, rather than their own campaign committees and organizations, are long long gone. Sure, there are some GOTV and other campaign structures that are run by the party (nationally and by the state parties), and those are important - but not nearly sufficient for someone to just "plug in" and run a real Presidential campaign.

These illusions of another candidate being chosen by some shadowy cabal of uber-powerful party figures (who don't include the actual gol-darn President or Vice-President, apparently) are just that - illusions. Biden is the incumbent President, so he'll be the nominee. In the event that he's unable to serve as the nominee (but still able to serve as President, which is a very narrow window), then Harris is the most likely person to replace him at the top of the ticket - by far. And of course, if he's unable to serve as the nominee then he's probably suffered an adverse health event with a very good chance of making him unable to serve as President - and if Harris replaces him as President, then it is near certain she'd be the nominee.

She certainly had a mediocre performance as a Presidential candidate in 2019-2020, but I think you're exaggerating. She's not a great campaigner, but many other candidates have been so-so campaigners and still done fine (W is a prime example of someone who had issues with malapropisms and imperfect public speaking, but still got elected twice).

She's a terrible candidate, goes through staff like Kleenex, and believes the rest of the universe is failing to position her for success. To wit:

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/17497813167...

CNN reporter Laura Coates fights back tears while fawning over VP Harris:

"I'm struck just being in your presence. I was watching you on stage. Looking at you in the eye with your passion."

She then asks Kamala how anyone can be skeptical of her. VP blames sexism.

And this is also why the media is a joke.

Dope1: https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/17497813167...

CNN reporter Laura Coates...

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when your main source of information lately is some guy named "End Wokeness" on Twitter (or X)?

I'll admit to knowing nothing about Laura Coates but I can Google, and a quick search tells me she graduated with a B.A. from the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and earned her J.D. from the University of Minnesota, a decent law school (ranked #16 nationally). She worked first in private practice before moving on to the United States Department of Justice as a federal prosecutor where she worked in both the Bush and Obama administrations, specializing in the enforcement of voting rights. She was also an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, prosecuting violent felony offenses, including drug trafficking, armed offenses, domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault. In 2016, she moved on to CNN and is no longer a practicing attorney. She has written features and provided research to The Washington Post and the Boston Herald and has also written two books.

In short, she sounds reasonably successful and well accomplished.

So, lessee, some guy named "End Wokeness" or Laura Coates?

Gee, another tough call.

As for whether or not vice president Harris has faced -- or continues to face -- sexism, well, c'mon, how many women have been elected president in the nation's history? And that Equal Rights Amendment never did pass, did it?

But no, no sexism in America.

BTW, what were vice president Pence's main accomplishments?

<BTW, what were vice president Pence's main accomplishments?>

A fly landed on his head and he almost got hung!

She's a terrible candidate, goes through staff like Kleenex, and believes the rest of the universe is failing to position her for success.

Again, these are not uncommon traits. Many politicians - and most politicians at rarefied levels - are immense egocentrists at best, and typically pretty narcissistic in general. You have to be extremely full of yourself to believe that you should be the leader of the free world. They tend to be prickly and demanding - it's not like the Trump administration had low turnover, for example. And they tend to feel very entitled (again, to use Trump as an example, he tends to believe that everyone should do things for him because he's him).

I won't deny that Harris isn't as good a stump candidate as Reagan or B. Clinton, or even Obama (who was a decent public speaker, while not being the charisma monster that Reagan and Clinton were). She doesn't come across as either gregarious in small scales or a captivating speaker in large ones. But even in the television age, that's not a disqualifying attribute in a candidate. Bushes 41 and 43 weren't charmers or adept public speakers, Biden certainly isn't....and neither really were Nixon or Carter back in the day.

So if you're a Democrat making your dream "wish list" of candidates you might prefer to Biden, she might not be at the top of the list. But neither is she so terrible that you'd pull the ripcord and burn down the party rather than run with her in a pinch. Plus, she probably has one feature that Biden lacks - she's got the right enemies, in that she's probably even more detested by Republicans than even Biden (while not quite approaching Hillary levels). In an era dominated by negative partisanship, being hated by the GOP could be enough to make her more liked by the base, once she's the main target of attacks....

....but again, this is just folderol. Absent a severe medical event, Biden's running and will remain the nominee. The most severe medical events put Harris in the Presidency, where she will be the nominee as the incumbent. Only in the exceedingly unlikely situation of a medical event severe enough to prevent Biden from running, but not so severe that he continues to serve as President, is there even a chance that the 'back-up' nominee would be someone other than Harris - and that's a miniscule probability. Because no one other than second-stringers or no-hopers would try to seize the nomination from her under those circumstances. Anyone who might be a better candidate in 2024 will certainly just wait until 2028, rather than cripple their brand with a half-assed 2024 "emergency back-up" run.

Pence's main accomplishments?>..A fly landed on his head and he almost got hung!

A hell of an epitaph. Also, he never treated a woman as an equal, conducting a one-on-one meeting as he does with men.

