I'm all in': Harris running mate short-lister Gov. Tim Walz is eager to take on Trump
A robber baron and a venture capitalist trying to say they understand who we are ... they do not know who we are.
Gov Walz has been a favorite of mine for a while. Even though he at best might be VP, just contrast this individual with Trump in terms of coherence, intelligence, credibility, presidential presence, positivity, etc.
The USA deserves a president and vice-president who are sharp, positive, and committed to working for the people rather than abuse their powers for personal desires.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tags
Who is online
48 visitors
Time to bring in smart politicians with a positive message and an intent to work for the people and push away the negative assholes who will predictably abuse the powers of the executive branch for their own purposes.
He looks like a good choice. Some of the others do as well though.
trump is working hard to ensure that anyone with a pulse would be a great choice for VP...
Predictably?
And how about those who have demonstrably abused the powers of the executive branch for their own purposes?
... uh, that's who we're talking about, your hero ...
Yes Vic, Trump has already abused his powers as PotUS during his Big Lie con job. And if reelected he will surround himself with sycophants (easy now that the GOP has become a MAGA cult) and will enjoy the new immunity granted him by the SCotUS.
So, yeah, predictably.
Answer my question.
What about them? What kind of answer are you looking for? Who do you have in mind?
If you want an answer to a question then do not ask wide open, vague questions.
I would think that someone who is so concerned about what might happen would be far more concerned about what has actually happened:
Let me provide the obvious:
Polls show that half the country distrusts the FBI. A recent poll by Harvard CAPS-Harris found that 70 percent are either very or somewhat concerned about election interference by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. An additional 71 percent agreed that changes post-2016 had not done enough to prevent further interference and that “wide-ranging” reform was still required. Another poll showed 64 percent view the FBI as “politically compromised.”
The response to this indictment shows the gravitational pull of public perceptions of the Justice Department. That perception of bias is well earned. Various officials were removed from the Department by career officials for their express bias and misconduct during the Russia-collusion investigation. That investigation was recently found by Special Counsel John Durham to have been launched with the backing of the Clinton campaign and without the minimal evidence ordinarily required by the department.
The Justice Department and the media kept the investigation going for years despite the lack of credible evidence.
Garland remained largely silent as the FBI cracked down on conservative groups across the country in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot. He said nothing as his subordinate prosecutor Michael Sherwin bragged on in a television interview how they sought to unleash “shock and awe” on those who supported the election challenge to ensure that certain “people were afraid to come back to D.C.”
While most of us supported the tough punishment of rioters, the Justice Department was criticized for its draconian treatment of people charged with relatively minor offenses such as trespass and unlawful entry into the Capitol.
The controversies continue to pile up, from the seizure of the phone of a member of Congress to alleged disparate treatment in investigations of pro-life over pro-choice groups. Some of these and other controversies are legitimately debatable; others are not.
Garland is now looking at a new inflammatory situation after Special Counsel Jack Smith has leveled 37 charges against Trump while Robert Hur, “the other special counsel” investigating Biden, has largely disappeared from sight.
There is also the notable absence of any decision by Smith on another part of his mandate: crimes associated with Jan. 6th. Some of us have argued that Trump’s controversial speech was constitutionally protected. While Smith was swift to charge on the documents matter, he has not resolved the other part of his mandate even though the Jan. 6th matter has widely investigated by the Justice Department and Congress. The concern is that the Justice Department does not want to undermine the widespread claims in the media and Congress that Trump committed crimes in supporting an “insurrection.”
Garland has also supported the appointment of controversial officials such as Kirsten Clarke and Rachael Rollins, deepening the distrust of conservatives.
The failure of Merrick Garland is becoming more and more evident by the day. The public continues to distrust the Department, and his assurances of fair dealing have been overwhelmingly rejected by Republicans and independents .
It is hard to dislike Merrick Garland as a man. But as an attorney general, there is little to like about his last two years.
The utter failure of Merrick Garland (thehill.com)
You were saying something about abusing power.
This is the shit that formulates your opinions? Merrick Garland does not even cross my mind as someone who abused their power. I thought you were going to mention someone like Nixon or Menendez or reference the SCotUS.
Disagreeing with someone does not mean that they abused their power.
The author apparently thinks that the obstruction by Trump in the classified documents case was perfectly legal and that nothing wrong happened on Jan 6th.
