sherpa

And Kamala Harris is none of that. A failed candidate. A nut cut from the San Francisco Democrat idiocy. Can't speak. Can't articulate basic themes. Has no basic knowledge of very important national interests, at home and abroad. Absolutely no knowledge/ experience in dealing with the military or anything related to that. That's just what she doesn't have. What she does "have" at least by her expressed views, is even worse. Capital gains. Corporate tax rates. Estate taxes. Goodness. Simply the least informed, worst candidate ever.

I am extremely familiar with the Fed. There is nearly always conflict between the executive and the independant fed. Fed governors and ex governors are interviewed constantly. It's one of the few things left that works.

No offense, but absolutely not true. The independant Fed and the Supreme Court have proven remarkably capable of not bowing to political influence. Regan vs Paul Volker is the best example. Presidents are always going to want lower rates, but the Fed has a dual mandate, and neither of those goals is political.

Crazy to think that the US can finance 33 trillion in debt and run up 2 trillion/year budget deficit by instituting some wacky new policy that makes investment in US Treasuries less appealing. "You can buy dollar denominated debt, but we're going to somehow limit your ability to sell what you bought and own." Just simply dumb.

Is this comforting to anyone?

"So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to a bigger country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country, called Ukraine. So, basically, that's wrong." Good Lord, how could anyone take this woman seriously?.

We have laws regarding this. We have entire federal gov employees resposible for enforcing those laws. They are not doing that. What has this woman ever done of any value to this country? She is a total goof.

If this is some silly attempt to suggest the carry trade is responsible for market action today, that suggestion is absolutely preposterous, and anyone who suggests it, should be removed from any financial discussion.

Just wondering. I believe that that Harris is delaying her naming of her VP candidate intentionally. Not that I care, because I think that she is the worst candidate ever puked up for national office. But.....On a day that the market is tanking and Iran may finally act against Israel, the silly Dem party probably doesn't want a coming our for VP. Not a media positive day, which she has, without any deserved accomplishments, gotten used to I've grown skeptical with reason, but I can't stand that group.

Not bad for Univ. of Virginia swim team members. UVA women's team captured 11 medals in this Olympics. 5 gold. 5 silver. 1 bronze.

But she like yellow school busses and venn diagrams, so let's have her run the country, propose valuable tax policy, manage our military, head our foreign relations efforts and bring us all together as one. Simply the worst candidate for that office ever.

No. You misspelled misspelled.

Place an S&P graphic over an Kamala Harris election possibility.

I'll make it simple. Kamal Harris hasn't ever done anything to suggest she is in the least way competent to serve as President. A few months ago she was the least admired/approved official at the national level. She is also dumb.

I hate quoting these things that have imbedded videos, because I can't stand them in the quote. If I could eliminate them, I would. But.... Have you ever lived in the San Francisco Bay area? Do you know how meaningless it is to get elected as a Democrat there? There is no point in running against them. You know how Pelosi got so powerful? I'll tell you. It isn't 'cause she is talented or smart. It's because she had no Republican competition, and she was able to donate those massive Silicon Valley contributions to other Dems. Thus her popularity. Noting merit based. She wasn't/isn't smart or talented. I have voted on this once with the strongest vote you can possibly make. My wife and I agreed that we didn't want to raise our kids there, although we had lived there for years and got married in the Navy Chapel on Yerba Buena, which is an anchor island for the Bay Bridge. Can't get any more Bay Area than that. I loved the area and I never wanted to leave, but as things got crazier and crazier, it was a family decision. A few weeks after we left, we had dinner in San Francisco and went to the Cliff House after. The Cliff House overlooked the Pacific and it was a perfect evening. I am not a drinker, so I gave my wife the keys and ordered a scotch. Looking over the Pacific I asked her if she thought giving this up was a mistake. She said that if family/kids were in the calculus, there was no decision. Best for us. I cannot stand these San Francisco Democrats, nor they people like me.

I have no interest in her gender or her race, or the potential Jewish faith of a potential running mate. I will not vote for her because she is the single worst candidate for president I have ever seen. Nothing credible on her resume. Anti energy. Anti business. Anti Israel. Border is on her resume. No credibility in international issues. Absolutely clueless re the military. Total sum is that she is a typical San Francisco Dem., and that is a losing background.

Mossad has much more capability and success in human intel in the middle east. The US relies on signal intel as we don't have near the capability on the ground, because we can't get anybody to live there and develop connections. Mossad is much more motivated, in my view, because they know they are threatened with destruction every day. The US doesn't have that capability or motivation, and is not as effective.

We had a financial crisis based on mortgage failures, and complete distrust in the value of securities relating to that. We don't have that now.

Charity should not be suicide. It is Christian and honorable to take care of people who are in immediate need. It is as important to demand that the countries they live in are responsible enough to not force them to emigrate. It is not sustainable or desirable to allow an escape path for a failed government. These things need to be fixed internally.

It did not go over my head. Absent an internal revolt, which has been tried and never gathered the momentum necessary to bring it home, regime change will not happen. The US has supported at least three opposition candidates. They have never gotten the necessary traction to take the thing over the top. It is up to the Venezuelan people to decide that enough is enough. What they need is a leader to focus on. The US would support that in a minute. It would be stupid, wasteful and in the long term, destructive to both sides for a direct US intervention. The ball is in the Venezuelan opposition court. So far, they haven't gotten over the hump.

Been there about 30 times. Seen it up front and through the eyes of our people who lived there. Probably doesn't satisfy your standards, but I'm quite OK with that limitation. Have you been there? Know anybody who lives there? Talked to anybody at the US diplomatic mission assigned there? When you have, we can have an informed discussion. Toll then, you're an uniuformed ass.

I'm not sure what your point is, but the US has no interest in limiting Venezuelan exports, nor in expending US military force to end the regime. What I do know, as someone who follows the oil industry, is that their numbers are grossly inflated. Same as their economic data, which they gave up reporting as it was universally regarded as fictional. I spent a fair amount of time there during the Chavez regime, and the initial part of Maduro, and saw it up front. Simply pathetic, but at times funny, at least the Chavez stuff. Funniest nonsense on billboards and TV that I've ever witnessed. I am quite familiar with their gov's pilferage of foreign monetary assets, their courting of Tehran, their supporting of Havana, and their attempt to undermine democratic reform in Colombia and other South American countries, who eventually dis-invited them. I am also aware of US military monitoring of their goings on from friends who were involved.

Now I'm really sure I don't know what you suggest. Who is crossing another border? Venezuela's petro industry is destroyed. They have plenty or resources internally that they are unable to develop without Guyana. Further, Maduro didn't intentionally tank the Venezuelan economy. Chavez appointed his cronies to run it and they failed miserably, as socialists running businesses always do. Whatever, this is on the Venezuelan population. No reason to expend UDS blood or sweat, other than not letting their refugees in. They choose to live under this regime. Not the US' responsibility to bail them out for that choice.

I don't think Guyana matters. We don't need oil anymore. Unless Biden/Harris backtrack to previously proclaimed and abandoned stupidity, it doesn't matter.

I give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you are an honest, thoughtful poster. But to claim Bush? Nonsense. Explain. There seems to be a theme underpinning what you have posted in this thread that I think is erroneous. We would be stupid, and it would be wrong, to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries unless they threaten us. Nor do we have the assets to defend the Western Pacific, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Med, and then do something in South America. We don't "need" to do anything about Venezuela. We simply need to develop our energy resources to limit whatever limited influence they have, and police our borders so that folks opposed to that wacky regime don't have an easy out, and eventually do something internally.