Fox news says VP choice down to Harris and Rice.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Rice's #1 job was to attach the strap on to Mike.  I am not sure how this translates to Biden. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,627]

They are attempting to shore  up the cuck vote. Two light skinned women or color with white husbands. It’s a cucks dream come true. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

Rice has a son I vote for over her.

Susan Rice on her Trump-supporting son: ‘I love him dearly’

John David Rice-Cameron was president of the Stanford College Republicans

[drobeski 3,061]

Why would anyone be ok with Biden having racial and sex prerequisite for a job ? Isnt that notion anti-progressive ? Racist and sexist ? 

Shouldn't qualification be the determining factor and not skin color and genitalia? 

Democrats a one wacked out ass backwards group of sheep. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, drobeski said:

Why would anyone be ok with Biden having racial and sex prerequisite for a job ? Isnt that notion anti-progressive ? Racist and sexist ? 

Shouldn't qualification be the determining factor and not skin color and genitalia? 

Democrats a one wacked out ass backwards group of sheep. 

It's undeniable.

"All you Trump people need to be all inclusive. While all we liberal folks will pick and choose who we want to fill jobs by race and sex criteria."

[peenie 1,690]

28 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

You can't pander if you don't nominate panderable demographic people. 

*cough* Sarah Palin *cough*

*cough* Mike Pence *cough*

[The Elevator Killer 497]

1 minute ago, peenie said:

*cough* Sarah Palin *cough*

Yeah, that's when he lost my vote. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,627]

3 minutes ago, peenie said:

*cough* Sarah Palin *cough*

*cough* Mike Pence *cough*

And McCain, rightfully so, got destroyed for picking her because she was a woman. Biden will not be held to an equal standard. 

[Masshole 642]

46 minutes ago, peenie said:

Although, I might add that our president also never ran for office and had never been elected to anything before...

I think Benghazi was a big deal for many people. With that said, people pick and choose what to be angry about.

If he is choosing a woman, I'd rather he chose someone with lots of government experience rather than very little.

I prefer he pick someone that wasn't just the wife of someone that had lots of government experience.

Apples and oranges.    All I am looking for out of anyone who wants to occupy the highest offices (pres, VP, senator, governor) of gov't is that they have some kind of experience outside of gov't that isn't just academia or being a lawyer.   If you have significant business mgmnt experience, military, doctor, etc I am OK if you have never run for office, it may even be a plus in my eyes.   But if you have been a swamp creature your whole life AND never run for office, that screams "deep in the bubble" too loud for me.   Especially if you are one Biden stroke away from being the president.

Do a thought experiment for me, it's simple:  Replace all of the Obama admin players involved with Benghazi with Bush (W) admin ppl and it happens during the Bush admin.   What do you think the outcome is?   Would you then consider it a "big deal"?   It would be hard not to since it would lead the news for a year and probably run the entire administration out of office.    Maybe impeachment, definitely a lot more than Hillary saying "what does it matter now?" and getting away with that comment. 

Our founders never envisioned nor would have wanted professional politicians.   The concept was that people with great experience in the "real world" would step up and participate in leading our gov't and then go back to their lives/businesses.    We've lost that real world experience amongst our elected and gov't class.   Rice is the poster child for that.     Trump for all his failings is representative of someone who has significant outside of gov't/academia/lawyer experience and then stepped up to lead our gov't.  

[TimmySmith 2,782]

14 minutes ago, peenie said:

*cough* Sarah Palin *cough*

*cough* Mike Pence *cough*

Have you ever seen or heard Pence talk?  Of course not.  He's presidential.  

[cyclone24 1,814]

21 minutes ago, peenie said:

*cough* Sarah Palin *cough*

*cough* Mike Pence *cough*

  Wait your best proof that he pandered is that he selected a man and a woman of the same color as him? 

Thats not pandering. He was already going to win the white religious vote. 

Oh and they were also governors. 

[IGotWorms 3,310]

8 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

Biden is only serving one term, if he can even do that.  His VP pick will be the favorite for 2024 POTUS nominaiton if Biden wins.  A bit different. 