Vic, break free of these sources.
You do realize that Biden's own son was prosecuted by the Garland DoJ, right?
That speaks volumes....
I am glad you heard at least that.
That stuff happened.
Imagine the FBI spying on Catholics.
you're going to be a lot of fun in 100 days ...
Argumentum ad populum
that's not true, only the ones around kids...
Phh
Only because Trump and his stooges have been incessantly repeating "the FBI is crooked" since Trump started down his obstruction of justice path by firing James Comey. They don't even realize when they are lying because it has become so second nature to them.
Trumpo has and will continue to abuse his power if elected because he knows no boundaries.
he bumped his ear on one in pennsylvania...
Walz is a fantastic choice if made.
he is impressive. I saw a cut of him interviewed on FOX with hemmer and perino. it was enough to fire up trump...
fortunately democrats have a deep bench for VP this election...
her choice won't endanger my vote for her.
I agree. Trump is not an option.
I want the Ds to have the very best chance to shut Trump out.
the best choice is the person that would kick her campaign into overdrive. her announcement of the choice should be held a bit longer until she needs it to pull the rug out from under maga again...
Now that is real critical thinking there …
I think it is quite sound logic. If someone finds Trump unfit and unacceptable and finds Harris acceptable, it does not matter who she chooses.
If your choice for PotUS is between a traitorous scoundrel and someone who is fit to be PotUS, the VP is not going to change the calculus.
And when the short list of VP candidates are ALL good people, the VP choice clearly will not be negative.
On the flip side, sticking with a scoundrel because there is an R next to his name is a fine example of not thinking critically.
To be expected.
Yes, you should expect me to recognize sound logic (and also recognize unsound logic).
No, we disagree like usual. I simply said that response was to be expected considering the source.
Show where my logic @3.2.1 is faulty.
Simplified:
A rational choice between a traitorous scoundrel who is unfit for office (Trump) and someone who is fit for office (Harris) would not be for the traitor. And the choice of VP by Harris will not change that — especially given the short list of VP candidates are all good choices.
The error of your ways is, as always, deranged reasoning related to Trump. It minimizes what ability to properly reason, that you may of had at one time.
Now get to making up a ticket to protect your narrative. It’s enough for me that you know not everyone here falls for your partisan driven drivel.
Your argument is simply ' you are wrong about Trump '. Brilliant
And then all you can muster after that are feeble personal insults which mean nothing given they are demonstrably false.
You have nothing.
Yep, we agree about each other on that point.
unlike the willful ignorance required to vote for a convicted felon so willing to violate his oath of office...
Get it right, a convicted misdefelon
I had it right all along...
As usual, nope.
sounds logical to me
it is, that's why he's getting so much resistance...
Of course not, who changes their expected vote, based on VP selection. That only happens if it feeds a greater narrative. Maybe that will happen to Trump with JD’s selection. It happened to McGovern with Tom Eagleton.
exactly. the reports of GOP buyers remorse and maga white supremacist attacks on JD's wife should be disregarded...
Yawn to a couple more left wing fantasies created in the land of the angry and unbalanced.
oh, the irony...
lol …. Keep telling yourself that
demonstrated by maga sycophants on NT every day...
The projection at play in your comment is immense.
... another ignorant comment among the collection of many.
The usual hive minded drone nonsense
'My wife is not white, but I still love her'
See 3.3.6, apply, lather, rinse and repeat as required.
'She's a good mother'
Harris herself will break two glass ceilings if elected. Thus she needs a VP who is more conventional to balance the ticket. She has a much better chance of winning with someone like Walz or Shapiro who deliver solid executive experience and are more the norm. While I very much like Buttigieg, that is probably too much for 2024's electorate (maybe in a decade). Whitmer would be a bad choice — a two female ticket is yet again pushing the glass ceiling and that is not necessary.
So, I hope Harris picks either Shapiro or Walz. Kelly is a great guy but a seasoned governor is substantially better for the ticket. He does have the advantage of encouraging voters the administration will address the border issues but that is not IMO as important as having a seasoned executive on the ticket.
I don't want her picking anyone with time left on their clock in office, unless it's a solid bet their replacement will retain that office. the smartest choice will be someone that will add a lot to her campaign momentum and firm up any shaky down ballot races.
Walz = Pro labor = pro higher costs.
