Poll Dem VP Pic: your choice?

[Derec]

it does look like a transactional relationship.

You surely cannot object to that?

I object to everybody denying what is staring them in the face.

I also think that it was political corruption. These positions are not supposed to be given out based on the candidate giving you something of value, be it sex or money. In that sense it is very different than a straight-forward sex for money transaction.

 

[Derec]

Regardless of their basis, in each case the result is made up.

Wrong.

“Coulda” doesn’t count for a 30 It year okd incident with no recurrences.It reveals nothing about Mr Walz today.

And yet allegations of incidents from ~30 years ago were deemed highly relevant when the Left was attacking Kavanaugh about what allegedly happened when he was 17 years old (and not 31, like Walz). You can't have it both ways. In 2018, three decades old ancient history was deemed highly relevant to somebody's present day character by the Democratic Party.

 

[Toni]

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So far not a single woman of any color has been elected POTUS. Having Harris on the ticket was indeed ground breaking.

My problem is that Biden excluded anybody not of her gender or color from consideration. Just like he did for the SCOTUS seat. Just like Newsom did with his US Senate appointment.

I realize that to you, all male/female relationships are transactional, and that what men want from women is primarily sex and what women want from men is primarily money (or reasonable facsimile).

I did not say that. But even you must admit that there are many relationships that are transactional in that sense. Especially when we are dealing with an extreme age gap. And we have a transaction - he placed her on state boards. So it is highly likely that theirs was a transactional relationship in that sense.

Senior members of any team often advocate for future advancement of more junior members. I was given a promotion because my boss liked me and thought I had more potential. He was male, I was very young and probably at peak attractiveness but nope, not a hint of anything even close to attraction or transactional.

But had you slept with him, and he advocated for your future advancement, don't you think that it would have been transactional then?

He was nice and he was right. I was better in the next position than in the one I was hired for and indeed, was better suited as I moved up. People tend to recommend people they know for jobs and positions as they open up. Indeed, as a position opens up, those looking to hire someone usually ask if anyone knows anyone who would be suitable...

That is not in dispute here. Nobody is saying otherwise. It is the sexual relationship combined with him helping her political advancement that makes their relationship transactional with very high degree of certainty. Can we read their minds? No. But you would not demand that degree of certainty if it was JDV who slept with an older woman who placed him on state boards.

I am also vehemently against drunk driving. Driving 90 in a 50 is indeed awful, alcohol or no. People do stupid things when they are young or drunk or both.

Walz was 31. Not that young.

Lol. To me, 31 is pretty young. Again, I do not approve of it. But we do not know what was going on in his life at that moment. What we do know is that he changed. And no one got hurt. So yes, he did a very stupid, very irresponsible thing, got caught and reformed. I think that's how it's supposed to work when we do stupid things: we reform, whether we are caught or not.

My long ago former boss's wife would have killed us both very dead, not that either of us would have slept with the other. But suppose for some reason, we did have sex and later he recommended me for that promotion. There was not necessarily any relationship between the two. How do I know? He promoted me without even the slightest hint of flirtation. I realize people would have assumed it was transactional on both our parts but it happened otherwise.

I have known plenty of men who wanted transactional sex, almost always from women. In my experience, attempting to capitalize on the relative power imbalance rarely works out well for either the man or woman regardless of sex acts performed or denied. In any case, so what if he decided to promote her because he liked her on a personal level? I will admit that I've gotten jobs and promotions because I was personally liked. And spent a year wondering when I would be fired until I could quit because the boss didn't like me. My job performance was not a question.

For almost the entirety of western civilization, men received jobs and promotions and won elections because they were men and quite often because they are white. White men were the pool. Period. Many, many, many times, it was because of who their daddy or grandfather or uncle was. The way to correct that bias is to avoid nepotism and the old boys club and to deliberately search for candidates that do not fall within the narrow confines of white/male. What a lot of white men believe would be fair: to just randomly chose a candidate without regard to gender or skin color is not exactly 'fair' when the pool of candidates mostly looks an awful lot like them and when they were born on third base while dark skinned female candidates are still waiting to get a chance at bat.

I realize that white men don't like this. They feel discriminated against. Not a great feeling, huh? Now imagine if white men could not safely walk to their car in a parking lot at night? Lost their jobs if they were about to become a parent? Were told they were less qualified because of what was between their legs instead of what was between their ears? Were constantly told that their achievements were only because of special treatment (which actually is true in the case of white men)?

 

[Toni]

Regardless of their basis, in each case the result is made up.