Meh most VP picks are the presumptive future nominees. I’ll give you it’s a bit different here given Biden’s age but otherwise it’s just not that big a deal. The real question should be whether the person could step in at any moment and be president. Not whether you’d want them to because of course most of you are never voting for a democrat — just whether they could credibly stand up there as a replacement POTUS. I think Rice and Harris both qualify there.

[IGotWorms 3,310]

45 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

And McCain, rightfully so, got destroyed for picking her because she was a woman. Biden will not be held to an equal standard. 

I thought he got destroyed for picking a complete idiot?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,627]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

I thought he got destroyed for picking a complete idiot?

He picked her because she was a woman. He got destroyed for picking an idiot, and he picked an idiot because she was a woman. And Biden ain’t much brighter. 

[shorepatrol 1,737]

7 hours ago, Voltaire said:

What brands of shampoo do they use?

Hickory shampoo would be ideal for both 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,627]

Just now, shorepatrol said:

Hickory shampoo would be ideal for both 

Do you know what happens when you touch a black womans hair? Especially right after she got it did?

[Masshole 642]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

just whether they could credibly stand up there as a replacement POTUS. I think Rice and Harris both qualify there.

This is a rarity for me - I am actually interested to hear how you would explain something.    How could possibly justify this comment?    You actually think those two have the resumes and experience that they could be president in the next 4 yrs?   

[The Elevator Killer 497]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I thought he got destroyed for picking a complete idiot?

That and that he thought he would get the people that were going to vote for Hilary to vote for Sarah. First decision was a very bad one. And VP mattered for both candidates because at the time it was thought that both candidates may not complete the term. 

[peenie 1,690]

56 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

  Wait your best proof that he pandered is that he selected a man and a woman of the same color as him? 

Thats not pandering. He was already going to win the white religious vote. 

Oh and they were also governors. 

Off topic:

And this is the problem in hiring and opportunities in the workplace. Black people, when they select other black people to work with them, it's seen as being racially selective or biased for their race and if a white person selects a black person, it's seen as a sort of affirmative action, that they're only picking them because of their race. Therefore their is a pressure for blacks in higher up positions to never pick other blacks because they don't want to be perceived as biased. So blacks have to NOT select other blacks in order to be seen as neutral, therefore blacks don't get the opportunity to move up due to networking as much as whites. It's seen as normal for another white person to pick a white person since they're the majority, yet, it can easily be racial selection but it's never perceived that way. It's considered normal.

I'm certain someone has done a study on this....

[TBayXXXVII 2,114]

0% chance Biden finishes year 1.  I'm willing to bet, that if he wins, he resigns by July 1, 2021.  I don't think he makes it 6 months.  He may even step down as early as March.  This will be proof that people who vote for Democrats are stupid.  @Frozenbeernuts nailed it in another post when he called Biden a Trojan Horse.  Biden is simply the means to get a minority woman, who would lose otherwise, into the White House.  It also proves that the Democrats aren't as "progressive" as they pretend to be.  If either Rice or Harris ran as the Presidential nominee, Trump would win in a landslide.  Everyone knows this... even the Dems.  That's why they're using Biden on the front end of the ticket.  It's solely to get Democrats and Independents to not vote for Trump.  Heck, the Democrats even told you they don't want Harris.  They had the chance to support her and they chose not too.  She didn't even make it to the voting.

Also, Democrats know that black people still don't trust them.  On top of that, they also don't trust black people.  Proof?  Harris and Rice are the VP candidates.  The Dems need to secure the black vote.  They think that Trump is going to take a lot of black votes, because they saw what everyone else saw... black lives improved more in 3 years under Trump than 8 years under Obama.

[Alias Detective 1,179]

22 minutes ago, Masshole said:

This is a rarity for me - I am actually interested to hear how you would explain something.    How could possibly justify this comment?    You actually think those two have the resumes and experience that they could be president in the next 4 yrs?   

Well, we know Kamala was so liked she got run out of the Dem race early.   