But, yeah, being the only VP to survive an assassination attempt instigated by his own POTUS is a hell of an item to have on one's resume.

Again, these are not uncommon traits.
No, but Kamala Harris is one of the least talented politicians of her generation.

Because no one other than second-stringers or no-hopers would try to seize the nomination from her under those circumstances. Anyone who might be a better candidate in 2024 will certainly just wait until 2028, rather than cripple their brand with a half-assed 2024 "emergency back-up" run.

Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree. There's no universe where the party puts Kamala Harris on the top of the ticket in 2024 if Biden can't go.

No, but Kamala Harris is one of the least talented politicians of her generation.

As I used to tell people who marveled at the rise of Bush 43, who couldn't understand how someone so apparently unadept at basic political skills could succeed....you can't always tell from the limited snapshots you get of a public person. You can't get to be a U.S. Senator - or state attorney general - without some degree of political talent. There's just too many people fighting for those spots, too many smart and capable folks who would kill to get those jobs. You might not be a once-in-a-generation political talent...but you can't be untalented.

You disdain her, but that's understandable. There's no way that she would ever be what you look for in a politician even if you were exposed to the complete picture of who she is (which none of us ever get to be, with any politician). And from your media diet, you're going to be overexposed to the worst parts of her, and all-but-unexposed to the better parts.

Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree. There's no universe where the party puts Kamala Harris on the top of the ticket in 2024 if Biden can't go.

Again, you keep thinking that there's some entity that you describe as "the party" that just gets to decide who goes on the top of the ticket from a tabula rasa, and that BidenWorld isn't a huge part of that entity. Neither of those things are true. If "Biden can't go" and that happens before the convention in August, the convention will pick the nominee. But they'll only be picking the nominee from the people that genuinely pursue the nomination. "The party" is going to be limited to those choices. They don't have the power to just give the nomination to someone if Harris is actively fighting for it - that person has to seriously commit themselves to pursuing the nomination and cash in all their chips to fight to take it from Harris on the convention floor.

Who enters that contest, other than Harris and a bunch of second-stringers and no hopers? Not Newsom, Shapiro, Whitmer, or any other top-tier Democratic candidates. They have much better shots in 2028 than trying to push out Harris at a contested convention heading for a certain loss to the GOP. They're not going to pursue the poisoned chalice that is the "emergency back-up nominee" and engage in a bloody convention fight with Harris - who is the metaphorical successor to Biden and is already on the ticket. Sure, Dean Philips might be there - and no one thinks Dean Philips is more likely to be able to raise $150 million and introduce himself to the country in two and a half months.

But there's no one else. There's no one who looks at this moment and says, "Yes, now is my one shot!" All of the 2028 likely candidates are too young, and not cresting now, for them to view 2024 as their last shot. The two other big hitters in the party (Sanders and Warren) probably view their time as having passed. Everyone else is young, and better positioned for a 2028 run. Newsom and Whitmer's terms expire in 2026 - perfect for a 2028 campaign.

There's no one on the board that is a better choice than Harris that will want to burn their political capital fighting to wrest the nomination in a sure-lose election year. None of them gain any upside from taking the bullet of stepping in and facing the likely loss except Harris, who kind of has to accept.

When people speculate they really think things thru. America's political chatter is known for attention to fact and detail - - I googled it and in my world in the clouds, by golly that's how it is.

Dems speculate for Gavin and Mrs Obama.

NOT for Harris.


I speak from the point of view of people.

Not Google in the Clouds.

But then again - them clouds allowed Trump 2016 so who knows, maybe best thing for us.

I speak from the point of view of people.

Not Google in the Clouds.

Really.

How often do you find yourself talking about politics with people that you would describe as "Corporate Liberals" in real life (not "in the Clouds") that you've had conversations about potential alternatives to Joe Biden?

I'm in a blue county in a red state, so my real-life cohort is filled with "mushy" center-left Democrats - the sort you would deride as "Corporate Liberals." None of them are talking about actual replacements for Biden as a serious possibility. When the occasional, "what if" conversation has come up, Harris is always mentioned as one of the possibilities. She's the Veep for Pete's sake! Of course she's going to be one of the first people that folks think of as a successor if the President is unable to continue campaigning. Sometimes Newsom gets mentioned, but never Obama - because most Democrats know that regards the Presidency as a terrible job and one that she does not desire.

So who are you talking with that are only about Newsom and Obama and not Harris?

I'm not asking that question of the fictional character "EchotaSheeple" that you like to perform on this website. Seriously, I'd like to actually have a conversation with you without the play-acting and obscure allusions and affectations. Just....as a person. Do you really have a number of center-left liberals in your circle that you talk politics? Have none of them even mentioned Harris as playing a role in a post-Biden scramble for the nomination? Is that really what you've had conversations about?

</BTW, what were vice president Pence's main accomplishments?

Avoiding the noose that Trump's Brown Shirts wanted to put around his neck.

