Biden names Kamala Harris as VP pick

homersheineken

Woodpecker
But how is it safe if the Democrat voters jump ship, as they currently seem to be?
I have the same question. There have been a lot of "Anyone but Trump" and "Blue 'til I'm through" people too, but a lot are jumping ship. Then what about the moderates? She did very poor in Iowa, especially compared to more progressive candidates. She should have done well there.
 
Haven't really about it too much yet but my gut tells me that Biden is going to replaced prior to November.

Harris is just a yes woman. She will do whatever the polls and the DNC tells her to do. She's a scumbag sell out of the highest order with no ethical or moral code.

Normally, a VP wouldn't be that big of a deal but in cases where the top guy's health is in question (McCain in 2008, for example), the VP pick takes on far more importance. No one had any faith in Palin and that scared the shit out of people.

Similar thing could play out here. Harris has a repulsive personality and stands for nothing; replacing Biden with her makes no sense if you wanna win the election. The DNC haven't spent 4 years on Russia, Spygate, COVID 1984, mail-in ballots, and BLM/Antifia to just throw it all way. She is just the diversity hire to appease the woke mob and in a worst case scenario, will listen to the DNC establishment like a good solider and follow orders.

I said Hillary could replace Biden before months ago and that's still possible. This was prior to Maxwell getting arrested so she might be out of the cards now but who knows; Harris just linked with Biden after saying she believed Biden's sexual assualt accusers and so, it's not a reach for Hillary to say, "Bill didn't do shit. Trump's the one hiding something."

That said, very likely could be someone else like NY Gov. Cuomo.

But there is no way Biden makes it too November. He can't even get through a softball interview and he will get destroyed in the debates. If he bails out on the debates, he will lose all credibility. Maybe that's the angle: Officially nominate him and then use a bad debate performance to bail. That way, the DNC can appoint someone without the drama of a contested convention. I have no idea how the selection process works post-nomination officially (not that it matters much, DNC does what it wants). Many will say Bernie should get itas the 2nd place guy but we know that's not happening.

One thing is for sure: the next few months are gonna be nuts.
 

Max Roscoe

Kingfisher
I've been thinking about the selection and I'm still not understanding it.

Typically the VP is chosen to fill out demographics. The only reason I can think to select her is identity politics.
Funny how Biden just automatically became the candidate without a convention to select him.

As for the VP, Don't overthink it. I thought along very similar lines when Trump picked Mike Pence. I actually thought that pick lost him the election, because the election was so close and he wasted the VP pick by picking someone from Indiana, which was already solidly in his camp. If he went with a swing state leader, like a Republican from Florida, or someone who actually inspired people from a particular demographic, it would have been a much better choice. Pence doesn't really excite anyone who wasn't already going to vote R anyway. Trump barely won, but had he lost, you could say his Pence choice would have been the cause.

The reality is VP doesn't matter. All it does is open the door to a future run by the VP candidate. There is no way Joe Biden would be running for president if he wasn't the last Democratic VP. I mean Hillary would be a better leader than Biden, but Hillary was never VP and Biden was.

But VP is an almost powerless and meaningless job. I don't even know who my Lt Governor is. It just doesn't matter, except that they may be running for pres one day, as that is part of the method they use to annoint one into higher office.

Imagine as a thought experiment that the powerbrokers do not really have a preference over a President Trump or a President Biden. Maybe they influence one to win over the other, but more likely they just enjoy the "game" of seeing which of their selected jockeys surprises them and wins the derby race. For all we know they bet on it and enjoy watching election night the way we would enjoy watching the Superbowl.

If Trump wins, they have a stack full of plans for him to tackle, like starting war with Iran, giving more aid and support to Israel, bringing in college educated white collar immigrants, and keeping Americans from accessing health care. If Biden wins, they open up another drawer with Drag Time Story Hour in public schools, state sanctioned homosexuality, an increase in blue collar working class immigrants, more feminism and iconoclasm, and keeping Americans from accessing health care. It's a win/win and Kamala probably got the nod because of her AIPAC speeches.