Hooray!
Obviously someone who would vote for Trump, given all we know about that scoundrel, would never consider voting for a D.
Many did in 2016, especially in the upper Midwest.
Many did what exactly?
Voted for Trump after previously voting Dem to include Obama.
Yes, I agree with that. But I am talking about all we now know.
Sure, but I knew enough even then.
Too bad more were not as informed as you.
So now in 2024, with all we have seen Trump do, it really is amazing that someone would vote to give that scoundrel the power of the presidency.
I never cease to be amazed by this country.
Bullshit.
Thinking folks vote for the candidate they feel best represents them and their positions. Regardless of party. Only useful idiots vote party only.
Harris represents almost nothing I agree with, nor do I think she is this “great” person the left is trying to characterize her as. So she doesn’t get my vote.
It’s not rocket science.
I would not go 100%, but I agree that those who would vote party only even when the nominee is a vindictive scoundrel who has demonstrated that he will abuse the power of the presidency to satisfy his whims qualify as 'useful'.
But Trump does, eh? You actually want to see that loose-cannon, negative, narcissistic old man as the face and voice of our nation?
Indeed. The choice is obvious. Trump is the oldest presidential nominee in US history. He rambles, loses his train of thought, talks down our nation, lies continuously, and can be trusted to abuse the presidency at his pleasure. He is a flaming asshole with no redeeming qualities that I can see who would be a horrible, embarrassing face and voice for our nation.
Elsewhere a comment was made that Harris is not fit to be POTUS. I asked the commenter for the name of one Democrat that is suited to be POTUS. I got no answer, because it’s a question that is impossible for them to answer. For them to bring up partisanship is laughable.
Trump supporters are just tossing shit on the wall to see if anything sticks. The 'arguments' recently have been pathetic. Most of the nonsense is obvious projection.
They can see that Trump is in trouble. He had a shot with Biden. With Harris this is an entirely different contest. Now Trump is the old man ... the oldest presidential nominee in US history. And in terms of qualities, the electorate has the choice between an inclusive, youthful, energetic, intelligent, positive, experienced candidate and a vindictive, old, tired, C-student, negative felon.
Yet the Trump supporters continue to attempt to make a case to actually give loose-cannon, traitor narcissist Trump the power of the presidency.
vindictive, old, tired, C-student, negative felon … loose-cannon, traitor narcissist
And you have barely scratched the surface of his deep well of flaws.
lol and voting for a “scoundrel” that skipped the normal nominee selection process is democratically intellectual? Give me a break. I’ll break this down for you with an example. If Harris pissed on your shoes she’d tell you it was rain and a useful idiot would thank her. If Trump pissed on your shoes he would tell you he just pissed on your shoes.
The difference between a career politician (Harris) and a non politician (Trump.)
The policy differences between Trump and Harris are clear and distinct. Unlike many of my friends on left, I try to keep emotion out of it. Something they all should try some time.
I see, now old nominees are bad. Now ramblers and liars are bad. Conservatives that are hard to work with are bad but flaming liberal pricks no on can work with are okay. Etc, etc.
I could never and will never vote for a hard left leaning career politician like Harris. I am Unfuckablewith in that regard. No amount of very thinly veiled insulting behavior or gaslighting is going to change that.
You think that labeling Harris a scoundrel has any meaning? Might as well call her a skin head.
Rambling and lying was never good. Trump, however, engaged in it far more than Biden; not even in the same league.
Sounds like some weak whining going on.
Of course not. You have demonstrated that writ large by your intention to vote for Trump. Anyone who would vote for Trump, given all we know about that asshole, will obviously never vote for a D.
This is priceless.
As much meaning as labeling trump a scoundrel,
That is an opinion with no basis in fact, it is mathematically impossible for trump to have lied as much as Bidne has in his 50year career. FFS Biden's entire life is a lie from Oil cancer to being raised by Puerto Ricans.
You just described perfectly your last 50 trump posts.
Better than worthless..............
Fascinating. You think Trump is a non politician?
Policy is largely irrelevant when one of the candidates (Trump) is entirely unfit for office.
Old nominees have always been bad. Don't even attempt to suggest you have not seen me routinely criticize Biden for his age.
Hopefully these pathetic arguments are the best Trump supporters can produce. For the good of our nation, that asshole should never be allowed access to the power of the presidency.
