|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 22, 2024 18:23:15 GMT -5
of course, this thead will get all sorts of visceral responses, lambasting the author.
back in August, there were Dem voices, and it was questioned why Kamala should be annoited nominee with NO debate. none
and we see what has happened.
excuses and rationalization was made:
"she was on the ballot"
the fear of black backlash
not enough time"
"won't have enough money"
and then of course it had the immediate backing of Clinton's, Obama, the usual suspect about why Kamala needed to be ...."the one"
predictably after euphoria, all the warning statements that a debate would be destructive and weaken, the few voices in the Dems fell of deaf and IMPATIENT ears. "we just could not do anything but nominate Kamala" and Kamala in her ego willingly went along of course.
it was in fact a decision of entitlement, short-sighted, ignored history of failures of the candidate. A candidacy based on nothing more than voting against someone else.
of course, this 90% Dem forum will lash out at this post, instead of acknowledging what a F*cked up process the Dems had. Take zero responsibility for the failure of the Dems to 1) select the right candidate in the first place despite warning signs, and 2) double down and select the wrong candidate the 2nd time.
she may win still, just interesting what when she loses, the common refrain here will be to degrade others that ....."just don't get it" and will be a cacophony of posts not acceplting any responsibility for their own failures.
now go ahead and lash out and put down and degrade as expected. or maybe....there will be some introspection? nah
|
|
|
Post by Burly Ives on Oct 22, 2024 18:41:54 GMT -5
of course, this thead will get all sorts of visceral responses, lambasting the author. back in August, there were Dem voices, and it was questioned why Kamala should be annoited nominee with NO debate. none and we see what has happened. excuses and rationalization was made: "she was on the ballot" the fear of black backlash not enough time" "won't have enough money" and then of course it had the immediate backing of Clinton's, Obama, the usual suspect about why Kamala needed to be ...."the one" predictably after euphoria, all the warning statements that a debate would be destructive and weaken, the few voices in the Dems fell of deaf and IMPATIENT ears. "we just could not do anything but nominate Kamala" and Kamala in her ego willingly went along of course. it was in fact a decision of entitlement, short-sighted, ignored history of failures of the candidate. A candidacy based on nothing more than voting against someone else. of course, this 90% Dem forum will lash out at this post, instead of acknowledging what a F*cked up process the Dems had. Take zero responsibility for the failure of the Dems to 1) select the right candidate in the first place despite warning signs, and 2) double down and select the wrong candidate the 2nd time. she may win still, just interesting what when she loses, the common refrain here will be to degrade others that ....."just don't get it" and will be a cacophony of posts not acceplting any responsibility for their own failures. now go ahead and lash out and put down and degrade as expected. or maybe....there will be some introspection? nah What is the point of this? There isn't buyers remorse. Kamala is doing better then pretty much any Democratic candidate would have except for Michelle Obama had she wanted to run.
So BBTB comes out of the woodwork to try to manufacture doubt when there isn't any outside of a very small faction of Gaza and nothing else voters. In fact Kamala is leading by anywhere from 2 to 6 points in most recent polls. So I guess if you wanted to take the focus off from the danger that Trump poses then I guess you accomplished your agenda for a few minutes I guess.
|
|
|
Post by RoxasNobody on Oct 22, 2024 18:45:37 GMT -5
I'm a little confused here, what are you arguing? That a hypothetical other candidate would be running away with the polls? What would they have done differently?
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 22, 2024 19:02:55 GMT -5
of course, this thead will get all sorts of visceral responses, lambasting the author. back in August, there were Dem voices, and it was questioned why Kamala should be annoited nominee with NO debate. none and we see what has happened. excuses and rationalization was made: "she was on the ballot" the fear of black backlash not enough time" "won't have enough money" and then of course it had the immediate backing of Clinton's, Obama, the usual suspect about why Kamala needed to be ...."the one" predictably after euphoria, all the warning statements that a debate would be destructive and weaken, the few voices in the Dems fell of deaf and IMPATIENT ears. "we just could not do anything but nominate Kamala" and Kamala in her ego willingly went along of course. it was in fact a decision of entitlement, short-sighted, ignored history of failures of the candidate. A candidacy based on nothing more than voting against someone else. of course, this 90% Dem forum will lash out at this post, instead of acknowledging what a F*cked up process the Dems had. Take zero responsibility for the failure of the Dems to 1) select the right candidate in the first place despite warning signs, and 2) double down and select the wrong candidate the 2nd time. she may win still, just interesting what when she loses, the common refrain here will be to degrade others that ....."just don't get it" and will be a cacophony of posts not acceplting any responsibility for their own failures. now go ahead and lash out and put down and degrade as expected. or maybe....there will be some introspection? nah What is the point of this? There isn't buyers remorse. Kamala is doing better then pretty much any Democratic candidate would have except for Michelle Obama had she wanted to run.
So BBTB comes out of the woodwork to try to manufacture doubt when there isn't any outside of a very small faction of Gaza and nothing else voters. In fact Kamala is leading by anywhere from 2 to 6 points in most recent polls. So I guess if you wanted to take the focus off from the danger that Trump poses then I guess you accomplished your agenda for a few minutes I guess.
lol, par for the course. I don't have an agenda. not trying to manufacture anything. just discourse. as if that could occur. accompanied by the obligatory 'danger of Trump' statement. oh well yep, it only could have been Harris or Michelle. yikes!