Wrong.

“Coulda” doesn’t count for a 30 It year okd incident with no recurrences.It reveals nothing about Mr Walz today.

And yet allegations of incidents from ~30 years ago were deemed highly relevant when the Left was attacking Kavanaugh about what allegedly happened when he was 17 years old (and not 31, like Walz). You can't have it both ways. In 2018, three decades old ancient history was deemed highly relevant to somebody's present day character by the Democratic Party.

A couple of differences: Walz's actions harmed no one except himself, although they could well have killed anyone in his path. It appears to have been a one time thing. He changed.

Kavanaugh was not 17 but was in college, harmed other people (multiple women) and denied having done it. I have no idea what his drinking habits are these days but he looks like he tosses them back pretty hard.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Bullshit. Leftists are all about race-based policies.

Certainly explains why leftists support things like "medicare for all" which means everyone regardless of race etc.

Race-based policies like so-called "affirmative action", which is about giving applicants of certain races or ethnicities a significant benefit over others.
Example: medical school admissions:
View attachment 47163

Can you summarize what you think this table is supposed to tell us?

 

[Rhea]

And yet here you are, mentioning it over and over and over and over and OVER again.

Only as an example of a double standards. And your (and others here) reaction proves my point.

It does not prove your point. You make much much much more noise than others even did about Jared Kushner, whose relationship was not with someone else, long ago, but was current and ongoing and getting huge positions of power and sums of money during the administration. So it is not an example. It’s you being relentless on your repetition.

So what, exactly, does “anathema” functionally change about what you do?

I wasn't censored (yet) if that's what you mean. But the reaction of the Ilk was quite apoplectic.

Discussing moderation is against the TOU. You should stop talking about it, and stick to what’s here in front of us. And that is that there is no “anathema” except that your opinion is unpopular because it is a hobby horse that does not merit space in the discussion. You are getting to say what you want within the TOU, and the only reaction you’re getting is disagreement.

Boo hoo?

Is this just someone complaining about not being popular while he makes assumptions about women’s sex lives and screeching endlessly about women making their own choices about who they sleep with?

Interestingly, it is the dominant part of the feminist left that does not think women should be able to make choices about who they sleep with as long as they do it for money.

And here’s your problem, derec.
You think all women, all left, are the same. So much so that you can’t even remember that most of the women you talk to here don’t object to sex work.

So it sounds monumentally self serving, bigoted and untrue for you to use as an excuse for your rant what people to whom you are not speaking have to say on the matter.

You can look through the record and find that you are painting all women with a single brush, and that is why your comments are so transparently falsifiable.

My objection is not her choosing to have sex with somebody. My objection is for one unethical trading of political positions.
Also, my point was to contrast how your Ilk finds made up stories about JDV's sex life acceptable or even laudable, while losing your shit about something KH actually did.

We’ve already covered how achingly wrong it is for you to consider us all one “ilk”. You end up insulting people who are your allies because we’re all the same to you. Dumb dumb dumb.

Of course it has already been shown how her appointment to these low-level positions as a young professional cannot be reasonably construed as having led to her current roles, and all the ones in the past, what 20+ years? Since she was elected to them. Let alone that it was a quid pro quo, which you only speculate, but assume since you assume all women are transactional and no relationshipo could be true that is about true affection. ALl of us the same as each other, right?

And people tell you that they think your opinion on the matter is warped and wrong.

People who are partisan hacks. People who are all over any story of sexual impropriety by a Republican, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth (as with JDV).

Again, your statement cries out to bigotry, since you can see in this very forum that I said I did NOT find the couch story to be something that should be repeated. But I’m just another woman, aren’t I, so you can assume to know what I think and feel? All women are one-dimensional to you?

Again, you insult your allies with the bigotry of the broad brush. We don’t even have individual personalities to you.

Can we end that loop now? Or is there a reason you need to repeat it again and again and again and again?

If not for y'alls reaction, it could have ended a long time ago.

Our reaction of telling you all the reasons your assumptions are unsupported and offensive in their endlessly repeated wrongness?

This is “you made me hit you”?

You’re making statements that have easily refutable conclusions. And that somehow becomes a reason to you to keep repeating them?

Why? Make it make sense.

What do you get out of that? Are you trying to make people disdain the woman you plan to vote for? Are you trying to get someone else to vote against nher so you can cleanse yourself of voting for her?

I was merely pointing out a double standard. Ideally your Ilk would stop rejoicing in spreading the false story about JDV.