Again, you keep thinking that there's some entity that you describe as "the party" that just gets to decide who goes on the top of the ticket from a tabula rasa, and that BidenWorld isn't a huge part of that entity.

Welp, again. We get to see who's right in a few months.

There's no one on the board that is a better choice than Harris that will want to burn their political capital fighting to wrest the nomination in a sure-lose election year. None of them gain any upside from taking the bullet of stepping in and facing the likely loss except Harris, who kind of has to accept.

I actually expect the democrat to win; I'm not sure why you're calling it a likely loss year. Biden if he stays in is guaranteed near universally positive media coverage and Trump the presumptive nominee is guaranteed near universally negative media coverage...and that's the extent that the media bothers to cover him at all. Throw in the relative incompetence of the GOP in several key states like Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania coupled with Biden's money advantage and the dems' GOTV machine and you have a likely win.

I believe he was referring to a Dem loss should Biden be unable to continue his campaign. He outlined that scenario a few weeks ago

I actually expect the democrat to win; I'm not sure why you're calling it a likely loss year.

Oh - I meant in the scenario where Biden has to drop out in the middle, or towards the end, of the campaign. In that situation, the Democrats are almost certainly going to lose.

For simplicity's sake, let's just assume he has a heart attack right before the convention. So now someone has to step into his place - with three months before the general election. That person (other than Harris and possibly Philips) has not been engaged in any sort of national campaign in 2024. They don't have any staff or organization built up in any state other than their home state. They haven't done any fundraising for the campaign, they haven't had any events in any swing states, they haven't even introduced themselves to the country. They have had virtually no interaction with the folks who have been running the campaign for the previous twelve months. Etc., etc., etc.

So if you're Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Shapiro, stepping into the nomination in August is a recipe for disaster. They're going to fail. You can't start running for President three months before the election. Even if it were handed to them, they're going to lose - but seizing the nomination after a brutal and bloody convention floor fight against Harris will be even worse. And remember, most of the delegates are going to be Biden delegates - so they're far more likely than the average Democratic politico to be favorable to Harris. So the fight on the convention floor would be brutal.

They'll come out of August unprepared, underfunded, trying to run a campaign that they didn't build (and isn't built for them), after alienating a big part of the party, and thrown straight into the fire of a Presidential campaign from go. Their performance will end up being atrocious in the best of circumstances, and they're almost certainly going to lose.

<BTW, what were vice president Pence's main accomplishments?>

A fly landed on his head and he almost got hung!


And he stated with pride, early on in Trump's reign, that he never has dinner with a woman he isn't married to unless his wife is present.

"BTW, what were vice president Pence's main accomplishments?"

To be fair, Pence did something great for the country that Harris will never do:

Stick up for rule of law and democracy when the insurrectionists were trying to overturn a fair and legal election.

Of course, Harris will never have the opportunity to do that because Biden (and the lawyers that work for him) would never look into ways of overthrowing a legally elected government.

Umm: To be fair, Pence did something great for the country that Harris will never do:

Stick up for rule of law and democracy when the insurrectionists were trying to overturn a fair and legal election.

Well, there are two sides to every coin. Initially, Pence tried to comply with Trump's directive but everyone he asked if he could stop the count as advised by Trump and John Eastman told him it was impossible, illegal, or unconstitutional. His chief counsel, Greg Jacob, told Pence he'd likely find himself in legal jeopardy if he followed Eastman's advice. Others also warned Pence off the scheme. So Pence tried to do what Trump told him to do but didn't want to risk ending up in prison.

Where Pence gets full credit and extra points is by his refusal to leave the Capitol on January 6 when the insurrection was underway, after he, his wife and daughter had been whisked out of the House chamber and the mob was screaming "Hang Mike Pence!" Had he left, had the secret service moved him to some location where he could not return that night, who knows what might have happened.

Would Trump still have called off the mob? Doubtful.

Would Trump have claimed a Constitutional crisis? Likely.

Would Trump have declared martial law? Probably.

Would Trump have insisted he stay in power until the situation was resolved? Youbetcha'.

So, yeah, Pence did something Harris nor any other vice president likely will ever do again: Stick up for rule of law and democracy (against the direct advice of his own president) when the insurrectionists (sent to stop the electoral vote count by the President of the United States) were trying to overturn a fair and legal election.

Well, there are two sides to every coin. Initially, Pence tried to comply with Trump's directive but everyone he asked if he could stop the count as advised by Trump and John Eastman told him it was impossible, illegal, or unconstitutional. His chief counsel, Greg Jacob, told Pence he'd likely find himself in legal jeopardy if he followed Eastman's advice. Others also warned Pence off the scheme. So Pence tried to do what Trump told him to do but didn't want to risk ending up in prison.

His testimony to Jack Smith, in the context of the DOJ's gathering evidence for their insurrection case against Trump, indicates that it was finally his son who convinced him that honoring his oath to defend the Constitution was the decisive factor, and not his desire to avoid hurting Trump's feelings.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/mike-pence...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/29/mi...

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.