 

32 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Meh most VP picks are the presumptive future nominees. I’ll give you it’s a bit different here given Biden’s age but otherwise it’s just not that big a deal. The real question should be whether the person could step in at any moment and be president. Not whether you’d want them to because of course most of you are never voting for a democrat — just whether they could credibly stand up there as a replacement POTUS. I think Rice and Harris both qualify there.

BWhahahahaha

[IGotWorms 3,310]

22 minutes ago, Masshole said:

This is a rarity for me - I am actually interested to hear how you would explain something.    How could possibly justify this comment?    You actually think those two have the resumes and experience that they could be president in the next 4 yrs?   

I basically already addressed that.

Look, you hate both of them. They are devil incarnate. Because they are liberal democrats (or at least democrats). I understand that. Set it aside because Biden is 100% not going to pick Donald Trump Jr. or whomever your dream VP selection would be.

That said, you have one that was Attorney General of a very big state and then US Senator. Yes she is qualified.

You have the other that was Ambassador to the UN for four years and then National Security Advisor for another four years. Certainly far heavier on foreign policy than domestic issues, but there’s no question she is qualified.

Conversely your hero came in with zero traditional experience or qualifications. It hasn’t worked out well but I think that has more to do with the particular individual than lack of experience. 

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

0% chance Biden finishes year 1.  I'm willing to bet, that if he wins, he resigns by July 1, 2021.  I don't think he makes it 6 months.  He may even step down as early as March.  This will be proof that people who vote for Democrats are stupid.  @Frozenbeernuts nailed it in another post when he called Biden a Trojan Horse.  Biden is simply the means to get a minority woman, who would lose otherwise, into the White House.  It also proves that the Democrats aren't as "progressive" as they pretend to be.  If either Rice or Harris ran as the Presidential nominee, Trump would win in a landslide.  Everyone knows this... even the Dems.  That's why they're using Biden on the front end of the ticket.  It's solely to get Democrats and Independents to not vote for Trump.  Heck, the Democrats even told you they don't want Harris.  They had the chance to support her and they chose not too.  She didn't even make it to the voting.

Also, Democrats know that black people still don't trust them.  On top of that, they also don't trust black people.  Proof?  Harris and Rice are the VP candidates.  The Dems need to secure the black vote.  They think that Trump is going to take a lot of black votes, because they saw what everyone else saw... black lives improved more in 3 years under Trump than 8 years under Obama.

Trump simply being anti establishment is a huge factor in me voting for him right now. I feel like I have turned into a tinfoil hat guy with all of the giant conspiracy ideas and correlations I have been thinking about.

[TBayXXXVII 2,114]

2 minutes ago, peenie said:

Off topic:

And this is the problem in the workplace. Black people, when they select other black people to work with them, it's seen as being racially selective or biased for their race and if a white person selects a black person, it's seen as a sort of affirmative action, that they're only picking them because of their race. Therefore their is a pressure for blacks in higher up positions to never pick other blacks because they don't want to be perceived as biased. So blacks have to NOT select other blacks in order to be seen as neutral, therefore blacks don't get the opportunity to move up due to networking as much as whites. It's seen as normal for another white person to pick a white person since they're the majority, yet, it can easily be racial selection but it's never perceived that way. It's considered normal.

I'm certain someone has done a study on this....

The answer to this is simple.  When affirmative action went into place, it forced all business owners to hire all minorities based on skin color and not qualifications.  Once that happened, everyone thinks that any minority hired was because of their skin color.  Also, all it took was a few examples of this being proven, to cement this idea in place.  Affirmative Action is/was, just another example of Democrats ruling by emotion instead of logic.  It's another example of them addressing the result/issue instead of the actual cause of the result.  When you make policy that way, the net result is always worse than the initial problem.

[cyclone24 1,814]

8 minutes ago, peenie said:

Off topic:

And this is the problem in hiring and opportunities in the workplace. Black people, when they select other black people to work with them, it's seen as being racially selective or biased for their race and if a white person selects a black person, it's seen as a sort of affirmative action, that they're only picking them because of their race. Therefore their is a pressure for blacks in higher up positions to never pick other blacks because they don't want to be perceived as biased. So blacks have to NOT select other blacks in order to be seen as neutral, therefore blacks don't get the opportunity to move up due to networking as much as whites. It's seen as normal for another white person to pick a white person since they're the majority, yet, it can easily be racial selection but it's never perceived that way. It's considered normal.

