Make Your Prediction Now! Who Will Biden's VP?

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

They don't need progressives to fall in line. Absolute best case they're only about 35% of the party and even then most of them are just voyeurs in progressive politics. Most of them will fall in line. The 10% or so that won't aren't needed to win Dem strongholds. I wouldn't be shocked if they win every battleground state by appealing to republicans who hate Trump, but in my book that's what Biden was for. They didn't need to pick a second conservative in Harris. They could have selected a progressive to appease the left, and hid them behind Biden and they would have had the same result, except for what happens after the election.

 

Biden does need the progressives.

Without them he's  toast.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

That tweet is from the same day as the fake assault.  Are you suggesting she was in on it or should have smelled a hoax before the first cursory reports hit the wire?  Weak.

 

She is on the call logs to Kim Foxx. She was involved. Deeply. Facts are stubborn things.

 

**************************

 

 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

She is on the call logs to Kim Foxx. She was involved. Deeply. Facts are stubborn things.

She was deeply involved in what?  

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

She was deeply involved in what?  

 

The media assault pumping an obvious hoax. She was involved in putting pressure on the city of Chicago to do something about it, hence the record of calls to Kim Foxx. She also has known Jussie for a long time. She's dirty, J. It's her MO.

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The media assault pumping an obvious hoax. She was involved in putting pressure on the city of Chicago to do something about it, hence the record of calls to Kim Foxx. She also has known Jussie for a long time. She's dirty, J. It's her MO.

And you have evidence that she did so with knowledge of Jussie's plans to commit a hoax for public attention?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

**************************************

 

45 hitting her hard right now.

Just now, Jauronimo said:

And you have evidence that she did so with knowledge of Jussie's plans to commit a hoax for public attention?

 

Like I said, she's on the call logs to Foxx during that time. This was released by the city of Chicago and the DOJ. She also has a close personal relationship with the guy who faked it and was one of the first national voices to push this issue. Whether she knew it was fake or not is secondary, she was deeply involved with inflaming the situation to her own benefit -- then never said boo after it was exposed to be fake.

 

Calling that out, with what we know about what actually happened now (that it was a complete hoax) is fair game. It's a VERY bad look for her. Why defend something that's indefensible? 

 

********************************************

 

 

She's a beacon of honesty and truth, @Jauronimo  

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

That tweet is from the same day as the fake assault.  Are you suggesting she was in on it or should have smelled a hoax before the first cursory reports hit the wire?  Weak.

Hmm, I'd normally agree with you on this sort of thing. 

 

However, she's a former prosecutor with a tremendous amount of experience dealing with crime.  The fact pattern as alleged was questionable at best, preposterous at worst.   She jumped immediately to conclusions, she characterized and stated emphatically what had occurred and ended up looking like a fool.  When you factor in that she had access to the folks that were investigating the alleged crime and fact pattern, she was either part of the problem or at a minimum, duped by the Hollywood equivalent of a carnival barker.  

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hmm, I'd normally agree with you on this sort of thing. 

 

However, she's a former prosecutor with a tremendous amount of experience dealing with crime.  The fact pattern as alleged was questionable at best, preposterous at worst.   She jumped immediately to conclusions, she characterized and stated emphatically what had occurred and ended up looking like a fool.  When you factor in that she had access to the folks that were investigating the alleged crime and fact pattern, she was either part of the problem or at a minimum, duped by the Hollywood equivalent of a carnival barker.  

 

 

 

100%

 

Either way, it's an incident that proves she's A) not a serious person and B) unqualified for the position.

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

That's the only pick that would swing anything for Joe. 

 

But she won't do it. 

 

Makes me wonder if the 'accidental' release of a pre-written article about Creepy Joe's pick of Harris about 2 weeks ago wasn't intentional to gauge interest and try to swing/leverage a better running mate like Michelle Obama.

[Jauronimo]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

**************************************

 

45 hitting her hard right now.

 

Like I said, she's on the call logs to Foxx during that time. This was released by the city of Chicago and the DOJ. She also has a close personal relationship with the guy who faked it and was one of the first national voices to push this issue. Whether she knew it was fake or not is secondary, she was deeply involved with inflaming the situation to her own benefit -- then never said boo after it was exposed to be fake.

 

Calling that out, with what we know about what actually happened now (that it was a complete hoax) is fair game. It's a VERY bad look for her. Why defend something that's indefensible? 

What is indefensible about a tweet sent 12 hours after the "assault" expressing concern about a friend and condemning hatred?  

 

 

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hmm, I'd normally agree with you on this sort of thing. 

 

However, she's a former prosecutor with a tremendous amount of experience dealing with crime.  The fact pattern as alleged was questionable at best, preposterous at worst.   She jumped immediately to conclusions, she characterized and stated emphatically what had occurred and ended up looking like a fool.  When you factor in that she had access to the folks that were investigating the alleged crime and fact pattern, she was either part of the problem or at a minimum, duped by the Hollywood equivalent of a carnival barker.  

 

 

What facts were publicly available at 3PM January 29th mere hours after the hoax? 

 

Jussie made a lot of people look like fools.  His actions were heinous.  

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

What is indefensible about a tweet sent 12 hours after the "assault" expressing concern about a friend and condemning hatred?  

 

 

That she never walked it back or apologized even after the facts were known. It shows her true motivations, it’s purely selfish for her and not about “the cause”. She’s a partisan first and foremost, one who pushes the toxic swill of identity politics at the expense of truth. 
 

It’s who she is. It’s what she stands for — herself and nothing more. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

What is indefensible about a tweet sent 12 hours after the "assault" expressing concern about a friend and condemning hatred?  

 

 

What facts were publicly available at 3PM January 29th mere hours after the hoax? 

 

Jussie made a lot of people look like fools.  His actions were heinous.  

I think it’s plausible that Harris was the mastermind behind the whole incident.

 

It provided her with a racial narrative which she immediately began to campaign on, she was close with Smollett (he actively campaigned with her), and the fact pattern as relates to Kim Foxx is too convenient.

 

Foxx ran interference in order that the origions of the hoax never saw the light of day.

 

There are no coincidences, and all national level politicians are Machavellian sociopaths.

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I think it’s plausible that Harris was the mastermind behind the whole incident.

 

It provided her with a racial narrative which she immediately began to campaign on, she was close with Smollett (he actively campaigned with her), and the fact pattern as relates to Kim Foxx is too convenient.

 

Foxx ran interference in order that the origions of the hoax never saw the light of day.

 

There are no coincidences, and all national level politicians are Machavellian sociopaths.

Those are valid points.  The tweet in question still doesn't strike me as any kind of smoking gun.  I would like to think if she was in on it she might've hired some actual professionals. Maybe involved Hillary's hit squad.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

Those are valid points.  The tweet in question still doesn't strike me as any kind of smoking gun.  I would like to think if she was in on it she might've hired some actual professionals. Maybe involved Hillary's hit squad.

 

The tweet isn't meant to be a smoking gun. It was just posted as a reminder of what she said/stood for on the issue.  

[I-town Bills]

All this time and we get Third Grade insights like her morals. If Trump doesn't like her she is toast. How dare they select a token woman of color. 

[Deranged Rhino]

14 minutes ago, I-town Bills said:

All this time and we get Third Grade insights like her morals. If Trump doesn't like her she is toast. How dare they select a token woman of color. 

[Paulus]

Well, Harris does represent the current political climate well. That's said, they are all animals.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]