Poll Dem VP Pic: your choice?

[pood]

Of course, that happened some 30 years ago, and by all accounts he completely reformed and hasn’t touched a drop again.

"Not touching a drop again" does not fill me with confidence. It shows a weak man, one that doesn't trust himself to drink responsibly. I do not have to lay off alcohol completely to know not to drive drunk.

Now you’re a doctor in addition to a pundit? If he really had a problem with alcohol, the consensus medical opinion seems to be to say clean and sober, which means no alcohol ever. But you know best I guess, about this “weak man” who is a retired U.S. Army NCO, a former school teacher and football coach, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the current governor of Minnesota and Democratic vice presidential nominee who has had a stable and loving marriage for 30 years and is raising two kids. What a weak record, of a weak man! Say, what is YOUR record in life?

And that was only the first of the poor decisions on my list.

That’s why you are supporting [Trump]

I don't.

Riiiiiiiiight ….

 

[laughing dog]

Who among us has never made a mistake?

I for one have not driven drunk. And note, to get caught with a DUI, he most likely has driven many times in similar state of inebriation.

. BS. Why do you feel the need to make up mire petty reasons to smear someone who made a mistake 30 years ago?
And even if your conjecture is true, so what? He stopped 30 years ago. You’d have a point if it had occurred in the past 5 years or so. But it didn’t, so you will forgive the posters sho think your analysis in this matter is either silly or malicious smearing. It is something a church ladywohkd bring up

I guess part of my opposition to Walz is that Shapiro was done dirty.

Unless you have evidence Walz had something with it, you are attacking an innocent bystander for the misdeeds of others.

He lied about his DUI when he ran for Congress.

Did he or did a staffer? You got a link to support your claim?

You claim you will vote for the Harris Walz ticket. So what if you can find petty and frankly dumbass nitpicks about the VP pick because your preferred candidate wasn’t chosen? Are you under the impression it will somehow change the choice?

Focusing on the inevitable petty examples of “poor judgment “ about Walz while studiously avoiding ferreting out and trumpeting the inevitable petty examples of poor judgment by other candidates in other threads, you end up appearing like a witless partisan rather than an informed citizen who is truly concerned about the pressing issues facing our nation and the world.

 

[Rhea]

Not personally, no, but palling around with extremist, Hitler-supporting imam shows poor judgment. That's Walz in a nutshell. Poor judgment. Just like his boss.

Derec, I truly feel for your anguish. It must be an internal battle royale to vote for people you despise so much. I’m glad to have your vote, of course, don’t get me wrong, but I really do feel for you how painful it is to give it.

 

[Derec]

"Done dirty"? Sounds like an exaggeration. Shapiro checked a number of boxes and had EV cred. Walz checked a number of boxes and had wider EV cred.

He is also more acceptable to the anti-Israel crowd.
An ‘uncommitted’ delegate finds hope in Tim Walz

First, we’re really relieved that [Pennsylvania Gov. Josh] Shapiro wasn’t the pick. He’s a former [Israel Defense Forces] volunteer, and beyond that, had taken some really hard lines against the First Amendment with protesters and student protesters who wanted their voices heard.
Gov. Walz has been a big supporter of Israel, [but] he also had some nice things to say about the “uncommitted” movement, about these are people who are a part of the party, and they also deserve to be heard.
[...]
So to me Walz is a movable target. I think that we can elicit some more wins from him.

That article doesn't support your claim. Based on the tea leaves, it looked like it was going to be Shapiro whose stock rose a bit out of no where.

I disagree that Shapiro's stock rose out of nowhere. He would have been a logical pick. A popular and moderate governor of a battleground state. Knows how to get shit done. Would "fix" some of the deficiencies that Kamala Harris has as a candidate.
I also think it is obvious that the hard left did not want him, and that Kamala Harris is not exactly known for standing up to the hard left. She is more comfortable courting them.