I'm certain someone has done a study on this....

Yeah I don't disagree with that....my point was more when you look at full context of who his potential nominees were they were 100% women and most of them were of some sort of color or nationality certainly not white. 

 No it certainly doesn't have to be a white man by any means but you're telling me there was nobody... white male, black male, white woman that was qualified? In the Democratic Party? Just have a hard time believing that 

[RLLD 3,455]

If I thought these candidates were being considered because they were the best available, no issue.....but based on what I have read and heard from Biden, its based on some idiotic social factor....so no....

We should never select people, or not select them, based on gender or race.....ONLY based on ability. If I am correct, then Biden is selecting them based primarily on placating segments of his base and NOT exclusively on ability.

Since it would be wrong to EXCLUDE them based on either their gender or skin color, it is also wrong to INCLUDE them based on those factors.

[porkbutt 861]

 

there is sucha thing as systemic racism afterall

[IGotWorms 3,310]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

If I thought these candidates were being considered because they were the best available, no issue.....but based on what I have read and heard from Biden, its based on some idiotic social factor....so no....

We should never select people, or not select them, based on gender or race.....ONLY based on ability. If I am correct, then Biden is selecting them based primarily on placating segments of his base and NOT exclusively on ability.

Since it would be wrong to EXCLUDE them based on either their gender or skin color, it is also wrong to INCLUDE them based on those factors.

I agree it isn’t right and it does artificially narrow your pool of qualified candidates.

That said, they are still qualified. The fact that there may be 50 qualified white men who aren’t being considered doesn’t change that.

[peenie 1,690]

Where is Newbie?? What have you all done to him?!

[TBayXXXVII 2,114]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I agree it isn’t right and it does artificially narrow your pool of qualified candidates.

That said, they are still qualified. The fact that there may be 50 qualified white men who aren’t being considered doesn’t change that.

I think we, as a country, have really reduced what "qualified" means.

[RLLD 3,455]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I agree it isn’t right and it does artificially narrow your pool of qualified candidates.

That said, they are still qualified. The fact that there may be 50 qualified white men who aren’t being considered doesn’t change that.

I see your point.  They seem to have the qualifications to be a VP, though I think Rice is not someone I would like to see that close to being a president.  

It remains wrong.   Including them to scratch a social itch over a thoughtful search for someone who could rise to the highest position in our government is not acceptable.

To justify their inclusion based on race or skin color then allows to exclude them as well, we don't want our decisions ever to be based on gender or skin color, it is wrong.....

[peenie 1,690]

Why not Rice? She is educated, knows government and has experience and understands close up what it's like and what it means to be president. I think she would do a great job.

[TBayXXXVII 2,114]

4 minutes ago, peenie said:

Why not Rice? She is educated, knows government and has experience and understands close up what it's like and what it means to be president. I think she would do a great job.

If she got that under Obama, I think that disqualifies her.  He was the worst President this country ever had.

[Masshole 642]

47 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That said, you have one that was Attorney General of a very big state and then US Senator. Yes she is qualified.

You have the other that was Ambassador to the UN for four years and then National Security Advisor for another four years. Certainly far heavier on foreign policy than domestic issues, but there’s no question she is qualified.

A reasonable answer, I'll give you that.   

My main issues with Harris are how she got to be AG and Willie Brown.   That whole thing is pretty skeevy.    And I don't like that she got a lot of attention because as an AA woman AG she was actually a pretty hard-a$$ AG.   I was actually impressed with that.   But then as a senator and especially as a presidential candidate she just abandoned that and went full woke.   Reeks of insincerity and crass manipulation to me.    If she stayed the hard-a$$ AG she was, I'd be a lot more agreeable towards her. 

Rice - I've already pointed out the issues for me and I don't dispute the "experience" you note, it's just all in one area and lacking breadth of experience.   In her silo she's very experienced, almost nothing outside of that silo though.    I would ask, as a counterpoint to all of the failures of foreign policy that I pointed out (and could add more examples if needed), what are Rice's signature foreign policy accomplishments?    Yes she's done those jobs but was she good at it?    That should matter, right?      