And here you repeat your lumping of me, because I’m a woman, and therefore of a certain “ilk” to a position I do not hold and demonstrably refuted right here in this forum, in writing that you obviously did not process because when I write it’s all filtered through what you assume I will say instad of what I actually say? Because I’m one-dimensional to you and the same as every other women?

I am plumb flummoxed.

It does seem so. I hope I provided some clarification to straighten your plumb.

My plumb is still flummoxed by how intelligent people can choose to blind themselves to conversations they themselves are in. My plumb is still flummoxed how you can spend so much energy trying to denigrate, insult, undermine and disempower someone you plan to vote for and whom - presumably - you want to win the election based on her being the lesser evil. My plumb is still flummoxed watching you undermine your own cause; whether it is people who hold agreeing positions with you on some things or a presidential objective - again and again and again and again.

 

[pood]

Is poor Derec still yammering about Harris’s brief relationship with Willie Brown and a 30-year old DUI for Walz? It is really to laugh. From a supporter of a convicted rapist and a guy convicted of felony fraud. LOL.

 

[Ford]

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So far not a single woman of any color has been elected POTUS. Having Harris on the ticket was indeed ground breaking.

My problem is that Biden excluded anybody not of her gender or color from consideration. Just like he did for the SCOTUS seat. Just like Newsom did with his US Senate appointment.

I realize that to you, all male/female relationships are transactional, and that what men want from women is primarily sex and what women want from men is primarily money (or reasonable facsimile).

I did not say that. But even you must admit that there are many relationships that are transactional in that sense. Especially when we are dealing with an extreme age gap. And we have a transaction - he placed her on state boards. So it is highly likely that theirs was a transactional relationship in that sense.

Senior members of any team often advocate for future advancement of more junior members. I was given a promotion because my boss liked me and thought I had more potential. He was male, I was very young and probably at peak attractiveness but nope, not a hint of anything even close to attraction or transactional.

But had you slept with him, and he advocated for your future advancement, don't you think that it would have been transactional then?

He was nice and he was right. I was better in the next position than in the one I was hired for and indeed, was better suited as I moved up. People tend to recommend people they know for jobs and positions as they open up. Indeed, as a position opens up, those looking to hire someone usually ask if anyone knows anyone who would be suitable...

That is not in dispute here. Nobody is saying otherwise. It is the sexual relationship combined with him helping her political advancement that makes their relationship transactional with very high degree of certainty. Can we read their minds? No. But you would not demand that degree of certainty if it was JDV who slept with an older woman who placed him on state boards.

I am also vehemently against drunk driving. Driving 90 in a 50 is indeed awful, alcohol or no. People do stupid things when they are young or drunk or both.

Walz was 31. Not that young.

I realize that white men don't like this. They feel discriminated against. Not a great feeling, huh? Now imagine if white men could not safely walk to their car in a parking lot at night? Lost their jobs if they were about to become a parent? Were told they were less qualified because of what was between their legs instead of what was between their ears? Were constantly told that their achievements were only because of special treatment (which actually is true in the case of white men)?

Not all white men. I definitely got to take advantage of the white man dividend, but once long ago I was denied a job because I was a man. There was an on-air opening at the station where I was working, and the promotion always went to the most senior part-time person, which at the time was me. But the management wanted to replace the woman on that shift with another woman, so the least experienced person got the job over me. I didn't really feel discriminated against so much as I was angry that a person who hadn't put in the work and wasn't very good was given the job anyway. I sent an angry note to the program director, and he fired me because I "had an attitude problem."

Fast forward to today, and I wonder how Derec would feel if he were working in my department. My supervisor is a black woman. Her manager is a white woman. The head of the department is also a white woman, while the overall director of our part of the company is a gay Asian man. The President of the company's name is Mohammad, so you can probably make some inferences there. Upper management is still dominated by men (mostly white) but that is true across the tech industry. The annual report from our DEIB (the B stands for Belonging) department concluded that while we're doing better than many companies, we need to do more. This is derided as "woke" by the right wing, but to me, it just seems like the right thing to do.

As to the DUI, I can speak on that one as well. In 2016 I (and 9 other motorists) was hit by a drunk driver who was going around 90mph in traffic that was moving at maybe 35-40. Nobody was killed, but several people were hurt. When I got the sentencing report after the court proceedings were over, it turns out that the driver had a long record of minor offenses and was clearly someone whose 50-ish years of life on this rock had been beset with troubles. The plea deal gave him 9 months in prison along with years of probation and a permanently suspended license. Did he turn his life around? I don't know, but I'm doubtful. Changing bad behaviors later in life is difficult.