Very hard hitting stuff, George. These are great arguments. Please keep repeating them.
[✘]
Ask all the people who bailed on her. I bet they get the “meaning.”
opinions do vary
Truth is never whining.
Nah, once again I can separate emotion from the process and apply logic and reason. Again, my friends on the left could use more of that.
Thanks, glad you liked it. It’s true.
I didn’t say politician. I said career politician and the really fascinating thing would be if you attempted to characterize him as such.
Bullshit but keep gaslighting
Good luck in November
I quoted you. You quoted the quote. And you still deny what you wrote:
You labeled Trump a non politician. Hello?
Really? Ignore my comment of career politician vs politician.
Never mind. We are done here.
This is truly pathetic Sparty. You labeled Trump a non politician and I questioned that. And now you are desperately trying to deflect on something so obvious and so undeniable.
Just amazing.
You labeled Trump a non politician. Trump used to be non politician. He has been a politician since 2016.
I did not correct you on labeling Harris a career politician. I corrected you on labeling Trump a non politician.
it might as well be for some people...
Speaking of rocket science, how about AZ senator Mark Kelly?
Mark Kelly Would Propel Harris’ Presidential Bid
None of the other names in the mix for VP bring as many attributes as the astronaut-turned-Arizona senator.
The reasons for this abound. Kelly is a gun owner. He’s a former astronaut. He’s a political moderate. He understands immigration and the border.
Kelly is the son of New Jersey police officers and a decorated Navy veteran who flew dozens of combat missions in Operation Desert Storm.
Like his twin brother Scott, he also spent years with NASA. He commanded Space Shuttle Endeavour’s final flight and was inducted last year into the Astronaut Hall of Fame.
But even more important than how Kelly would be able to talk about gun violence is how he would be able to talk about the border and immigration.
The intertwined issues are likely to be Harris’ biggest political weaknesses on the campaign trail, given her challenges carrying out the vaguely defined job Biden gave her to address the “root causes” of illegal migration. For this, Republicans have branded Harris a “failed border czar,” and they are working hard to make it stick. Kelly would upend that narrative.
Kelly has long been critical of both parties for failing to do more to secure the border, giving voice to a sentiment that is popular in Arizona and Nevada even among Latinos.
(Read it all)
Good point!
The winners of the presidential election are often from a different party than the winners of the previous election.
For example, in 2016 a Republican (Trump) won the presidential election
But in 2020 a Democrat (Biden) was elected President.
So you could post all the data from the 2016 election-- and argue that America was "obviously" a strongly Republican country.
Or you could post all the data from the 2020 election and argue that the U.S. is basically a strongly Democratic country.!
Kelly’s resume looks good, he says he is a moderate but he voted with Biden almost 96% of the time. And Biden was far from the “moderate” he portrayed himself to be in 2020.
A talk the talk but not walk the walk scenario for Kelly
Instead of the two example in previous comment, you could post data from both elections, and "prove" that the country is "shifting" toward voting Democratic because first trump won-- but later Biden won!
Of course all of that is bullshit-- because what we have to look at is the present. The candidates change...and the country changes. Attempting to cherry pick from past elections ignores the current facts!
So who do you think should be chosen for the Dem VP? Who's more moderate--JD Vance or Kelly?
Do you think moderate is what either base is considering?
Some will, some won't. Here's what I really think-- although there are exceptions, most people online tend to over-generalize way too much. Which leads to excessive "fuzzy thinking".
Is Harris considering Vance?
I'll have to yield to your expertise on that.
You shouldn’t sell yourself short
and comically stupid
maga.
that horse ain't dead
All the 'right' appears to have is whining and pissing and moaning, and little else.
Nothing decent about him to be found, a worthless excuse of a human being.
Walz will appeal to the NA community his Lt governor is Ojibwe.
It seemed originally most lists had candidates with various strengths.
We could go on for some times expressing own opinions-- but ultimately Harris will decide.
Most pundits are saying it will be fairly soon-- perhaps a matter of days.
And once its decided, all the resident "experts" on NT will start horribly attacking that person-- or praising them incredibly!
Depending on their own political bias.
And while I don't want to be excessively critical of people on social media-- unfortunately Harris and her VP pick probably won't pay too much attentions to the "experts" online.
only some on sites like this think they will …..