Much like Walz's did. But they went with the Midwest flair which might have wider electoral benefits.

Now, Walz did rise out of nowhere after his "weird" quip. And the 'flair" is one of the things that irks me about the choice. Kamala's campaign is way too much about "vibes" as it is. Kamala is brat. You did not fall out of a coconut tree. Now she is relying on vibes and flair around Walz as "midwestern dad" as opposed to any substance.

For fuck sakes, most people don't even know who Walz was, much less "Fauxgressives". If he was so popular among "fauxgressives" why wasn't he on the list?

Politics buffs knew who he was. I knew who he was. But you are right in that the fauxgressives really latched onto him once he became better known after his "weird" quip.

Kelly

• Pros
  • Awesome pedigree
  • Ari-fucking-zona EVs!
• Cons
  • poor speaker
  • Senate seat a great risk

Can't disagree with any of that.

Shapiro

• Pros
  • Popular in PA, but not ridiculously popular
  • Speaks well
  • PA EV's likely
• Cons
  • East coast marxist paired with a west coast Marxist
  • Not particularly well known

Marxist? Shapiro is a moderate, from a purple state. He would have actually balanced Kami's ticket.

Walz

• Pros
  • Midwestern and connects with people
  • Midwest vibe helps with MI, WI EVs
  • Midwest vibe breaks up 'out of touch coastal Marxist' bs
• Cons
  • Not particularly well known
  • Already have MN EV's, if his selection doesn't work with WI and MI, didn't pay off

I doubt he will be very helpful getting Kami over the top in MI or WI. She might win those states, but then again she might have won them with other running mates too. MN is solidly blue, so that doesn't matter.
And note you mentioning "vibes". It's all about "vibes" with him. He is supposed to be "vibing" as a moderate because he is from the Midwest, never mind that MN is a solidly blue state and never mind Walz' actual record as a governor.

 

[Derec]

Derec, I truly feel for your anguish. It must be an internal battle royale to vote for people you despise so much. I’m glad to have your vote, of course, don’t get me wrong, but I really do feel for you how painful it is to give it.

It is hard. Against anybody other than Trump, I would not be voting for these two brats.

 

[Derec]

I for one have not driven drunk. And note, to get caught with a DUI, he most likely has driven many times in similar state of inebriation.

. BS. Why do you feel the need to make up mire petty reasons to smear someone who made a mistake 30 years ago?

How is it BS? The chances of getting caught drunk driving are <<1, which means that anybody busted for DUI has probably driven that way many times.
FBI: Average drunk driver has driven drunk more than 80 times before first arrest

And even if your conjecture is true, so what? He stopped 30 years ago.

He did not just fall out of a coconut tree at 60 years old. He exists in the context of everything he has done before.
And again, your Ilk has attacked Kavanaugh for what he allegedly did 30 years before at 17 years old. I think what Walz actually did 30 years ago at the age of 30 is far more relevant.

You’d have a point if it had occurred in the past 5 years or so. But it didn’t, so you will forgive the posters sho think your analysis in this matter is either silly or malicious smearing.

If only the Left was consistent about the 5 year rule, we could have saved ourselves that awkward Senate hearing in 2018. Or the lawsuits about what some hack writer alleged happened in a Bergdorf changing room around the same time as the Walz DUI.

It is something a church ladywohkd bring up

What? ladywohkd?

Unless you have evidence Walz had something with it, you are attacking an innocent bystander for the misdeeds of others.

I did not say he had something to do with it, but he is the beneficiary of it.
And a lackluster choice for running mate who is not really complementing Kami well.

Did he or did a staffer? You got a link to support your claim?

It was the campaign. The buck stops with the candidate.

You claim you will vote for the Harris Walz ticket. So what if you can find petty and frankly dumbass nitpicks about the VP pick because your preferred candidate wasn’t chosen? Are you under the impression it will somehow change the choice?