Contrast that with Walz, who took responsibility for his act almost immediately, offered to resign from his teaching job, apparently quit drinking, and became a model citizen of sorts. This is what we want people to do when they make a poor life choice like drunk driving. There's no excuse for getting behind the wheel drunk, but taking responsibility for one's actions and making a life change is the behavior we should be celebrating rather than pointing fingers and saying "that Tim Walz is a bad hombre."

The person at the top of the other ticket has made poor life choices for seven decades, and only now is he being held to account for at least some of them (the fraud, the sexual assault, and other crimes that the Supreme Court has said "well he was President, so maybe they're not crimes?" He is not going to turn his life around.

 

[TomC]

Because it's political corruption.

Bullshit.
Two very competent adults developed a mutually beneficial "friends with benefits" relationship. That's it.

The age part is probably the least important aspect. But the bottom line is that Harris' critics are having trouble coming up with criticism and grasping at straws.
Tom

ETA ~What I see going on there is that Brown was experienced enough to recognize excellence in Harris. She is smart, ambitious, and good looking.~

 

[pood]

Oh, so Derec, the supporter of the convicted felon fraudster and rapist, and the guy who is under indictment for stealing state secrets and trying to overturn a legitimate election, is worried about “political corruption, is he?

 

[laughing dog]

Regardless of their basis, in each case the result is made up.

Wrong. Q

In each case, the clsim is a guess - it is made up.

“Coulda” doesn’t count for a 30 It year okd incident with no recurrences.It reveals nothing about Mr Walz today.

And yet allegations of incidents from ~30 years ago were deemed highly relevant when the Left was attacking Kavanaugh about what allegedly happened when he was 17 years old (and not 31, like Walz). You can't have it both ways. In 2018, three decades old ancient history was deemed highly relevant to somebody's present day character by the Democratic Party.

Ignoring the difference between a victimless crime snd assault, that is a
whataboutism about “the Left” !!!!

Look, if you want to masquerade as a Magatard to vent your spleen on your hobby horse about “the Left”, don’t expect anyone to take those belches seriously.

 

[Elixir]

Ignoring the difference between a victimless crime snd assault, that is a
whataboutism about “the Left” !!!!

Never fear. It's weaksauce for sure. But the RW propaganda industry has vast quantities of it.

Oh, so Derec, the supporter of the convicted felon fraudster and rapist, and the guy who is under indictment for stealing state secrets and trying to overturn a legitimate election, is worried about “political corruption, is he?

Hey, Donald Trump warns that those lefties might try to hire some political hack as AG, and weaponize the DOJ to help with a coup or few do what HE did!

 

[Copernicus]

Who knows? Maybe the judge thought that the evidence was not strong enough to merit a long court battle and decided that the reckless driving charge would be sufficient to set him on a different path.

He blew 0.128. They had him dead to rights.

Unlike you, I don't know how "dead to rights" they had him, but I'm on record as saying that I think he was guilty of a DUI. I don't care that he escaped retribution for that specific crime, because I think the legal system was effective in changing his behavior at the age of 31. An awful lot of people drink and drive, especially young men, thinking that they don't risk killing themselves and others. My cousin died when he was a teenager, because he was in a car driven by another such young man who was driving recklessly, so I'm not trying to minimize the gravity of that crime. I think it fair to say that the Governor Walz of today is a very different man from the one who drank and drove in the mid-90s, so I won't judge him by the same standard that I would have back then.

As it turns out, that is what happened. Judge him by his behavior since that day over two decades ago.

Walz first came to my attention in 2020, when he didn't do much about the very violent riots tearing up Minneapolis. Then he released a child murderer because the mob demanded he do it.

That's all right wing claptrap. A panicked mayor urged him to send National Guard troops for help without specifying how many he wanted, where he wanted them to go, or what he expected them to do. So it took a while for the mayor to figure out that he needed to make a request with those details included. You don't just send in truckloads of soldiers with guns to put down a riot. It isn't just a battle between mobs, one side being better armed and trained than the other, to wade into the fray. You need to communicate a coherent need and have a plan of some kind.

Not that JDV is better, of course. I still plan to vote for Kamala and Walz as the lesser weevils, but I am not enthusiastic about the ticket.

I'm not surprised at your lack of enthusiasm, given your history of posts, but I applaud your choice. With people like you joining in to oppose the lesser weevils, how can we lose?

