Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 10:59 am

TDub wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 10:47 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 10:44 am

The problem with a switch to Pete has nothing at all to do with Pete, or anything at all with anything to do with Pete.

yea, just dumb this wasn't dealt with 2 years ago when, of everybody, those close should've have known better.

The problem was created before then.

My personal opinion is that Harris is an eminently-qualified VP who would be an eminently-qualified and very effective President.

But I do not think that is or was a majority view generally, and it may not even be (and may not ever have been) an 80%+ view in the party.

The party, then, finds itself in a major a dilemma of its own creation: you probably can’t win by elevating Harris. But can you win by passing over, or even replacing, her?

I agree the problem was created before then.

* My personal opinion is I was kind of surprised to read your second sentence.
* My personal opinion is Harris is only "eminently-qualified" in that she has served as the VP. Other than that, heck, I feel 190 year old Nancy fucking Pelosi is more "eminently-qualified" than Harris is - as well as other people.
* My personal opinion is that way too often Kamala Harris makes Sarah Palin come off as being smart. Don't get me wrong, I think/know Harris is smarter than Palin but my personal opinion is she doesn't come off as being any smarter to a lot of people. That's worrisome.
* My personal opinion is that "effective" is a very vague word. Yes, she might be a very "effective" President - in negative ways - as much if not more than in positive ways.

* My personal opinion is your third sentence is probably correct.
* My personal opinion is your fourth sentence is probably correct.
* My personal opinion is your fifth sentence is the multi million dollar question. My answer is, I'm afraid Dems would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

She was the Attorney General and US Senator from one of the most diverse and complex and important states in our country. Whatever the bar for qualifications for VP, she was well over it.

I am aware of the questions that are out there as to how she attained those positions in the first place. I am uninterested in giving those questions oxygen.

Given how our system works, merit is only one consideration for how anything happens, and my opinion is that she has generally performed well in the roles she has had.

Would she be my pick? Probably not. But nor do I think she is some empty vessel.

we knew going into that debate that dt is the biggest jerk in the United States.

we knew the old man is old. We now know he does not have 4.5 more years left in his tank.

So what now are they going to do about it.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 11:52 am She was the Attorney General and US Senator from one of the most diverse and complex and important states in our country. Whatever the bar for qualifications for VP, she was well over it.

I am aware of the questions that are out there as to how she attained those positions in the first place. I am uninterested in giving those questions oxygen.

Given how our system works, merit is only one consideration for how anything happens, and my opinion is that she has generally performed well in the roles she has had.

Would she be my pick? Probably not. But nor do I think she is some empty vessel.

You, me, and everyone else on here know/s you're A LOT smarter than I am.
I sincerely appreciate your sharing your opinions - and educating me.

This kind of blew my mind. I was getting ready to respond to your post before I read all of it and I was going to begin by saying.....

I have a few questions for you that hopefully you can/will answer.
I don't know what the bar is for VPs but I respect your feeling she was well over it due to her being the Attorney General and a US Senator from California. Absolutely, she probably is/was more "qualified" than many others to be a VP.
That being said, didn't she pretty much become Senator by default? Meaning, she ran against basically nobody. Maybe I am mistaken? If not, you probably could/would have been elected Senator. I would have voted for you.

....And then boom, you addressed that in your second stanza.

I have my thoughts/feelings/opinions about Kamala Harris. Would I prefer her to be MY President over Trump? Probably if not definitely. Would I prefer her to be OUR President over Trump? Probably if not definitely.
My fear is that the majority of voters (more so those who will ultimately determine the electoral college results) would respond - probably not if not definitely not.

9 out of 10 presidential elections, who the veep is don’t mean jack$#!t. if the old man stays in, who his veep is means something.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 11:55 am we knew going into that debate that dt is the biggest jerk in the United States.

we knew the old man is old. We now know he does not have 4.5 more years left in his tank.

So what now are they going to do about it.

what is YOUR party going to do about the pathologically lying felon?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 12:45 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 11:55 am we knew going into that debate that dt is the biggest jerk in the United States.

we knew the old man is old. We now know he does not have 4.5 more years left in his tank.

So what now are they going to do about it.

what is YOUR party going to do about the pathologically lying felon?

“Jerk” is both (1) about 4,327 on the list of 4,328 reasons to oppose Trump, and (2) not at all disqualifying in the first place.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden- ... 024-06-29/

at least he’s trying, i guess

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 12:45 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 11:55 am we knew going into that debate that dt is the biggest jerk in the United States.

we knew the old man is old. We now know he does not have 4.5 more years left in his tank.