I am just venting. Just because I will begrudgingly vote for the lesser weevils, does not mean that I can't or shouldn't criticize them.

Focusing on the inevitable petty examples of “poor judgment “ about Walz while studiously avoiding ferreting out and trumpeting the inevitable petty examples of poor judgment by other candidates in other threads, you end up appearing like a witless partisan rather than an informed citizen who is truly concerned about the pressing issues facing our nation and the world.

These are not "petty examples". They are pretty glaring lapses of judgment. Dismissing them makes you appear like a "witless partisan".

 

[Derec]

Now you’re a doctor in addition to a pundit? If he really had a problem with alcohol, the consensus medical opinion seems to be to say clean and sober, which means no alcohol ever.

I will give you that. If he is an actual alcoholic, then he should stay away.

But you know best I guess, about this “weak man” who

... did not stand up to the 2020 mob when they destroyed businesses in Minneapolis and took over territory for over a year. He also did not stand up to them when they demanded that he free the child murderer Myon Burrell.

Say, what is YOUR record in life?

Am I running for Veep?

Riiiiiiiiight ….

Right! I don't have to support Trump to be able to criticize Harris/Walz when appropriate.

 

[laughing dog]

I for one have not driven drunk. And note, to get caught with a DUI, he most likely has driven many times in similar state of inebriation.

. BS. Why do you feel the need to make up mire petty reasons to smear someone who made a mistake 30 years ago?

How is it BS? The chances of getting caught drunk driving are <<1, which means that anybody busted for DUI has probably driven that way many times.

Ignoring that the estimate is unmeasurable in any meaningful sense, what makes you think Mr Walz was an average drunk driver?

He did not just fall out of a coconut tree at 60 years old. He exists in the context of everything he has done before.
And again, your Ilk has attacked Kavanaugh for what he allegedly did 30 years before at 17 years old. I think what Walz actually did 30 years ago at the age of 30 is far more relevant.

I did no such thing. So please stop with this ilk bs.

If only the Left was consistent about the 5 year rule, we could have saved ourselves that awkward Senate hearing in 2018. Or the lawsuits about what some hack writer alleged happened in a Bergdorf changing room around the same time as the Walz DUI.

Sexual assault is a much more serious offense than DUI. While I think something that happened at 17 years old is problematic in assessing the character of an adult 30 years later, it is a double standard for you to deny it points to character. And are you seriously saying Kavanaugh’s treatment justifies your pettiness?

It was the campaign. The buck stops with the candidate.

So you knowingly misrepresented his actions. Didn’t he correct his staffer’s error/lie?

I am just venting. Just because I will begrudgingly vote for the lesser weevils, does not mean that I can't or shouldn't criticize them.

I didn’t suggest otherwise. But criticism on substantive issues is more convincing.

These are not "petty examples". They are pretty glaring lapses of judgment. You dismissing them make you appear as a "witless partisan".

No, I appear as an normal adult, not some prudish churchlady.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Not personally, no, but palling around with extremist, Hitler-supporting imam shows poor judgment. That's Walz in a nutshell. Poor judgment. Just like his boss.

Derec, I truly feel for your anguish. It must be an internal battle royale to vote for people you despise so much. I’m glad to have your vote, of course, don’t get me wrong, but I really do feel for you how painful it is to give it.

Yea, these arguments against Walz are pretty damn weak. Nothing burgers...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Done dirty"? Sounds like an exaggeration. Shapiro checked a number of boxes and had EV cred. Walz checked a number of boxes and had wider EV cred.

He is also more acceptable to the anti-Israel crowd.
An ‘uncommitted’ delegate finds hope in Tim Walz

Anti-Semites aren't a particularly large voting bloc for the Democrats. If you appreciated much in the way of demographics for US Elections, the Democrats need turnout among their base and support among those living in the suburb. These are the people the Democrats give the most care and make critical decisions based on.

You keep waving this flag of Anti-Semitism, but the reality is, the Anti-Semites were marching after Trump won his election. Some of them storming the US Capitol Building.