They realize you can't push all the bad stuff on us at once, so they pick and choose what agenda to run depending on which of their preselected candidates wins. Hell, they may even enjoy the challenge of throwing in an illogical choice every now and then: "Oh Mr. Rockefeller, you think your John McCain can win? Well what about when I pair him up with a Sarah Palin?" "Right-o, good work there Mr. Soros, you may have me beat this time. We shall see!"
 

paninaro

Kingfisher
But there is no way Biden makes it too November. He can't even get through a softball interview and he will get destroyed in the debates. If he bails out on the debates, he will lose all credibility. Maybe that's the angle: Officially nominate him and then use a bad debate performance to bail. That way, the DNC can appoint someone without the drama of a contested convention. I have no idea how the selection process works post-nomination officially (not that it matters much, DNC does what it wants). Many will say Bernie should get itas the 2nd place guy but we know that's not happening.
I think Biden will do well in the debates for exactly your reasons above -- the expectations are so low that if he just manages to hang in there, it will be considered at triumph.

As for his health, that's a difficult angle to play given Trump has needed two hands to lift a water glass, has trouble walking down stairs, and bragged about passing a test given to stroke victims.

That's the risk of pegging Biden as bumbling and incoherent -- all he has to do is seem slightly alive and he's beaten expectations.
 

Max Roscoe

Kingfisher
Yeah, remember, Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been "practically dead" for years, and Hillary had those bizarre stroke-like moments but both are alive and well today. A lot of this stuff is just overblown exhaustion from being in the limelight 24/7. It's like that time Obama mis spoke and some conservatards claimed he actually thought there were 57 US states.

Biden is pretty out of it, but he will probably bumble through a debate, and honestly he will do fine as president. The president is just a figurehead and he doesn't need to do much but ramble on about the talking points that his advisors tell him, which is all any president has done over the past 20 years anyway. He's the cheerleader or the mascot of Team USA, nothing more.
 

budoslavic

Peacock
Gold Member
The fact that Senator Kamala Harris has just been named the vice presidential running mate for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has some questioning her eligibility for the position. The 12th Amendment provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." And Article II of the Constitution specifies that "[n]o person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of President." Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Harris' birth in 1964. That, according to these commentators, makes her not a "natural born citizen"—and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president.

"Nonsense," runs the counter-commentary. Indeed, PolitiFact rated the claim of ineligibility as "Pants on Fire" false, Snopes rated it simply "False," and from the other side of the political spectrum, Conservative Daily News likewise rated it "False." All three (and numerous others) simply assert that Harris is eligible because she was born in Oakland—and is therefore a natural-born citizen from location of birth. The 14th Amendment says so, they all claim, and the Supreme Court so held in the 1898 case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

But those claims are erroneous, at least as the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was originally understood—an error to which even my good friend, renowned UCLA School of Law professor Eugene Volokh, has fallen prey.

The language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully). Such was the view of those who authored the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause; of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases and the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins; of Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional treatise writer of the day; and of the State Department, which, in the 1880s, issued directives to U.S. embassies to that effect.

The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary. At issue there was a child born to Chinese immigrants who had become lawful, permanent residents in the United States—"domiciled" was the legally significant word used by the Court. But that was the extent of the Court's holding (as opposed to broader language that was dicta, and therefore not binding). Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.

Granted, our government's view of the Constitution's citizenship mandate has morphed over the decades to what is now an absolute "birth on the soil no matter the circumstances" view—but that morphing does not appear to have begun until the late 1960s, after Kamala Harris' birth in 1964. The children born on U.S. soil to guest workers from Mexico during the Roaring 1920s were not viewed as citizens, for example, when, in the wake of the Great Depression, their families were repatriated to Mexico. Nor were the children born on U.S. soil to guest workers in the bracero program of the 1950s and early 1960s deemed citizens when that program ended, and their families emigrated back to their home countries.

So before we so cavalierly accept Senator Harris' eligibility for the office of vice president, we should ask her a few questions about the status of her parents at the time of her birth.

Were Harris' parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood.