So what now are they going to do about it.

what is YOUR party going to do about the pathologically lying felon?

The sick thing, and embarrassing thing for the Dems, is that the Pubs probably don't have to do anything.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 7:03 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 12:45 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 11:55 am we knew going into that debate that dt is the biggest jerk in the United States.

we knew the old man is old. We now know he does not have 4.5 more years left in his tank.

So what now are they going to do about it.

what is YOUR party going to do about the pathologically lying felon?

The sick thing, and embarrassing thing for the Dems, is that the Pubs probably don't have to do anything.

in a sense you’re absolutely right

they’ve sold their souls are are perfectly happy to have done so

And of course the media holding the two candidates to entirely different standards helps that right along.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 6:23 am And of course the media holding the two candidates to entirely different standards helps that right along.

along this line…it seems like there’s at least a 3 to 1 (feels generous) difference in debate coverage, overwhelmingly about Biden’s performance

is this a symptom of the numbness we’re at re: trump’s lies?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 7:50 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 6:23 am And of course the media holding the two candidates to entirely different standards helps that right along.

along this line…it seems like there’s at least a 3 to 1 (feels generous) difference in debate coverage, overwhelmingly about Biden’s performance

is this a symptom of the numbness we’re at re: trump’s lies?

Yes.
It has been a known and unfortunately by too many people accepted truth that Trump is a chronic liar.
What is has been less of a known and unfortunately by too many people NOT accepted truth is that Joe Biden is mentally deteriorating at a rate that many in the media feel should be a concern to everyone.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 8:06 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 7:50 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 6:23 am And of course the media holding the two candidates to entirely different standards helps that right along.

along this line…it seems like there’s at least a 3 to 1 (feels generous) difference in debate coverage, overwhelmingly about Biden’s performance

is this a symptom of the numbness we’re at re: trump’s lies?

Yes.
It has been a known and unfortunately by too many people accepted truth that Trump is a chronic liar.
What is has been less of a known and unfortunately by too many people NOT accepted truth is that Joe Biden is mentally deteriorating at a rate that many in the media feel should be a concern to everyone.

i think you’re blowing his level of deterioration out of proportion, personally

i’m not under any delusion about the debate, but it was one awful night. his appearances since then (north carolina and the hamptons) have been, at least to me, more indicative of where he’s at mentally. we’ll see, obviously, which is closer to the truth of the matter in the coming months

what real-world situation does a “debate” mimic? particularly a debate like cnn’s?

if you agree that it’s been known that trump is a chronic liar, should it not also be known that Biden has been a pretty successful legislator despite whatever slippage he may have mentally?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 8:16 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 8:06 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 7:50 am
along this line…it seems like there’s at least a 3 to 1 (feels generous) difference in debate coverage, overwhelmingly about Biden’s performance

is this a symptom of the numbness we’re at re: trump’s lies?

Yes.
It has been a known and unfortunately by too many people accepted truth that Trump is a chronic liar.
What is has been less of a known and unfortunately by too many people NOT accepted truth is that Joe Biden is mentally deteriorating at a rate that many in the media feel should be a concern to everyone.

i think you’re blowing his level of deterioration out of proportion, personally

i’m not under any delusion about the debate, but it was one awful night. his appearances since then (north carolina and the hamptons) have been, at least to me, more indicative of where he’s at mentally. we’ll see, obviously, which is closer to the truth of the matter in the coming months

what real-world situation does a “debate” mimic? particularly a debate like cnn’s?

if you agree that it’s been known that trump is a chronic liar, should it not also be known that Biden has been a pretty successful legislator despite whatever slippage he may have mentally?

Maybe I am blowing his level of deterioration out of proportion, being that I see first hand people who are his age who deteriorate on different levels but deteriorate none the less, and it frightens and upsets me. Meanwhile, they are not the President of the United States. He has shown obvious blatant deterioration. Don't think so? Look at and listen to him in 2019 and the debates in 2020. Then look at and listen to him now.

RIGHT! His appearances in NC and the Hamptons showed he can be "on". Which I believe (or at least want to believe) his is most of the time. The problem is he can be "off". Way "off" at times.