There are certainly Anti-Semitic folk that vote Democrat, but it isn't base the Democrats are reaching out to.

That article doesn't support your claim. Based on the tea leaves, it looked like it was going to be Shapiro whose stock rose a bit out of no where.

I disagree that Shapiro's stock rose out of nowhere. He would have been a logical pick. A popular and moderate governor of a battleground state. Knows how to get shit done. Would "fix" some of the deficiencies that Kamala Harris has as a candidate.

I provided reasons why he was a good pick already. I was responding to the claim of him having a high stock value, which did appear out of no where. Not as no where as Walz, but Shapiro wasn't he obvious choice when it appeared Harris was going to be running.

I also think it is obvious that the hard left did not want him, and that Kamala Harris is not exactly known for standing up to the hard left. She is more comfortable courting them.

And you keep thinking the far left has any sway in the Democrat Party. The Democrats can't go far left, the suburbs would shift to the GOP so hard, it'd be detectable on a seismograph.

Much like Walz's did. But they went with the Midwest flair which might have wider electoral benefits.

Now, Walz did rise out of nowhere after his "weird" quip. And the 'flair" is one of the things that irks me about the choice. Kamala's campaign is way too much about "vibes" as it is. Kamala is brat. You did not fall out of a coconut tree. Now she is relying on vibes and flair around Walz as "midwestern dad" as opposed to any substance.

Yes, think of politics like professional wrestling. You never quite know what is going to click. And Walz clicked. He is the VP nominee. The VP nominee to is enhance the ticket, connect to a particular demographic or set of demographics and hopefully secure EVs in a state or region. Walz is a Governor. A good Governor. He served in the National Guard for over two decades. He was a teacher. This idea that Walz has no substance is entirely fictional.

For fuck sakes, most people don't even know who Walz was, much less "Fauxgressives". If he was so popular among "fauxgressives" why wasn't he on the list?

Politics buffs knew who he was. I knew who he was.

You knew who he was because of a black riot in Minnesota. Not because you are in tuned to Minnesota politics.

Kelly

• Pros
  • Awesome pedigree
  • Ari-fucking-zona EVs!
• Cons
  • poor speaker
  • Senate seat a great risk

Can't disagree with any of that.

Shapiro

• Pros
  • Popular in PA, but not ridiculously popular
  • Speaks well
  • PA EV's likely
• Cons
  • East coast marxist paired with a west coast Marxist
  • Not particularly well known

Marxist? Shapiro is a moderate, from a purple state. He would have actually balanced Kami's ticket.

Sure, that is EXACTLY what the GOP would have said.

Walz

• Pros
  • Midwestern and connects with people
  • Midwest vibe helps with MI, WI EVs
  • Midwest vibe breaks up 'out of touch coastal Marxist' bs
• Cons
  • Not particularly well known
  • Already have MN EV's, if his selection doesn't work with WI and MI, didn't pay off

I doubt he will be very helpful getting Kami over the top in MI or WI. She might win those states, but then again she might have won them with other running mates too. MN is solidly blue, so that doesn't matter.
And note you mentioning "vibes". It's all about "vibes" with him. He is supposed to be "vibing" as a moderate because he is from the Midwest, never mind that MN is a solidly blue state and never mind Walz' actual record as a governor.

Yes, I already noted all of this in the Cons section. Why are you repeating it?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Not personally, no, but palling around with extremist, Hitler-supporting imam shows poor judgment. That's Walz in a nutshell. Poor judgment. Just like his boss.

Derec, I truly feel for your anguish. It must be an internal battle royale to vote for people you despise so much. I’m glad to have your vote, of course, don’t get me wrong, but I really do feel for you how painful it is to give it.

Yea, these arguments against Walz are pretty damn weak. Nothing burgers...