Interestingly, this recitation of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause might also call into question Harris' eligibility for her current position as a United States senator. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that to be eligible for the office of senator, one must have been "nine Years a Citizen of the United States." If Harris was not a citizen at birth, we would need to know when (if ever) she became a citizen. Her father's biographical page at Stanford University identifies his citizenship status as follows: "Jamaica (by birth); U.S. (by naturalization)." But there is some dispute over whether he was in fact ever naturalized, and it is also unclear whether Harris' mother ever became a naturalized citizen. If neither was ever naturalized, or at least not naturalized before Harris' 16th birthday (which would have allowed her to obtain citizenship derived from their naturalization under the immigration law, at the time), then she would have had to become naturalized herself in order to be a citizen. That does not appear to have ever happened, yet without it, she could not have been "nine Years a Citizen of the United States" before her election to the U.S. Senate.

I have no doubt that this significant challenge to Harris' constitutional eligibility to the second-highest office in the land will be dismissed out of hand as so much antiquated constitutional tripe. But the concerns about divided allegiance that led our nation's Founders to include the "natural-born citizen" requirement for the office of president and commander-in-chief remain important; indeed, with persistent threats from Russia, China and others to our sovereignty and electoral process, those concerns are perhaps even more important today. It would be an inauspicious start for any campaign for the highest offices in the land to ignore the Constitution's eligibility requirements; how else could we possibly expect the candidates, if elected, to honor their oaths to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and...to the best of [their] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"
 

Transsimian

Ostrich
Gold Member
Newsweek is just trying to bait right-wingers into losing votes by attacking her on these grounds.

Kamala is a deeply unpopular woman, and leave's her party massively vulnerable to attacks on excessive punishments for non-violent offenders. Trump is in a far better position now, then before she was selected. The fact she'd effectively be the presidential nominee despite only getting ~2% of the vote would lead to many dems staying home.
 

Jestx

Robin
The Harris selection quickly sliced the Dem voter base, as she doesn't have much appeal to voters generally. The Bernie-progressive side is furious, and even run of the mill normie Dems don't care for her. She dropped out in December before voting even began because she was polling so low and ran out of "funding".

The Dem voting coalition is not unified or excited behind this President/VP ticket. Even hardcore Dems like Cenk came out and said even if Biden/Harris won they would work to primary them out in 2024.

Meanwhile Trump, despite his failings on a policy level, has averaged around ~95% approval from Republican voters and set records for primary voter numbers even though he was unchallenged as the incumbent president.
 

godfather dust

Ostrich
Gold Member
The Biden camp are fools to bring up Charlottesville with anarchist riots, the black crime wave, and statues being torn down nationwide.
If anyone reads that tweet and does a little digging, they will see Heyer was involved in an antifa road blockade/terrorist attack on James Fields. They will note that if they were in that situation, the choices were possible crippling or death, or a several hundred year prison sentence.
And if it hasn't been wiped from the internet, they will see that Heyer was a fat pig who died from a heart attack, likely from panicking and wasn't murdered at all.
 

godfather dust

Ostrich
Gold Member
The Biden camp are fools to bring up Charlottesville with anarchist riots, the black crime wave, and statues being torn down nationwide.
If anyone reads that tweet and does a little digging, they will see Heyer was involved in an antifa road blockade/terrorist attack on James Fields. They will note that if they were in that situation, the choices were possible crippling or death, or a several hundred year prison sentence.
And if it hasn't been wiped from the internet, they will see that Heyer was a fat pig who died from a heart attack, likely from panicking and wasn't murdered at all.
Hate to quote myself but I didn't include my main point:
Why bring up Unite the Right, when statue removal and antifa and black mob violence is rampant? A lot of people who bought the whole "Trump said Nazis are good" or whatever bs narrative are far more likely to sympathize with unite the right in 2020 than 2017.
 

ball dont lie

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Biden will not drop out before the election, but he will if he gets elected.

Not possible to win the presidency because your candidate dies or has a stroke. Americans are stupid, but not enough are full retard yet for that to happen.

Can Kamala and then Nancy Pelosi as Vp win an election where Biden just died? The whole thing would be a gigantic circus and Trump would be a lock for a Reagan style victory.

All bets are off if Biden wins.
 
Top