To me, the frightening and upsetting thing about the debate was to see the EXTREMES and how they switched on and off like a light bulb - and not knowing when and what may happen.
At the beginning he couldn't think straight. He couldn't verbally communicate on a normal level. I don't believe it can/should be blamed on his "stutter".
Then the man looked like he was in a daze, (and practically having a stroke) with his seemingly struggling to concentrate and struggling to keep one of his eyes open while it drooped.
At another point, after they came back from a commercial break and I assume he was coached, his eyes were so god damned wide open - without blinking - that again, I was worried he was going to pass out and/or have a stroke.

Yes, I feel it should be known that Biden has been a pretty successful legislator despite whatever slippage he may have mentally. I don't think he's been a great President but yes, he has gotten some/many good things done. The/a big question is, how many other people realize and think about that and know it?

I like Joe Biden. I think he isn't as saintly as people want to believe he is but I feel he is a MUCH more moral man than Donald Trump. I feel he's been an overall better President than Trump was. If I vote, I will vote for Biden over Trump because I would prefer 2024/2025 Biden over 2024/2025 Trump, but I am worried about 2024/2025/2026/2027/2028/2029 Biden. I will say it again, and again, and again, I will not be excited to vote for Joe Biden and I will vote for him primarily because I don't like the alternatives.

i don’t disagree

The amazing resurgence of the country is really about the folks surrounding Biden. The worst part of Trump are the idiots and Nazis who make up his entourage, and Republicans writ "large" in Congress

Sparko wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 10:54 am The amazing resurgence of the country is really about the folks surrounding Biden. The worst part of Trump are the idiots and Nazis who make up his entourage, and Republicans writ "large" in Congress

tried to make a similar point the other day

there is only one candidate that has a proven track record of surrounding themselves with competent and well-meaning people

Part of the story of this election is the break between people's perception of the current economy versus the reality of the current economy.

Americans have a specific annual income in mind for what it would take to feel financially secure, according to a new survey from Bankrate. The magic number? $186,000 per year.

Currently, only 6% of U.S. adults make that amount or more, Bankrate said. The median family income falls between $51,500 and $86,000, according to the latest federal data. Achieving financial security means being able to pay your bills while having enough left over to make some discretionary purchases and put money away for the future, the personal finance site said.

Many inflation-weary consumers continue to experience financial stress, with a new Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia survey finding that 35% of Americans are worried about making ends meet, up from 29% a year earlier.

That gap between what the typical American earns and what they aspire to earn means "Americans have their eyes set on this high income, and they think they need to make more money even if they know it's unrealistic they'll never make that amount," Sarah Foster, an analyst at Bankrate, told CBS MoneyWatch.

Earning more remains at the top of many Americans' priorities as the price of shelter, food and medical care remain stubbornly high after two years of rising inflation. To cope, consumers are cutting spending on dining out, entertainment and travel, a TransUnion study found.

Bankrate's survey of 2,400 Americans in mid-May found that younger generations are more optimistic about eventually earning enough to live comfortably.

What does it take to be rich?

Americans have an even higher yardstick for feeling rich. The survey found they believe they would need to earn $520,000 a year to qualify as wealthy — up from their $483,000 response during the same survey last year.

The rising cost of consumer goods is a chief reason for the increase, Foster said. "Inflation is the centerpiece to this narrative," Foster said. "Americans know where the bar is for living comfortably, but every time they get there, the cost of living goes up and the bar grows further and further away."

Another recent report found that adults in major U.S. cities need to earn $96,500 annually before taxes to afford basic necessities and savings, while a two-parent household with two children needs a combined $235,000 for a comfortable life.

Interestingly, 2023 research from the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman and colleagues suggests that happiness does increase with income, up to about $500,000 – roughly the income Americans told Bankrate would make them feel rich.

So are Americans in general unrealistic about personal finances/wealth? The car buying process has me looking at one aspect. The trucks I am looking at were listed at around $70K 4-5 years ago. Someone bought them with a loan. My guess is I make more money than 95% of these buyers, and I would never sign up for a $70K truck loan cuz it is a bad use of money and a $750/month car payment would pinch my monthly miserly spending. That is a lot of fucking weed money down the drain.

I hear "I can't afford a house and rent is too high" and then I see a new vehicle which ensures that the monthly pay will preclude saving money to buy a house. I see people looking at their "starter home" and they are looking in a new neighborhood and their "starter home" wish list has three bedrooms as a minimum, to house a family they don't have. Recessions seem to reshape people's expectations, but the following boom seems to always create unrealistic expectations.

I know, shut up boomer.

no, please don’t