[RLLD 3,455]

28 minutes ago, peenie said:

Why not Rice? She is educated, knows government and has experience and understands close up what it's like and what it means to be president. I think she would do a great job.

Quote

“I commit that I will in fact pick a woman to be vice president,” Biden said during the Democratic debate Sunday. 

Rink

 

Quote

By committing to pick a woman early in the campaign, Biden signaled his intention to break the glass ceiling. Women are the key to Biden's election success, particularly Black women. This was an important message from the beginning, helping to blunt any unease within the Democratic party that Biden was just another old guy in the party.

Rink

 

Biden committed to exclude men, who may have been suitable candidates, very early on. What if he had committed to excluding women? We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of such despicable actions.

Including or excluding someone based on their gender is wrong.  We have to remain philosophically honest and stop pretending.  One's gender or skin color are not acceptable qualifying features.

 

[Cdub100 3,380]

3 hours ago, peenie said:

 

I think Benghazi was a big deal for many people. With that said, people pick and choose what to be angry about.

Do you think it was a big deal Christopher Stevens and his family? 

 

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B6gPWt_K3DM/UIdqoKN3BEI/AAAAAAAACjE/3GDGBNxYUUM/s1600/ambassador-christopher-stevens-killed-body-dragged-through-streets-by-muslims-islam-religion-of-peace-550x343.jpg

 

I guess after all what difference does it make? 

[Masshole 642]

1 hour ago, peenie said:

Why not Rice? She is educated, knows government and has experience and understands close up what it's like and what it means to be president. I think she would do a great job.

Umm, I thought I answered that yesterday. . . 

 

[IGotWorms 3,310]

56 minutes ago, Masshole said:

A reasonable answer, I'll give you that.   

My main issues with Harris are how she got to be AG and Willie Brown.   That whole thing is pretty skeevy.    And I don't like that she got a lot of attention because as an AA woman AG she was actually a pretty hard-a$$ AG.   I was actually impressed with that.   But then as a senator and especially as a presidential candidate she just abandoned that and went full woke.   Reeks of insincerity and crass manipulation to me.    If she stayed the hard-a$$ AG she was, I'd be a lot more agreeable towards her. 

Rice - I've already pointed out the issues for me and I don't dispute the "experience" you note, it's just all in one area and lacking breadth of experience.   In her silo she's very experienced, almost nothing outside of that silo though.    I would ask, as a counterpoint to all of the failures of foreign policy that I pointed out (and could add more examples if needed), what are Rice's signature foreign policy accomplishments?    Yes she's done those jobs but was she good at it?    That should matter, right?      

We’re not that far odd here. I don’t like Harris for many of the reasons you cite. Just seems like a very inauthentic ladder climber to me. That said she is qualified whether I like her or not.

With Rice that’s all noise. Benghazi is especially ridiculous. I know it gets you guys twisted to this day but that’s silly. Grand scheme of things four people died doing a dangerous job in a dangerous part of the world. Awful, yes, but there are far worse international incidents involving Americans all the time.

[IGotWorms 3,310]

48 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Do you think it was a big deal Christopher Stevens and his family? 

 

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B6gPWt_K3DM/UIdqoKN3BEI/AAAAAAAACjE/3GDGBNxYUUM/s1600/ambassador-christopher-stevens-killed-body-dragged-through-streets-by-muslims-islam-religion-of-peace-550x343.jpg

 

I guess after all what difference does it make? 

Of course it was a huge deal to all the families. Life-shattering.

Just like with the tens of thousands killed or grievously wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just like with the soldiers killed in Somalia back in the day. And all the other skirmishes and incidents the US routinely finds itself involved in around the world.

Just like the folks that die in training accidents, or helicopter crashes, or aircraft carrier incidents.

This stuff happens all the time including under your boy Trump. It’s a tragedy every time.

[tanatastic 2,061]

One of them will be your next president after Biden can’t serve in office once mail-in-gate is completed. Get used to it now.