 

[pood]

That's all right wing claptrap. A panicked mayor urged him to send National Guard troops for help without specifying how many he wanted, where he wanted them to go, or what he expected them to do. So it took a while for the mayor to figure out that he needed to make a request with those details included. You don't just send in truckloads of soldiers with guns to put down a riot. It isn't just a battle between mobs, one side being better armed and trained than the other, to wade into the fray. You need to communicate a coherent need and have a plan of some kind.

Not only that, but a few days ago Trump was screaming about how Walz refused to send in the National Guard and that he, Trump, had to do it. The very next segment on the news broadcast for this story was an audio tape of Trump congratulating Walz in 2020 for sending in the Guard.

 

[Rhea]

Is poor Derec still yammering about Harris’s brief relationship with Willie Brown and a 30-year old DUI for Walz? It is really to laugh. From a supporter of a convicted rapist and a guy convicted of felony fraud. LOL.

For accuracy, Derec’s been crystal clear that he does not vote for Trump or want him to win - despite his actions constantly denigrating the Dem candidate resulting in potential votes for Trump.

 

[TSwizzle]

Walz first came to my attention in 2020, when he didn't do much about the very violent riots tearing up Minneapolis. Then he released a child murderer because the mob demanded he do it.

Not that JDV is better, of course. I still plan to vote for Kamala and Walz as the lesser weevils, but I am not enthusiastic about the ticket.

Walz could possibly be worse than insufferable prick Gavin Newsom.

I’ll take my chances with Trump over these authoritarian control freaks.

 

[Copernicus]

Walz first came to my attention in 2020, when he didn't do much about the very violent riots tearing up Minneapolis. Then he released a child murderer because the mob demanded he do it.

Not that JDV is better, of course. I still plan to vote for Kamala and Walz as the lesser weevils, but I am not enthusiastic about the ticket.

Walz could possibly be worse than insufferable prick Gavin Newsom.

I’ll take my chances with Trump over these authoritarian control freaks.

Thank you. You are a reliable indicator of the relative merits of these three gentlemen. Walz is clearly the best among them, but Gavin Newsom isn't bad. Donald Trump is to be avoided at all costs because of his authoritarian mindset.

 

[scombrid]

Walz first came to my attention in 2020, when he didn't do much about the very violent riots tearing up Minneapolis. Then he released a child murderer because the mob demanded he do it.

Not that JDV is better, of course. I still plan to vote for Kamala and Walz as the lesser weevils, but I am not enthusiastic about the ticket.

Walz could possibly be worse than insufferable prick Gavin Newsom.

I’ll take my chances with Trump over these authoritarian control freaks.

Doesn’t like authoritarians. Supports the Heritage Foundation. Makes sense.

 

[Derec]

A couple of differences: Walz's actions harmed no one except himself, although they could well have killed anyone in his path. It appears to have been a one time thing. He changed.

Oh, I agree that there are differences; just the opposite way from what you think.
As you said, could have killed somebody. DUI is no joke. It's not some "youthful indiscretion". He was already 30 and not a teenager.
But most importantly, there is evidence for what he did. He blew 0.128 and he copped to a plea deal.

Kavanaugh was not 17 but was in college,

For the "Garth" Blasey-Ford allegation, he was 17 and in high school. A second accuser came forward over a college party incident, yes. Neither one has any actual evidence. The college accuser (Ramirez) could not even be sure it was Kav who allegedly bared his Lil' Brett until she conferred with her lawyer.

harmed other people (multiple women)

There was no evidence for any of that.

and denied having done it.

So it's "he said, she said". Unlike the situation with Walz, where there is actual evidence of a crime having been committed.

I have no idea what his drinking habits are these days but he looks like he tosses them back pretty hard.

How would you even know?
And in either case, alcohol is neither illegal nor against judicial ethics.

So let's sum up. Two things, both 30 years in the past.
One was 31 year old, the other was a teenager, even in the alleged college incident.
One has physical evidence, the others have no evidence.

And yet you think the first is not a big deal, while the second should have scuttled Kav's nomination.
A blatant partisan double standard.

 

[TSwizzle]

Walz first came to my attention in 2020, when he didn't do much about the very violent riots tearing up Minneapolis. Then he released a child murderer because the mob demanded he do it.

Not that JDV is better, of course. I still plan to vote for Kamala and Walz as the lesser weevils, but I am not enthusiastic about the ticket.

Walz could possibly be worse than insufferable prick Gavin Newsom.

I’ll take my chances with Trump over these authoritarian control freaks.

Doesn’t like authoritarians. Supports the Heritage Foundation. Makes sense.

Nah, you just made that up.