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 22, 2024 19:04:11 GMT -5
I'm a little confused here, what are you arguing? That a hypothetical other candidate would be running away with the polls? What would they have done differently? I guess no other candidate could have done anything different then. oh well! that takes care of that.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 22, 2024 19:15:42 GMT -5
I'm a little confused here, what are you arguing? That a hypothetical other candidate would be running away with the polls? What would they have done differently? I guess no other candidate could have done anything different then. oh well! that takes care of that. It's also possible to argue that Harris could be doing something different (and it has been argued). The fact is that the election hasn't taken place yet, so the Monday morning quarterbacking (or the Wednesday morning electionerring) isn't very useful before the game is actually played and completed.
|
|
|
Post by RoxasNobody on Oct 22, 2024 19:16:49 GMT -5
I'm a little confused here, what are you arguing? That a hypothetical other candidate would be running away with the polls? What would they have done differently? I guess no other candidate could have done anything different then. oh well! that takes care of that. I'm being serious here, I don't understand what you're arguing for. You listed all the arguments you heard for picking Harris, but what should the dems have done? Who should they have picked? How would it have helped?
These aren't rhetorical questions! I'm really curious.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Oct 22, 2024 19:24:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure what the counter-argument is here. That Dems should have stayed with Biden? Have a brokered convention?
|
|
|
Post by longboards on Oct 22, 2024 19:37:10 GMT -5
of course, this thead will get all sorts of visceral responses, lambasting the author. back in August, there were Dem voices, and it was questioned why Kamala should be annoited nominee with NO debate. none and we see what has happened. excuses and rationalization was made: "she was on the ballot" the fear of black backlash not enough time" "won't have enough money" and then of course it had the immediate backing of Clinton's, Obama, the usual suspect about why Kamala needed to be ...."the one" predictably after euphoria, all the warning statements that a debate would be destructive and weaken, the few voices in the Dems fell of deaf and IMPATIENT ears. "we just could not do anything but nominate Kamala" and Kamala in her ego willingly went along of course. it was in fact a decision of entitlement, short-sighted, ignored history of failures of the candidate. A candidacy based on nothing more than voting against someone else. of course, this 90% Dem forum will lash out at this post, instead of acknowledging what a F*cked up process the Dems had. Take zero responsibility for the failure of the Dems to 1) select the right candidate in the first place despite warning signs, and 2) double down and select the wrong candidate the 2nd time. she may win still, just interesting what when she loses, the common refrain here will be to degrade others that ....."just don't get it" and will be a cacophony of posts not acceplting any responsibility for their own failures. now go ahead and lash out and put down and degrade as expected. or maybe....there will be some introspection? nah Flawed as the process and candidate are, she's still a much better option than trump. That's probably why they choose her instead of wasting time and energy to have a contested bid which would draw attention away from all the 🦇 💩 crazy stuff trump says on the daily.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Oct 22, 2024 19:39:31 GMT -5
I'm a little confused here, what are you arguing? That a hypothetical other candidate would be running away with the polls? What would they have done differently? This is going like every other presidential race in current history of our country. It doesn't matter who the candidate is.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Oct 22, 2024 19:40:54 GMT -5
I guess no other candidate could have done anything different then. oh well! that takes care of that. I'm being serious here, I don't understand what you're arguing for. You listed all the arguments you heard for picking Harris, but what should the dems have done? Who should they have picked? How would it have helped?
These aren't rhetorical questions! I'm really curious.
Beach likes to bitch. It's all he does.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 22, 2024 19:45:47 GMT -5
I guess no other candidate could have done anything different then. oh well! that takes care of that. I'm being serious here, I don't understand what you're arguing for. You listed all the arguments you heard for picking Harris, but what should the dems have done? Who should they have picked? How would it have helped? These aren't rhetorical questions! I'm really curious.
Opened it up for candidates, and debates before the convention and of course the delegates would select. Harris is a product of non debate. The responses are it couldn't be done. Well if Obama and Clinton had signaled to actually not jump the gun I think the lack of any resolve to create a choice reflects the problems the Dems have in presenting how effective they can be because it reflects tunnel vision towards solving a problem. Exactly the view of Harris to voters she is having trouble to convince
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Oct 22, 2024 19:48:16 GMT -5
I'm being serious here, I don't understand what you're arguing for. You listed all the arguments you heard for picking Harris, but what should the dems have done? Who should they have picked? How would it have helped? These aren't rhetorical questions! I'm really curious.
Opened it up for candidates, and debates before the convention and of course the delegates would select. Harris is a product of non debate. The responses are it couldn't be done. Well if Obama and Clinton had signaled to actually not jump the gun I think the lack of any resolve to create a choice reflects the problems the Dems have in presenting how effective they can be because it reflects tunnel vision towards solving a problem. Exactly the view of Harris to voters she is having trouble to convince No it isn't. This is such a non issue.
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Oct 22, 2024 19:57:28 GMT -5
Opened it up for candidates, and debates before the convention and of course the delegates would select. Harris is a product of non debate. Me (and several others) would have liked this. But I'm not 100% convinced that the polls wouldn't look the same/similar no matter who it was.
|
|
|
Post by VT Five-0 on Oct 22, 2024 20:01:27 GMT -5
Who cares? If people want to vote for a lying criminal, who was impeached twice during his turbulent presidency, and who has the mental capacity of a gnat, let them. They'll have to live with the consequences.
|
|