Keep hitting him with enough and it can raise doubt as to his honesty in general.
I think the best counter is what can be seen in the Political Humor section: just pile on with more and make a joke out of it, like Coach Walz told his players to give 110%.

 

[starwater]

Not personally, no, but palling around with extremist, Hitler-supporting imam shows poor judgment. That's Walz in a nutshell. Poor judgment. Just like his boss.

Derec, I truly feel for your anguish. It must be an internal battle royale to vote for people you despise so much. I’m glad to have your vote, of course, don’t get me wrong, but I really do feel for you how painful it is to give it.

Yea, these arguments against Walz are pretty damn weak. Nothing burgers...

Keep hitting him with enough and it can raise doubt as to his honesty in general.
I think the best counter is what can be seen in the Political Humor section: just pile on with more and make a joke out of it, like Coach Walz told his players to give 110%.

I'm not sure this poster has ever visited the humor section of this forum. Its all black and white. No gray, no humor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except, of course, government spending that Derec likes.

I still do not pretend that it is "free".

Great. Children are an economic liability in industrial society, and this childless person will gladly support taxes to finance the next generation.

You would have a great point if US did not already have plenty of subsidies for having children, both direct (TANF, existing child tax credit, EITC which is really a child tax credit in disguise) and indirect (free K-12 education, healthcare, WIC, SNAP, Section 8) subsidies for having children.
Why keep ratcheting it up more and more? All it does is screw over taxpayers with no children such as myself.

Some other rotating villain might emerge, however. But while the loss of Joe Manchin will make things more awkward in the Senate, I don't miss Kyrsten Sinema one bit. I can half-understand where JM is coming from, but KS is another story entirely. What a traitorous backstabber.

You call them "villains", I call them heroes.
Say what you will about Sinema, but Gallego will surely be a pushover for whatever multitrillion dollar Spendapalooza Kami proposes.

In the long run what we pay for raising children is neutral--because we were once a child. Think of it as a loan in childhood that we repay as adults.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course, it is most unlikely that Walz was aware of the 2015 post or the controversy surrounding it. He was simply praising a Muslim host at an event he was attending, and he thought the imam's sermon was good. There is nothing in Walz's background to suggest he has sympathy for antisemitic causes or feels solidarity with Hamas. That is all just part of a partisan smear campaign that has been resurrected from Republican attacks on his gubernatorial run.

The point is that, just like his new boss, Walz shows poor judgment. He showed poor judgment when he drove plastered, he showed poor judgment when he lied about it when running for Congress. This is just another instance of him exhibiting very poor judgment.

Nothing Walz has done is anywhere near as bad as The Felon or Vance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

His praise for the Imam did not make him antisemitic or pro-terrorist, despite your efforts to hype the Republican spin from his old campaign for governor. Your arguments against him and Harris are really flimsy.

Fundamentally, Democrats tend to go too far in favoring jaw, jaw vs bang, bang. But Republicans tend to go too far in favoring bang, bang over jaw, jaw.

 

[Copernicus]

His praise for the Imam did not make him antisemitic or pro-terrorist, despite your efforts to hype the Republican spin from his old campaign for governor. Your arguments against him and Harris are really flimsy.

Fundamentally, Democrats tend to go too far in favoring jaw, jaw vs bang, bang. But Republicans tend to go too far in favoring bang, bang over jaw, jaw.

What if they just combine the two and have jaw-dropping gunfights? They could make a Hollywood movie of it.

 

[Toni]

Who among us has never made a mistake?

I for one have not driven drunk. And note, to get caught with a DUI, he most likely has driven many times in similar state of inebriation. Which was 0.128% when measured, but obviously higher when he was stopped and even higher than that when he started driving. >0.15% surely.

He is also running for 2nd position in land, one heartbeat away from presidency. Excuse me if I have higher standards for him that I would for some random barfly.
The same goes for all the other poor decisions he has made.

Why are so many of your posts so negative? Why not look at a person's entire life and the contributions they've made, instead of dwelling on a few mistakes they may have made over the course of their lives.

I guess part of my opposition to Walz is that Shapiro was done dirty.
Progressives sound alarm as Shapiro VP stock rises


Harris caved to the far left that was opposed to Shapiro and also advocated for Walz. He wasn't on the short list, he wasn't even in the poll in this thread. He was picked because a) fauxgressives like him and b) because his "weird" quip fits well into the substance -free "vibes and memes" campaign Kamala has been running so far. Weird. Kamala is brat. Coconut trees. Is that really what the Democratic Party is now?

Have you never made a mistake in your life?

None as serious as his. And I am not running for Veep.

If we look at some of the other people who are candidates or are in office, we often see obvious criminal like behavior, lies, disregard for others, hypocrisy, incompetence etc. while never admitting they are wrong.

Compare Walz with others who were in the running for Kami's running mate. Shapiro, Kelly, Basheer etc. None had "obvious criminal behavior, lies" and other epithets you are throwing around here. And all of them, esp. Shapiro would have been a better choice.
Walz is also the most left-wing of those picks. That signals that Harris-Walz ticket is not interested in moving to the center. And the few policy proposals she announced - price controls, even more child tax credits than Biden, taxing unrealized capital gains etc. are from the Left's wish list.

I'm not going to worry about a good person who may have used bad judgement a few times in the past, and has admitted he's been wrong at times.

He lied about his DUI when he ran for Congress.

It takes a mature adult to do that. I prefer to vote for people who are mature and have gained wisdom via their experiences in life, both positive and negative. Just sayin'.

And you do not think Shapiro is mature enough?

I will confess that I really did hope that she’d choose Shapiro. I did not see that Walz added a great deal to the ticket.

I will further confess that I was dead wrong. Walz has proven to be an extremely good campaign partner to Harris, aside from the fact that he is an excellent antithesis to both Trump and Vance. He comes across as being a very average good guy—someone you’d be happy to be your kids’ teacher or coach or your elderly mother’s next door neighbor. Or yours.

IMO, character counts every bit as much as does experience. In Walz, we have someone who has both excellent character and a lot of very good experience. Plus a very good on screen personality. He’s proven himself to be unflappable, with a very quick wit and the ability to connect well with voters on camera and in person. Yes, that matters! I realize that’s uncomfortable for people who are introverted or socially awkward or who are on the high functioning end of Asperger’s but LOT of being a successful politician involves being able to form good working relationships with other people, on your team and from different walks of life and in different t positions—and different t countries and cultures than your own.

No doubt Harris is an extremely bright abd accomplished politician. Her biggest fault, imo, is that until she went campaigning with Walz, it was much harder to see her warmer, very human side. If I am reading her correctly, she has a tendency to over think. Her education and training and work are very much all about details. She does have a strong vision for the country. She is not as good at connecting with the masses on television/screens. I would bet that she’s a natural introvert. Walz helps with that. It is easy to see how much Walz has helped her to relax and show her own personality, rather than just wonky policy stuff.

That’s an actual skill and a valuable one. It helps you to connect with people you work with, yes. It also helps you form a relationship with people who may be your adversaries, and allow you to find common ground, where to agree, where to compromise. Where there is connection, progress towards goals, shared or not, can be made.

This is what leadership is.

OTOH, Vance seems stiff, out of touch and unpleasantly awkward. I don’t think he has a clear idea of who he is. He is not comfortable in his own skin, or at least working in partnership with Trump. On one hand, that is not hard to understand. Trump’s entire personality seems to be entirely transactional. Looking back just a few years, Vance was vehemently opposed to everything Trump stands for. Now, he’s his running made. That’s some pro-level submission of self. And extremely unhealthy.

The last thing we need is two mentally unwell individuals in or near the Oval Office.

 

[Elixir]

That’s some pro-level submission of self. And extremely unhealthy.

Yup. A great predictor of inhumanity.